M/S) Pankaja Kohli v. State of Uttarakhand and Others

Heard Mr. Abhishek Sati, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. D.K. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.S. Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the respondents.

4. Mr. Abhishek Sati, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that by virtue of her marriage, the petitioner belonged to Scheduled Caste and she had a certificate showing that she belonged to Scheduled Caste. The said certificate was issued after due verification of the documents. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Caste Scrutiny Committee is illegal.

5. Mr. M.S. Bisht, learned Brief Holder appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, has contended that marriage cannot change a person’s caste as caste 4 is determined by birth.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was born in Kumaoni Rajput family, which is a forward caste (a caste of Kshatriya). She married with Prakash Chand Kohli, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste.

7. What has to be decided in this case is whether the petitioner has acquired Scheduled Caste status by virtue of her marriage with a person who belonged to Scheduled Caste.

8. The issue involved in the present matter is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Sunita Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others”, (2018) 2 SCC 493.

9. The facts, in short, of the case of “Sunita Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Supra) was that the appellant was born in “Agarwal” family. She married Dr. Veer Singh, who belonged to “Jatav” Community (Scheduled Caste). A caste certificate dated 29.11.1991 was issued by the District Magistrate/ Collector, Bulandshahar certifying the appellant as of Scheduled Caste (Jatav). Based on the academic qualifications and the caste certificate, she was appointed initially as a Post Graduate Teacher (Hindi) vide letter dated 16.12.1993 at Kendriya 5 Vidyalaya No.1, Pathankot, Punjab. During the course of her service, she completed her MEd and served the institution for about 21 years as teacher. A complaint was lodged against the appellant to the effect that she was born in “Agarwal” family (general caste category) and after her marriage with a person of Scheduled Caste, she obtained the caste certificate in question. After making preliminary verification, the jurisdictional officer directed to conduct an enquiry in respect of the caste certificate of the appellant. The Tahsildar vide his order dated 22.06.2013/ 27.6.2013 cancelled the caste certificate of the appellant and asked the appellant to return the caste certificate issued earlier to the appellant. The appeal filed by the appellant against the order of the Tahsildar cancelling her caste certificate and the order of the District Magistrate dismissing her representation was also dismissed by the appellate authority i.e., Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut on 27.12.2014. As a result of cancellation of the caste certificate, an order was passed by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on 18.03.2015 terminating the appellant from the services of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. In this background, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held, 6 “5. There cannot be any dispute that the caste is determined by birth and the caste cannot be changed by marriage with a person of Scheduled Caste. Undoubtedly, appellant was born in “Agarwal” family, which falls in general category and not in Scheduled Caste. Merely because her husband belonging to a Scheduled Caste category, the appellant should not have been issued with a caste certificate showing her caste as Scheduled Caste. In that regard, the orders of the authorities as well as the judgment of the High Court cannot be faulted.”

10. Applying the principle of law laid down in Sunita Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others” (Supra), I do not find any illegality in the impugned finding recorded by the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

11. The writ petition consequently fails and shall stand dismissed. Date: 09.01.2025 JKJ/ Pant ___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. 7