_/ 1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA’IVHSGARH ‘ BILASPUR Wn't PCtition (C) No. 3958 of 2008 Petitioner Raiesh Singh Alya aged about 83 year S/o Shi‘i NRJ‘u‘ya, 13:] o” IndraSen Nagar: 27 Kholi, Bilaspur Respondents 1. The State of Chhafrisgarh, through Secretary, Txibal Welfare Department, DJma‘. bhawan, Kanpur. 2. Sub Divisional Oiiicer, Bilaspur. Naib Tahsildar, Distt. Bilaspur. 3. WRIT PEI‘I’l‘ION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INrVA (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihoiri J.) Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Alok Bakshi, Govt. Advocate for the respondents. O R D E R (Passed on this 30th day of September, 2008) Wim the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur by order dated. 16.7.2008 (Annexure P/S) has declined to grant caste certificate on account of the fact that the petitioner has not produced any document to show that his ancestors were resident ofdisiiict Bilaspur since 1948-49. He further submits that the father of the petitioner is a government servant. He is posted as S.D.O.(P) Kota, district ~ Bilaspur. Admittedly, by wrtue of the posting of the father of the petitioner in the State of Chhattisgarh, his case is governed by the circular dated 27.6.2007 {Anneinire Pjé), issued by the General Administration Deparmient, State of Chhattisgarh. The said circular came into considEration before a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5314 of 2007 ( Ku. Bhartl' Banpuh’ya Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others). This Court by order dated 27.9.2007 after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner observed as under: “Learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents] State informs that the judgment of the learned Single Judge was wrongly interpreted and in compliance of the judgment in Writ Petition No. 2510] 2004 dated 04—02—2005, the Government by an order dated 02.02.2006 had kept its notification dated 06.07.2004 in abeyance. Thereafter the Government has issued another order dated 27~06-2007 wherein definition ot' bonafide residents of Chhattisgarh has been defined and explained which includes (i) persons belonging to the central services posted at Chhattisgarh, their spouses or children; (ii) all the employees of State of Chhath'sgarh, their spouses or children; (iii) Persons appointed on Constitutional or Statutory posts by President of India, their spouses or children; (iv) Corporations, Agencies, Commissions, Board’s, 0dicialsjOhicerslemployees, their spouses or children. This Government order is to benefit the petitioners—students with respect to bonatide residents of Chhattisgarh. We are of the considered opinion that once such persons have been recognized as residents of Chhattisgarh, then the same analogy shall apply for the purpose of the admissions of children of the categories referred to hereinabove are concerned, if their caste is included in the Presidential Order.” The above order dated 27.9.2007, it appears, has neither been modiiied nor set—aside by the superior Court. Thus, the \ respondentjSub Divisional Officer (Revenue) is under an \ é SE” obligation to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the circular dated 27.6.2007 {Annexure P/b) and the order dated 27.9.2007 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in w.P.(C) No. 5314 ot‘2oo7. In View of the foregoing, this petition is allowed. The order dated 16.7.2008 (Annexure P/S) 1's quashed and the matter is remitted to the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur for fresh consideration and decision, in accordance with Jaw Within a period offour weeks fmm the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order asto costs. /W‘ 1i. dl— Agnihetl,“ . Judge Thakur ”‘ 'w. J. a Agrf‘jj‘ r satish 7f“; £3”.