IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 215 of 2009 (S/B) Rahul Kumar Goel ….…… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ………. Respondents Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dharmendra Bharthwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Standing Counsel (Govt. of Uttarakhand) for respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Mr. B.D. Kandpal, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Date of Judgment: 07.03.2011 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) An appropriate officer, appointed by the State Government, has acknowledged that the petitioner belongs to a community, which has been declared by law made by the State as a Scheduled Caste Community of the State. In acknowledgement thereof, a certificate has been issued. There appears to be no dispute pertaining to issuance of the said certificate, competence to issue the same by the person, who issued the same, and the very grant thereof. Despite the said certificate, petitioner has not yet been acknowledged to be belonging to the said community and, accordingly, has not been acknowledged to be entitled to the reservation made for the said community. The case of the petitioner was forwarded to a scrutiny committee. The scrutiny committee opined that the matter of the petitioner is required to be gone in, in accordance with the decision of the Government taken in 2009 to the effect that the petitioner is required to establish that his grandfather and his father were domiciles of the State. 2. The basic misconception in the said order appears to be that it is permissible for a citizen of this country to be a domicile of a State of the federation. There is no concept of being domicile of a State of a federal structure. A citizen is a domicile of the nation of which he is a citizen. 2 3. Be that as it may, the said decision has now been stayed by this Court in a separate writ petition and the said stay order has been accepted by the Government and the Government has issued a direction to the effect that ignoring the said decision of the Government of 2009, the matter of scrutiny shall be completed. 4. The State has made reservation for diverse communities of the State. When a person belongs to such a community and is, accordingly, acknowledged by a competent authority, unless there is a factual dispute whether the person concerned, in fact, belongs to the said community, we see no reason for sending any matter for scrutiny. In the instant case, there being no dispute that a competent person has acknowledged that the petitioner belongs to such a community for whom reservation has been made and there being no dispute as to the competence of the officer concerned in pronouncing such acknowledgement, there was no just reason for sending the matter to a scrutiny committee. 5. We, accordingly, allow the writ petition and direct the competent authority to issue an appointment letter to the petitioner, provided the petitioner has been selected, proceeding on the basis that he belongs to the community, which has been acknowledged and certified in the certificate issued to that effect by a competent authority. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 07.03.2011 07.03.2011 Amit