i} M 1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA’1V1‘1SGARH - BILASPUR Wn‘t Petition (cs No. 3956 WRIT PE’l‘l’l‘IUN UNDER AR’I‘ICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSI‘ITUTION OF ENDIA (SB: Hon’bie Shri Salish K. Agnihotri J.) A Shxi'Paxag KotechafAdvocaé fér'the‘peeneiiééfw . .. .. .. . .. . . . . Shn‘ Alok Bakshi, Govt. Advocate for the respondents. ORDER (Passed on this 24th day of September, 2008) With the consent oflearned counsel appealing for the parties, the matter 1's heard finally. Learned counsel appealing for the petitioner submits that the Sub Divisional Ollicer (Revenue), Bilaspur by order dated 16.7.2008 (Annexure 1-74) has declined to grant caste certificate on account of the fact that the ancestors of the petitioner belong to district Shivpuri in me State of Madhya Pradesh. He further submits that the father of the petitioner is \ a government servant, who has been allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh on bifurcation 0t: then State of M.P, and posted as S.D.O.(P) Kota. district - Bilaspur. Admittedly, by Virtue 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 (Anneiuxe P/S),‘Esued by the General Administration 'Department, State of Chhattisgarh. \ Petitioner Pradeep Kumar Kumar Alya, agcd about 28 S/o Shri N. R. Arya, R/o Indrasen Nagar, 2‘7 Khoii, Khoii, Bilaspur Respondents 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretay, Tn'bal Tn'bal Ufelfare Department, D.K.S. 2. Bhawan, Raipur. Sub 3. Divisional Ofecer, Bilaspur. Naib ‘ @ The said circular came into consideration before Division a Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5314 of 2007 ( Ku. Bha11i Banpuliya Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 65 Others). This Court by order dated 27.92007 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. 25 10j2004 dated 04-02-2005, the Government bV 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 of bonaiide residents of Chhattisgarh has been deflned 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 Chhattisgarh, 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, Oiiicials/ Ofticersjemployees, 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 01” 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.” 4, The above order ated 27.9.2007, it appears, has neither been d modiiied nor set-aside by the superior Court. Thus, the respondent/Sub Divisional Otiicer (Revenue) is under an obligation to consider the case of m6 petitioner in the light of thehimillar dated 27.6.2007 (Annexure P15) and the order dated 27.9.2007 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P,(C) No. 5314 of2007. In View of the foregoing, this petition is allowed. The order dated 16.7.2008 {Annexure 3/4) 1's quashed and the matter is remitted to the Sub Divisional Oiiicer (Revenue), Biiaspur for fresh consideration and decision, in accmdance with law. No order asto costs. ”‘7’ W Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakm