IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1202 of 2010 Anuj Gangwar. ...Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …Respondents. Present : Mr. M. K. Ray, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H. M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Sri M. K. Ray, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri. H. M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner belongs to “Other Backward Class” (from hereinafter referred to as OBC), which is “Kurmi”. It is not disputed by the State Authorities that the caste “Kurmi” is notified as OBC in the State of U.P. as well as in the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner now seeks a caste certificate of the caste, which he belongs and on which there is absolutely no dispute. All the same, it is being denied to the petitioner by the concerned authorities and his application has been rejected vide order dated 6.7.2010 on grounds that the petitioner is a domicile /permanent resident of Bareilly, and therefore such a certificate cannot be granted. This Court in Neha Saini Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another AIR 2010 Uttarakhand 36 as well as in WPSB No.33 of 2011 Smt. Dr. Madhu Arya Vs. State of Uttarakhand (decided on 6.4.2011) has held that there is nothing like a provincial domicile and each citizen of India has only one domicile which is “domicile 2 of India”. Therefore not granting the caste certificate to the petitioner on the above ground is wholly illegal. Rejection of such application on the ground that the petitioner is not a permanent resident of Uttarakhand is also not proper for the reason that Uttarakhand was carved out from the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh when “Kurmi” caste was notified as an “OBC”, and at that time present Uttarakhand was a part of State of Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, although when a caste is notified in two different States as OBC, a person belonging to one State automatically will not be entitled for the benefit of the same caste in another State, and it is undoubtedly a settled position of law, but where the Uttarakhand itself was carved out from Uttar Pradesh, under the special circumstances of State’s Reorganization Act, a different perspective has to be made. There is no doubt that the petitioner was born in Uttarakhand and resides in Uttarakhand. He has now made up his mind to stay in Uttarakhand and he does not claim a caste certificate or the benefit of reservation from the State of U.P. He is therefore liable to be treated as a permanent resident of Uttarakhand. Under these circumstances, the denial of a caste certificate to the petitioner is incorrect. The impugned order dated 6.7.2010 is set aside. Direction is given to District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar to give a caste certificate to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of filing of an application along with a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that before any such exercise, the concerned authorities shall take an affidavit from the applicant that he has not applied for a caste certificate from any other State or has not taken any benefit of reservation from any other State, but from the State of 3 Uttarakhand. It goes without saying that in case the averments of such an affidavit found to be false, the concerned authorities must take action in accordance with law against the petitioner or the person giving such an affidavit. With above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 25.5.2011 Kuldeep