IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1781 of 2007 (S/S) Chhatrapal Singh S/o Sri Jaswant Singh presently posted as Lekhpal in Tehsil Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. . Petitioner ...………… [ Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through its Revenue Secretary Dehradun, District Dehradun. 2. Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, District Nainital. 3. District Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 4. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 5. Tehsildar, Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar. 6. Dhan Singh S/o Baljeet Singh presently posted as Lekhpal, District Udham Singh Nagar. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents No. 3 and 5 to send name of the petitioner for training course for promotion to the post of Revenue 2 Inspector in place of Dhan Singh, who is admittedly junior to the petitioner. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit and supplementary affidavits filed by the parties. 3) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed as Lekhpal in the year 1981. It is further stated in the writ petition that in the final gradation list petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 14, while Dhan Singh (present respondent No. 6) was placed at Sl. No. 17. Both are members of the scheduled caste. It is further stated that the petitioner was confirmed as Lekhpal on 25.01.1993. As per the rules of appointment, on the post of Revenue Inspector, there is requirement of completion of a training course for the Lekhpals. For the year 2007-08, name of Dhan Singh was included for training leaving the petitioner, who was senior. The respondents appear to have bypassed the petitioner’s name for the training as caste certificate of ‘Bhuiyar’ community stood en blocked cancelled by Tehsildar Kashipur vide his order dated 25.08.2005. The petitioner’s case is that his caste as ‘Bhuiyar’ is also recorded in the family register and other papers. In Para 11 of the writ petition it is stated that vide order dated 25.08.2005, caste certificate of 572 persons was en block cancelled, which was challenged in Writ Petition No. 1088 (M/B) of 2005, decided on 28.08.2006. Another Writ Petition No. 1259 (M/B) of 2004 was decided on 07.12.2006. In both these writ petitions the District Magistrate was directed to re-examine the matter after 3 giving due opportunity to all the persons claiming themselves member of ‘Bhuiyar’ community (which is admittedly a scheduled caste community in the State of Uttarakhand). In Writ Petition No. 1699 (M/S) of 2007, filed by one Omkar Singh, in similar matter, this Court referring to the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others; (1994) 6 Supreme Court Cases 241, kept the en block cancellation order in abeyance. The petitioner’s case is that when the cancellation of caste certificate is kept in abeyance, he cannot be deprived from being sent for training. 4) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is not denied that in Writ Petition No. 1699 (M/S) of 2007, Omkar Singh and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, this Court directed to constitute a Committee to examine whether, the petitioner and similarly situated other members of his village are members of ‘Bhuiyar’ community, or not? It is also not denied that the en block cancellation order was kept in abeyance. In Para 7 of the counter affidavit it is also not denied that petitioner is senior to respondent No. 6 Dhan Singh. 5) There is no dispute as to the fact that ‘Bhuiyar’ is a scheduled caste community which finds mention in the President’s (Constitutional) Order, in respect of the State of Uttar Pradesh as well as in the State of Uttarakhand. It is also not disputed that way back in 1981, petitioner was given certificate of being member of the scheduled caste. Petitioner is not alone from his village, but all the persons 4 residing in Village Gujaratian belonging to said community, were given certificate of member of scheduled caste. 6) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that suddenly the respondent No. 5 has cancelled the certificates of the members of scheduled castes belonging to ‘Bhuiyar’ community under instruction from the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar (respondent No. 3). That is why number of writ petitions were filed and disposed of by this Court with the direction that matter requires re- examination, and till the matter is finalized, the en block cancellation of the certificates is kept in abeyance. The said direction gets corroborated from the copies of the orders passed by this Court in the writ petitions, mentioned above, filed with the writ petition. 7) Having said that, this Court is of the view that once this Court has kept the cancellation order in abeyance, the petitioner cannot be deprived of training for the promotional post of Revenue Inspector. He is neither removed from service, nor prosecuted for obtaining a certificate of being member of scheduled caste. No action also appears to have been taken against any of the Tehsildars or Sub Divisional Magistrates by the State Government for issuing the scheduled caste certificates to the members of the ‘Bhuiyar’ community, who are residing in District Udham Singh Nagar. Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State submitted that there is no member of ‘Bhuiyar’ community in Tehsil Kashipur and Tehsil Jaspur of District Udham Singh Nagar. That issue 5 has already been discussed by the Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 28.08.2006, passed in Writ Petition No. 1088 (M/B) of 2005; order dated 07.12.2006, passed in Writ Petition No. 1259 (M/B) of 2005; order dated 22.03.2007, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 275 (M/B) of 2007, (copies of which are Annexures 10, 11 and 13 to the writ petition). The cancellation order is also kept in abeyance vide order dated 25.09.2007, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1699 (M/S) of 2007, Omkar Singh and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others (along with connected writ petitions). Operation of said order is not stayed from any court. 8) In the above circumstances, the denial of petitioner to send him for training of Revenue Inspector, cannot be said to be justified or lawful. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner shall be sent for training for promotion to the post of Revenue Inspector, provided he is otherwise qualified for the same, subject to the final decision taken by the Government in compliance of the orders passed by this Court in aforesaid writ petitions. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) [ Dt. June 24, 2008. H.Negi