Shambhu Nath Prasad vs State Of U.P. And Another
2016 Latest Caselaw 6551 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 10
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6006 of 2014
 

 
Petitioner :- Shambhu Nath Prasad
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- O.P. Gupta,M.D. Singh "Shekhar"
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bimal Prasad
 

 
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The father of the petitioner, Late Ram Govind Prasad was proceeded with on the allegation that he had claimed himself to be a member of Schedule Caste when he was 'Sonar' by caste and belonged to other backward class category. At that point of time, Ram Govind Prasad was getting pension from the State Government. His pension was stopped. The father of the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 31868 of 2004, challenging the order dated 2.12.2013, whereby C.B.C.I.D. enquiry was directed into the the matter of caste certificate said to have been obtained by the father of the petitioner disclosing that he belonged to 'Sonar' by caste. The writ petition was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 18.10.2005. The High Court held that in view of the Government Order dated 5.1.1996, it was only the Caste Scrutiny Committee, which could examine the correctness otherwise of the caste certificate already issued in favour of a particular person and, therefore, the issue with regard to the case certificate of the petitioner be examined by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The Court required the Caste Scrutiny Committee to decide the correctness otherwise of the caste to which the petitioner belonged in a time bound manner.

The father of the petitioner thereafter, filed another Writ Petition No. 68922 of 2010, Ram Govind Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and others being aggrieved by the order dated 16.6.2010 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (F&R), Ballia in pursuance to the order dated 5.5.2010 passed by the District Magistrate/Collector, Ballia, whereby direction had been issued for correction of the entry with regard to the caste of the petitioner and lodging an FIR against him. This writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 26.11.2010 and the High Court after relying upon the judgment in Writ Petition No. 69019 of 2010, Hizwana Bano Vs. State of U.P. and others, held that in view of the Government order of 5.1.1996, it is only the Caste Scrutiny Committee, which can examine the correctness otherwise of the certificate issued and the district officials would cease to have any jurisdiction once the caste certificate had been issued. The Division Bench, therefore, required that the issue with regard to the correctness otherwise of the caste certificate already issued in favour of Ram Govind Prasad be examined by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, for which three months time was provided.

It appears that the State Government in the meantime came out with another Government Order dated 28.2.2011 whereby three layer Caste Scrutiny Committees were constituted; (a) District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee of which the District Magistrate was the Chairman, (b) Regional Level Caste Scrutiny Committee of which the Commissioner was to be the Chairman and (c) State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee of which the Secretary concerned was to be the Chairman. This Government Order provided for appeal from the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee to the Regional Level Caste Scrutiny Committee and thereafter to the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee.

While the matter under order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 26.11.2010 was required to be decided within three months but as is the practice of the State Government it took nearly three years to examine the matter. On 13.7.2013, the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee after taking note of the Government Order dated 28.2.2011 opined that it would be appropriate, that issue with regard to the correctness otherwise of the caste certificate issued in favour of Ram Govind Prasad be examined by the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee. This order was admittedly communicated to the father of the petitioner who did not chose to challenge the same at any point of time.

Ram Govind Prasad expired on 8.1.2013 as a consequent thereto the issue with regard to the caste certificate issued to Ram Govind Prasad lost its efficacy. However, a complaint was received by the District Magistrate in respect of the caste certificate which had been issued in favour of the petitioner. This complaint was received on 22.1.2013 i.e. subsequent to the death of Ram Govind Prasad. The District Magistrate vide order dated 10.7.2013 recorded that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court, the complaint which has been received in respect of the caste certificate granted in favour of the petitioner needs to be examined by the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee and not by the District Magistrate itself. He also referred to the order of the Hon'ble High Court, which had been made in Writ Petition No. 68922 of 2010 as well as to the order dated 26.11.2010, wherein a direction has been issued for the correctness or otherwise of the caste certificate be examined by the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

For the reasons best known to the petitioner, he filed Writ Petition No. 47617 of 2013 challenging the two orders dated 7.10.2013 and 13.7.2012.

We see no locus in the petitioner to challenge the order dated 13.7.2012 as it was on the order passed in the matter of scrutiny of the caste certificate of his father. The petitioner had not set up any claim for maintaining the said writ petition against the said order on the ground that he had some surviving interest in the caste certificate issued in favour of his father.

Be that as it may the order dated 10.7.2013 was subjected to challenge only on the ground that as per the order of the High Court dated 26.11.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 68922 of 2010 filed by the father of the petitioner namely Ram Govind Prasad, there was a direction that the correctness or otherwise of the caste certificate be examined by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, which at the relevant time was constituted under the Government Order of 1996, therefore, so far as the complaint against the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner is also concerned, the same must also be examined by the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee which was the only Committee under the 1996 Government Order. The Division Bench vide order dated 13.9.2013, set aside the order of the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 13.7.2012 in the matter pertaining to Ram Govind Prasad as referred to the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee as well as the order dated 10.7.2013, whereby it submitted its report to the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee. The matter was directed to be examined by the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee.

The State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after examining the documents which were made available by the district authorities amongst others has recorded following findings of fact :

(a)  In the transfer certificate and the register pertaining to deposit of fee receipt right from primary institution till intermediate college, the caste of Ram Govind Prasad as well as his son Shambhu Nath Prasad, the petitioner had been disclosed as 'Swarnkar' and only in the intermediate mark sheet of the petitioner, 'Swarnkar and Sanaurhiya' has been written.

(b) Sons of real brother of Ram Govind Prasad namely Lalla and Deepak were issued caste certificate categorically stating that they belonged to 'Swarnkar' by caste, which belonged to Other Backward Class.

Lastly, it has been recorded that in the sale deed executed by Shambhu Nath Prasad as well as his brother's wife, it had been categorically mentioned that they do not belong to Scheduled Caste.

The other documents have also been referred to in the order of the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee for coming to a conclusion that the petitioner does not belong to 'Sanaurhiya' by caste but was 'Sonar' by caste. It has been recorded that the caste 'Sonar' has been categorised as backward class in the State of U.P. and this caste are not included in the list published under Article 341 of the Constitution of India so far as the State of U.P. is concerned.

On these facts, the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee has returned a finding that the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner disclosing his caste as 'Sanaurhiya' was based on wrong disclosure of facts and, therefore, deserves to be cancelled.

The order is sought to be challenged before this Court on the ground that under the Government Order of 1996, the Scrutiny Committee is obliged to refer the complaint to the Director (Vigilance) and on receipt of the report of the Director (Vigilance) if the caste is certified then the Scrutiny Committee has no other option but to certify the caste of the candidate concerned. It is then stated that in only those cases, where the Director (Vigilance) submits adverse report that opportunity of hearing is required to be afforded to the candidate concerned as well as to the other persons.

It is the case of the petitioner that for affording opportunity in such cases, a public information is also required to be published. It is, therefore, submitted that since in the facts of the case, the Director (Vigilence) had submitted his report in favour of the petitioner, no further action could have been taken by the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee.

The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner does not appeal to the Court. Firstly, we have serious doubt with regard to the applicability of the said Government Order. Once a subsequent Government Order dated 28.2.2011 had intervened even otherwise we may record that Sub-clause-4 of Clause- 6 of Government Order dated 5.1.1996specifically required the Scrutiny Committee to consider the objection, which may have been raised in respect of the caste certificate and to decide the same after affording opportunity to the parties and for which reasons shall be recorded. Conseqnet as in rspect of the certificates found to be false have been provided under Clause-7.

In any view of the matter it was on the asking of the petitioner that the issue with regard to the caste certificate granted in favour of the pettioner of the Scheduled Caste was referred to the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee and it is further apparent from the record that such examination was directed on the various complaints which have been received in respect of the caste certificate obtained by the petitioner. It, therefore, logically follows that under the orders of the High Court which has become final between the parties dated 13.9.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 4367 of 2013, the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee had no other option but to consider the objection to the caste certificate and to examine as to whether the petitioner belongs to which caste. It does not lie in the matter of the petitioner to jurisdiction to the authorities of the State Level Scrutiny Committee in the matter of such examination.

Disputed issues of facts as sought to be raised for quashing the findings of fact returned under the impunged order need no examination under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at the first instance. We may record that in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and anr. Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and ors., (1994) 6 SCC 241, it has been held by the Apex Court in paragraph-14 that once the procedure adopted in the matter of caste certificate is found to be fair and just then the High Court will not exercise writ powers as it is not to sit in appeal over the order. The State Level Committee was empowered to evaluate the evidence placed before it, and to record its findings. The High Court can interfere only on limited ground of judicial review. Paragrqaph-14 of the Apex Court judgment is quoted below:

"14. The question then is whether the approach adopted by the High Court in not elaborately considering the case is vitiated by an error of law. High Court is not a court of appeal to appreciate the evidence. The Committee which is empowered to evaluate the evidence placed before it when records a finding of fact, it ought to prevail unless found vitiated by judicial review of any High Court subject to limitations of interference with findings of fact. The Committee when considers all the material facts and records a finding, though another view, as a court of appeal may be possible, it is not a ground to reverse the findings. The court has to see whether the Committee considered all the relevant material placed before it or has not applied its mind to relevant facts which have led the Committee ultimately record the finding. Each case must be considered in the backdrop of its own facts."

We find absolutely no infraction of law or wrong appreciation or perversity in the findings recorded so as to exercise the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the facts of the case.

We may also record that although, in the judgment in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) an observation has been made by the Apex Court that the findings of the Scrutiny Committee shall become final and shall not be subject to the suit proceeding. But from the Government Order dated 5.1.1996 and dated 28.2.2011 referred to above, we find that the State Government has not declared that the order passed therein would be final. We leave it for the petitioner to file a suit for declaration that he belongs to Scheduled Caste as may be maintainable.

In the facts of the case, we see no reason to entertain this petition. The petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 19.10.2016

Ashish Pd.