Allahabad High Court
AYUSHMAN CHOUDHARYversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the rejection of the petitioner's caste certificate on the ground of his father's domicile was untenable and set aside the order, directing the authority to allow the petitioner to prove domicile and caste and to issue the certificate within three weeks.
Summary
The petitioner, Ayushman Choudhary, a member of the Scheduled Caste 'Chamar', challenged the rejection of his caste certificate application, which was denied on the ground that his father had left the family and moved to Uttarakhand, raising a domicile issue. The petitioner submitted his mother's caste certificate and sought to demonstrate that both parents belong to the Scheduled Caste. The State argued that no evidence was furnished, so the order should stand. The High Court examined the merits and found the rejection unsustainable, setting aside the impugned order. It directed the respondent to give the petitioner an opportunity to prove his domicile in Uttar Pradesh and the caste status of both parents, and to issue the caste certificate within three weeks or provide reasons for any further rejection. The writ petition was thereafter disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the rejection of the caste certificate application on the basis of the father's domicile is legally valid.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction to demonstrate domicile and caste status of both parents.
- Whether the High Court can set aside the rejecting order and compel the authority to issue the certificate within a stipulated time.
Subjects
- Scheduled Caste
- Caste Certificate
- Domicile
- Rejection Order
- Writ Petition
- High Court
- Quashing Order
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 36589 of 2026
Ayushman Choudhary
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ritaj Vikram Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.
1. Mr. Ritaj Vikram Singh, learned advocate appears for petitioner and
submits, his client belongs to scheduled caste 'Chamar'. There be
interference with the rejection order, print of which is at page 39. His
mother possesses caste certificate. The rejection was purportedly made
because brother of his client made complaint on the portal alleging that
since their father had left their mother and moved to Uttarakhand, the
application ought to have been made in that State.
2. Mr. Amit Manohar, learned advocate, Additional Chief Standing
Counsel appears for State. He submits, no evidence was furnished by
petitioner and hence, impugned order should not be interfered with.
3. Petitioner says his mother has caste certificate. On query he draws
attention to writing dated 27th July, 2026 for ascertaining petitioner's
father also has caste certificate.
4. Impugned order at page 39 is set aside and quashed. Respondent no.4 is
directed to give opportunity to petitioner for demonstrating his domicile
in the State and that both his parents belong to scheduled caste 'Chamar'.
Petitioner will produce certified copy of this order and his relevant
WRIC No. 36589 of 2026
2
documents, to said respondent. Within three weeks of the communication
either the caste certificate be issued or reason(s) for rejection thereof be
informed to petitioner.
5. The writ petition is disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha,J.)
(Satya Veer Singh,J.)
September 28, 2026
Shiv
Digitally signed by :-
SHIV KUMAR SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…