EFORE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH A BILASPUR W. P. (C) No. HMO g /2008 PETITIONER : Ravikant Meshram S/o.— late Shri Sundarlal Meshram, Aged about 27 years, R/o.- w. Karmachari Awas Colony, Quarter No. 140 Post Office -Simga, District D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur (C.G.) 2) Union of India, Through The Secretary of Personnel and Private Grievances Cell, Loknayak Bhawan, Khan Market New Delhi. g) State Level .Caste Scrutiny Committee Through;- the Director State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, Ravishankar University Campus, District Raipur (C.G.) v/ 4 S) Collector, District Raipur (C.G.) 5T Tehsidar, Bhat’apara District Raipur (C-G-) B T? Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1) State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe, Tribal Welfare Department ooo’owlfc‘wai o m PETITI.‘ON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF'T‘HE‘CO ‘ 'OF INDIA; » ., N AFK HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR \VRIT PETITION (Cg N0. 4408 0f2008 PETITIONER : Ravikant Meshram. RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattigarh VERSUS & Others. K WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF TH * ’ ORDER ORAL (Passed on 27t day of July, 2010) 0n the ground that the petitioner originally belongs to village Linga, Tahsil Balaghat, District‘Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh, thus, the petitioner may obtain certificate from District Balaghat only. application for grant of temporary social status certificate and the same f; 'UI‘X SB: Honble Shri Satish K. State of Chhattisgarh, Shri Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tahsddar has glven a go by to all the Circulais and notlficatlons and various dec1s10ns passed by the Supreme Court 1n respect to grant of status certificate ls unjustified unproper on the ground stated thereln and deserves to be set a31de Shri Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that the Circular dated 22 01 1985 read With Circular 22 03 1977 Issued by the Government of India M1n1stry of Home Affairs makes it clear that the petitioner can make an application for grant of soc1a1 status certificate where he reSides permanently The baSic question in the case on hand is that Whether the TahSildar Simga Raipur had Jurisdiction to conSIder the application of the petitioner for grant of permanent caste certifcate or not The Naib TahSiIdar Without examining the facts of the case declined to grant permanent caste certificate on the ground that he is not a migrant x g: 9/’ ignoring the fact that the petitioner cannot be treated as migrant on a simple ground that he was bon in the State of Chhattisgarh and is r h father was posted at Raipur which, was earlr a part of the ndivided ie u state of Madh Prades Fther there is n dispute that t titioner s ya h. ur o he pe i nt a resident of Vlage Linga, Tahsil Balaghat, may be the forfaters o il eh of the petitner were resident of Balaghat. The pettioner was born an io i d brought up at Raipur, which was earlier a art of undivided State of p Madhya Pradesh, which now is a part of the Stat of Chhattisgarh. The aforesaid issue came up into cosideration before a Divisin Bench n o of this Court in Narendr Dehariya v. State of Chhattz'sgarh & Others] & othe connecte tters, , wheren it was observe as under: r d ma i “Thereafter the Government h issed another order dated 27.06.2007 herein definition of bonafide resdents of Chhattgar has been efined and explained which inclues (i) person belonging to the central cervis posted at Chhattisgarh, their spouses or children’ (ii) all the employees of State of Chhattisgarh, their spouses or children; (iii) Persons appointed Constitutional or Statutory posts by President India, their spouses or children; (iv) Corporations, Agencies, Commissions Board’s, Officials/Offlcers/ployees, their spouses or children. This Government rder is o benefit the petioners-students it respet to bonade residents of Chhattisgarh. We epof the considered opinio that onc such persons have been recognized as resdents of Chhattisgarh, then th sa anlogy shall appl for the purpose of the admission of children of the cateies referred t ereinabove are concerned, if teir caste is included in t Presidential Order.” In the e on han, the father of the petitioner came to Rur on cas d aip transfer where he settled and died in harness in July, 1996. Furthr, he e t petitioner was born and brought up at Raipur itself. There is no reason, on perusal, to decline grant of caste certificate to the petitioner on the ground that since his forefathers were born and brought up in District No. 5070/2007, decided on 27.09.2007 §§/, § . Ol‘l‘s \O a uwJ ., g,’ ., w r e a as u w i ish d d ce on em of o t ti wh c fi ar n e i e me a y gor o h h he Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh, the petitioner has to make an application for grant of social status certificate at Balaghat only. The petitioner, being a resident of the State of Chhattisgarh, as he was born here, is’entitled to make an application in the District where he resides and thereafter, the possible, preferably Within a period of six weeks. The writ petition is allowed. No order asto costs. JR p p _ “/137/ sh K. Agnihotrr Judge“; Sati H13“: