Praveen Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Others
2014 Latest Caselaw 4554 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

								A.F.R
 

 
Court No. - 37
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 57220 of 2012
 
Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Nikhil Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Vineet Saran,J.

Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.

The petitioner was issued a caste certificate of 'Kharwar' caste  on 15.6.2004 by the Tehsildar, Ghazipur. Another certificate, reiterating the earlier one dated 15.6.2004, was issued by the Tehsildar on 22.3.2007. Both the certificates have collectively been filed  as annexure-2 to the writ petition. The issuance of said certificate is not  in dispute by the parties.

The said 'Kharwar' caste has been declared as Scheduled Tribe by the U.P. Government Notification of 2002. On the basis of such caste certificate, vide appointment letter dated 1.3.2007, the petitioner was appointed as a driver in the C.R.P.F on 3.9.2009, the Commandant of the C.R.P.F Battalion sent communication for verification of the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. The then Tehsildar verified  the issuance of the caste certificate in favour of the petitioner, but besides this, on his own, he sent a communication to the Principal Secretary, Samaj Kalyan, Uttar Pradesh on 12.10.2009 to the effect that the caste certificate, certifying the caste of the petitioner as of  'Kharwar' was wrongly issued. According to the Tehsildar, the petitioner belongs to 'Kamkar' or 'Kahar'  caste, which is a backward caste. The Tehsildar recommended that the Caste Scrutiny Committee may examine the matter. On the basis of such communication, the Caste Scrutiny Committee has passed the impugned order dated 28.8.2012 cancelling the caste certificate of the petitioner after holding that the petitioner belongs to  Kamkar/Kahar caste. Challenging the said order, this writ petition has been filed.

We have heard Sri Nikhil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the record. Pleadings between the parties have been exchanged and with consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is  primarily  that the Tehsildar was required to only verify the issuance of the caste certificate  in favour of the petitioner and once it was found that the caste certificate was  issued by the office of the Tehsildar, he had no power or jurisdiction to call for a review of the caste certificate, that too without there being any complaint regarding  issuance of such certificate. According to the petitioner, the Tehsildar could not have initiated a de novo  inquiry into the matter without there being any material or complaint in that regard filed before him. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 28.8.2012 has been passed  by the caste scrutiny committee on surmises and conjunctures, without considering the case of the petitioner and the document submitted by him.

Learned Standing Counsel has, however, submitted that the Caste Scrutiny Committee was well within  its jurisdiction to re-examine the caste certificate which was issued in favour of the petitioner and after having found that the caste certificate issued in the year 2007 was wrongly issued by the Tehsildar, the same has been cancelled, which is fully justified in law.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal  of the record, we are of the opinion that the cancellation of the caste certificate by the Caste Scrutiny Committee cannot be justified in law.

In the communication of the Tehsildar dated 12.10.2009, it is nowhere mentioned that there was any complaint with regard to the issuance of the caste certificate in favour of the petitioner. By the communication of the Commandant of C.R.P.F dated 3.9.2009, the Tehsildar was required to only verify the issuance of the caste certificate and not its correctness. Once the Tehsildar had verified the issuance of the said certificate, it had no power or jurisdiction to  provide  for review of the issuance of the said caste certificate  or recommend  for its cancellation, specially  when there was no complaint by any authority or person with regard to the correctness of the same.

If the Tehsildar is allowed to initiate  suo motu  proceeding for cancellation, without there being any particular  material  or complaint with regard to issuance of such caste certificate, the same would create  unnecessary complication, as any new Tehsildar, who is subsequently posted  and is not satisfied with  the person or his family in whose favour the certificate has been issued,  can initiate  proceedings for cancellation of caste certificate which may have been validly issued in favour of a particular person  after due investigation.

In the present case, the  communication of the Tehsildar clearly shows that he has proceeded on the presumption that the petitioner belongs  to the Kamkar/Kahar caste, whereas there was no substantial material  or document with Tehsildar in support  of the same. Prior to the issuance of the said communication, the Tehsildar had not even given the petitioner  any opportunity to show cause  as to why the proceedings for cancellation of his  caste certificate was to be  initiated against him.  As such, very initiation of the proceedings for cancellation of the caste certificate of the petitioner cannot be justified in law.

Even on merit, what we find is that  the  Caste Scrutiny Committee has cancelled the caste certificate  of the petitioner  only on the basis  that in the school certificate of the petitioner, the word 'Kharwar'   was mentioned  in brackets after mentioning his religion as 'Hindu', which, according to the Tehsildar, indicated  that the word 'Kharwar' was subsequently added. Merely on presumption and without verifying from the college  which had issued  the certificate, as to whether in the  original record the caste of the petitioner was mentioned  as 'Kharwar' or not, the committee could not have proceeded to cancel the caste certificate, which was validly issued in favour of the petitioner. The committee has also brushed  aside the evidence of the petitioner which he had produced in proof  of the fact that  he belongs to 'Kharwar' caste, merely on the ground that all the villagers produced as witnesses in support  of his case belonged to the concerned 'Kharwar' caste. In the same breath, the committee has  proceeded  to rely on the statement  given by one Om Prakash and some other  villagers to the effect  that there is no family of 'Kharwar' caste in the village. Both the aforesaid statements  are self contradictory. If the statement of the villagers who had stated that the petitioner belongs to 'Kharwar' caste was not  believed by the Committee on the ground that  all  such villagers  belonged  to the 'Kharwar' caste then  it is not understood  that how  the statements of Om Prakash and others, that there was no family of Kharwar caste  in the village, was believed by the Committee.

In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the opinion that firstly, the initiation of the proceedings for cancellation of the caste certificate of the petitioner was without jurisdiction and uncalled for and secondly, in the absence of any sufficient material being there before the Caste Scrutiny Committee, the order directing for cancellation of the caste certificate of the petitioner, was wholly unjustified.

In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee deserves to be quashed.

Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. The order dated 28.8.2012 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee is quashed.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 20.8.2014

G.S

(Vijay Lakshmi,J) ( Vineet Saran,J)