Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
com
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
versus
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 14.08.2019
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning
Office Orders dated 26.11.2015 and 07.03.2017, to the extent that the
said Office Orders require the applicant to produce a caste certificate of
a relative from the paternal side, for the purpose of issuance of a caste
certificate. The petitioner also impugns an order dated 31.07.2019,
whereby the petitioner’s request for caste certificates in respect of her
two children (boys aged above 17 years and 15 years) has been rejected.
8. It is relevant to note that this Court had noticed that apart from
not processing the applications filed by the petitioners (the two sons of
the petitioner), the petition also indicated another controversy regarding
whether the petitioners therein were entitled to caste certificates on the
basis of the caste of their mother. The petitioners had relied upon the
9. This Court had directed the respondents to take into account the
aforesaid decision and consider the application filed by the petitioners
therein. The petitioners were also granted liberty to furnish all material
as they considered necessary to establish that they are entitled to
Scheduled Caste Certificates on the basis of the said decision.
said order for rejecting the applications was non submission of a caste
certificate from the paternal side.
11. Aggrieved by the said order dated 14.08.2018, the petitioners (the
two sons of the petitioner herein) filed a writ petition, being W.P. (C)
9424/2018. The said petition was allowed by an order dated 07.09.2018
and the order dated 14.08.2018 was set aside as being unreasoned. The
respondents were directed to consider the case set up by the petitioners
and take an informed view. The respondents were further directed to
pass a speaking order.
13. Admittedly, the petitioners have not been able to produce any
evidence or material to establish that they have “suffered the
deprivations, indignities, humilities and handicaps like any other
member of the community” to which the petitioner belongs.
14. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the
decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Deepika
Yogeshwar Nandanwar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.: 2008 (3)
Mh.L.J. 872 and drew the attention of this court to Paragraph 27 of the
said decision, which reads as under:-
15. He contended that the fact that both the applicants had adopted
the surname of their father, who is of a forward caste, did not disentitle
them to caste certificates certifying them as belonging to a Scheduled
Caste.
19. The petitioner herself is a senior officer of the Indian Air Force.
It is well accepted that persons from the Indian Armed Forces live in a
secluded and protected environment (cantonment area). There is little
scope for any caste discrimination in such an environment.
21. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity with the
impugned order and no interference with the same is warranted.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
AUGUST 14, 2019
MK