k m “m mm (may mww mmm WW wW HIGH COURT WRIT OF PE $HATTIBGARH TION 1C) No. 6786107 AT BILAgP‘UR PETITIONER JanaMan Pmsad Pal, aged about 37 yrs. S/o. Late Ra'm Bilas Prasad Singh Pal, Rlo. Kata, Tahsil and Dism‘ct Raipur (CG) .Versus RESPONDENT 1. The T sildar, Tahsil 0m, Raipur (CG) 2. The S te of C.G. through: the Collector, Raipur 3. The. S mtary, Ministry of Personnel Public Griev ces and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi SB: HON’BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA J Mr. Anilkant Gupta, oouPsel for the petitioner. Mr. swish Gupta, Govt. Advocate with Mr. Sashank Thakur, RL. for the State. Heaxd. The instant petition has been tiled by the petitioner against the order of Annexme P-1 passec' by respondent No.1/Tahsi1dar, Raipur, whereby the application of the petitioner for issuance of Other Backward Class caste oex Liflcete has been mjected on the ground that annual income of the petition er for the last three years is more than Rs.2.50 lakh. ' L WWW wmm WW WW asaiwzm ’2, Leamed counsel for t petitioner submits that the Government of India, Ministry of nnel Public Gxicvanccs & Pensions, Depament of Personnel 65 raining vide cimular dated 14th October 2004 in paraglaph 8 of the above cimular clearly mentions that the creamy layer status of the idate as mentioned in clause vi, vii 8r. V111 of paragraph 4 refers to status of the parents of the candidate and not to his own status o income or status or income of his/her spouse and While determinin the creamy layer status of a person, the status of the income of the c didate himself or of his] her spouse shall not be taken into account. Tahsildar, misinterpreting the above circular, has refused the p ‘tioner to issue caste cellilicate on the ground that his annual inco e for the last three years is more than Rs. 2.5 lakhs. On the other hand 1 the order of the Tahsildar. I have heard learned c In the above referr ed counsel for the State has supported sel for the parties. circular of the Government of India (Annexure P-2) clause vii f-paragraph 4 and paragaph 8 are reproduced as under:- “4. (vii) Will a cand' ate who has goss annual income of ve or possesses wealth above the prescribed in the Wealth Tax Act for secutive years be treated to fall in Rs.2.5 lakh or exemption limit a period of three creamy layer. h o d e e e o e ‘ o n mm 111200 am m (Wu) WWW WWW warm-Mm Fg/ WWIWW $31mm “8. In mgard to clau deiermined on not on the basi basis of status While determini the status or the his] her spouse si (vi), (vii) and (viii) of para 4 it clarify lay¢r status of a candilafc is basis of the status of his palents and his own status or income or on the inoomc of his/ her spouse. Themfom, the creamy layer status of a person income of the candidate himself or of Thus, from the conjo‘ 1all not be taken into account.” t reading of both the paragraphs, it is manifestly clear that While etermjning the creamy layer status of a person, the income of the c didate himself or of his] her spouse is not to be taken into account d the criteria mentioned in clause vii of paragraph 4 pertains to the s tus of the parents of the candidate. In that View of the sustained, same deserves to set aside. The concerned Tahsildar is directed to consider the application of te certihcate and pass suitable order in the ade by this Court. tter, the order impugned can not be be set aside and accordingly, it is hereby the petitioner for grant of cas light of above observations m Petition is accordingly disposed of. f i Sd/- l Dhirendra Mishra . i Judge s o n e f