;^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 6502 of.2006 Petitioner Ku. Smit Bansode, D/o R.C. Bansode, aged about 30 years, Caste Mahar, R/o Kududand Govt. Qr.No. E-5, P.0. & Dist. Bilaspur (CG). Versus Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through ' the Secretary, Deptt. of General Administration, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. The Collector, Collectorate, Bilaspur (CG). 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Bilaspur (CG). 4. The Public Service Commission, through the Secretary, ShankarMarg, Raipur (CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Deepak Jain, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Alok Bakshi, Govt. Advocate for the State. Shri Y.C. Sharma, counsel for the respondent No.4. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 7U1 day of July, 2009) 1. Heard leamed counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Sub Divisional Officer, Bilaspur by order dated 11-8-2006 (Annexure P/1) has declined to grant caste certificate on account of the fact that the ancestors of the petitioner belong to State of Madhya Pradesh. He further submits that the father of the petitioner is a govemment servant, who has been allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh on bifurcation of then State of M.P. —1-- 3. 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, issued by the General Administration Department, State of Chhattisgarh. The said circular came into consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5314 of 2007 ( Ku. Bharti Banpuriya Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 85 Others). This Court by order dated 27.9.2007 after hearing learned counsel for fhe 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. 2510/2004 dated 04-02-2005, the Government by an order dated 02.02.2006 had kept its notification dated 06.07.2004 in abeyance. Thereafter the Governinent has issued another order dated 27-06-2007 wherein definition of bonafide residents of Chhattisgarh has been defined 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, Officials/Officers/employees, their spouses or children. This Govemment order is to benefit the petitioners-students with respect to bonafide residents of Chhattisgarh. We are of the considered opinion that once such persons have been recognized as residents of Chhatdsgarh, fhen the same analogy shall apply for the purpose of the admissions of children of the categories referred to .^^..T^ /"€^\ -.J. '^s.wsSS'' 4. 5. 3 ^7 hereinabove are concerned, if their caste is included in the Presidendal Order." The above order dated 27.9.2007, it appears, has neither been modified nor set-aside by the superior Court. Thus, the respondent/Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) is under an obligation to consider the case of the pedtioner in the light of the circular dated 27.6.2007 and the order dated 27.9.2007 passed by the Division Bench ofthis Court in W.P.(C) No. 5314 of2007. In view of the foregoing, this petition is allowed. The order dated 11-8-2006 (Annexure P/l) is quashed and the matter is remitted to the Sub Divisional Officer, Bilaspur for fresh consideration and decision, in accordance with law. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Gowri