HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 163 of 2009 (S/B) Tarun S/o Shri Mool Chand. ….Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. .…Respondents Mr. Arvind Vashishtha with Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, Advocates for the petitioner, Mr. H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. B.D. Pandey, Advocate for respondent no.2. Dated: August 30, 2010 Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Barin Ghosh,C.J. (Oral) The Public Service Commission published an advertisement on 16th February, 2006 indicating that a competitive examination shall be held for supplying 50 vacant posts of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.). The advertisement indicated how many of those posts are reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. The petitioner responded to the said advertisement and held out that he is a member of the Scheduled Caste community. After the selection process was completed, a merit list of 43 candidates was prepared on 25th August, 2007. In that, it was indicated that the enquiry report pertaining to eligibility of the petitioner is yet to be received. Under cover of a letter dated 27th August, 2007, District Magistrate, Haridwar forwarded to the Public Service Commission, the enquiry report. In that it was indicated that the petitioner is domiciled since 1977 in Haridwar and accordingly, the certificates issued in his favour showing that he belongs to Scheduled Caste community, are correct. Despite such report, the petitioner was not given an appointment, 2 hence the petitioner approached this Court seeking a direction to appoint him. The Court passed an order directing the State to take a final decision. In terms thereof, the State took a final decision and indicated that it is not inclined to appoint the petitioner, principally on the ground that he is not a member of the Scheduled Caste community of the State and, accordingly, is not entitled to the benefit of reservation available to the members of the Scheduled Caste community of the State. The reason for the said contention was that, while the petitioner responded to the aforementioned advertisement, he responded to advertisements published by the State of Uttar Pradesh for supplying vacancies in similar posts and while responding to the said advertisements, the petitioner held out that he is a resident of Allahabad. It is the contention of the State that the petitioner having represented to the Public Service Commission of this State that he is a resident of Haridwar, he represented to the authorities of the State of Uttar Pradesh that he is a resident of Allahabad and in that view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits available for the Scheduled Caste community of the State. 2. The petitioner cannot be a resident of Haridwar and at the same time a resident of Allahabad. It is possible that for a short period, in order to complete studies, the petitioner may have had temporarily resided at Allahabad but by reason thereof his domicile, if it was at Haridwar, cannot be changed. However, the petitioner, while responding to the advertisements published by the authorities of Uttar Pradesh, represented to be from Allahabad and thereby indicated that he was domiciled at 3 Allahabad. The petitioner having had made representation to that effect, cannot insist that he is domiciled at Haridwar, only because his caste certificate was issued from Haridwar. The petitioner is stopped by representation. In such circumstances, refusal of the State to treat the petitioner to be a member of the Scheduled Caste community of the State, on the basis of his claimed domicile at Haridwar, is not interferable. 3. The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 30.08.2010 NCM: