Allahabad High Court
Manish Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 11 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:199423
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 17072 of 2023
Manish Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Pawan Giri, Udai Chandani
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 34
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Udai Chandani along with Sri Pawan Giri, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Pramod Kumar Srivatava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Since counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and they do not propose to file any further response, with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being decided at the admission stage.
3. The case of the writ petitioner is that he belongs to Gond by caste and a caste certificate also came to be issued in favour of the writ petitioner in the year 1997 and on the strength of the said caste certificate, the writ petitioner stood appointed on the post of Village Development Officer. However, owing to certain complaints so lodged with respect to the entitlement of the caste certificate of Gond category, the caste certificate stood cancelled on 01.03.2023. Based upon the same, the appointment of the petitioner stood dispensed with on the post of Gram Vikas Adhikari by virtue of the order dated 16.09.2023 of the District Development Officer, Fatehpur.
4. Questioning the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. This Court entertained the writ petition on 11.10.2023 seeking response from the respondent and pursuant to the same, a counter affidavit has been filed by the Block Development Officer, Airaiyan, District Fatehpur dated 01.02.2024 to which a rejoinder affidavit has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order dated 16.09.2023 passed by the District Development Officer, Fatehpur dispensing with the services of the petitioner has sought to argue that once the services of the writ petitioner stood dispensed with on the ground that the caste certificate was cancelled on 01.03.2023 and by virtue of judgment and order dated 21.05.2025 passed in Writ-C No.10465 of 2023 (Budhiram and 7 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 7 others) the order cancelling the caste certificate dated 01.03.2023 has been quashed then the matter needs to be revisited by the authorities in the light of the subsequent development which has occurred. According to him, fresh exercise has been undertaken post passing of the order dated 21.05.2025 in Writ-C No.10465 of 2023 (Budhiram and 7 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 7 others) and the caste certificate stands restored and it has not been further cancelled and no adverse orders have been passed.
6. Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that in case it is the case of the writ petitioner that the order cancelling the caste certificate has been set aside by this Court and no further orders for cancellation of the caste certificate has been passed, the matter needs to be revisited by the authorities.
7. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.
8. Apparently, the writ petitioner was accorded appointment on the post of Village Development Officer on the basis of the caste certificate treating him to be belonging to Gond category, however, the caste certificate came to be cancelled on 01.03.2023 and the same was made the basis for cancellation of the appointment of the writ petitioner on 16.09.2023. However, according to the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner who is the writ petitioner No.7 in Writ-C No.10465 of 2023 (Budhiram and 7 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 7 others), the following order was passed on 21.05.2025:
"1. Heard Sri Pawan Giri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Sri Girish Chandra Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents and Sri Ranjeet Sonker, learned counsel appearing on behalf of caveator.
2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 01.03.2023 whereby the District Level Committee has cancelled the Caste Certificates earlier issued in favour of the petitioners while disposing of the complaint made against them.
3. One of the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is based upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribai Development and others, AIR 1995 SC 94 and it is urged that the Supreme Court in that case had issued clear directions to the effect that such matters have to be mandatorily enquired into by the Vigilance Cell.
4. Further reliance has been placed upon an interim order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court dated July 7, 2022, in Writ C No. 3797 of 2022 (Mohd. Salman vs. State of UP through Principal Secretary Panchayati Raj Department and others) and it is urged that in the instant case, the order impugned has been passed without following the mandate of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra).
5. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that the order impugned has been passed after conducting detailed analysis of material placed before the District Level Committee and the same does not require any interference. However, he could not dispute that no enquiry was conducted by the Vigilance Cell as directed by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra).
6. The Division Bench in the aforesaid interim order has discussed the law at some length and following observations were made :
"It is not in dispute; rather it is apparent from a perusal of the impugned decision dated 31.05.2022 that the petitioner had raised the issue before the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee that such matter in terms of the judgment in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) needs to be mandatorily enquired by the Vigilance Officer. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) is to operate till appropriate Legislation on the subject is framed by the State. Till date, no such Legislation appears to have been enacted by the State of U.P. and as such the guidelines as contained in the judgment in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) hold the field. Guidelines No. 5 and 6 in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) as contained in Paragraph-13 of the judgment mandates creation of a Vigilance Cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police being over-all incharge and the said Cell manned by number of Police Inspectors is to investigate the social status claims. It also mandates that Inspectors of Vigilance Cell shall have to go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides. It further directs that the Vigilance Cell shall conduct thorough enquiry which has relevant impact on the outcome of the decision to be taken by the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee.
However, the issue as to whether the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee is under obligation to get the vigilance enquiry conducted stands referred for decision by a Full Bench by means of order dated 30.06.2022, passed by the Division Bench as noted above. Thus, till the Full Bench answers the question referred to it, in our considered opinion, it will be not possible for the appellate Committee i.e. the Divisional Level Caste Scrutiny Committee to deal with the issue of necessity of the enquiry by the Vigilance Cell. Accordingly, relegating the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal before the Divisional Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, in our considered opinion, may cause prejudice to him."
7. Once the law declared by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra) holds the field and in the instant case we are satisfied that the matter was never referred to the Vigilance Cell, the order impugned cannot sustain.
8. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.03.2023, passed by the District Level Committee is hereby quashed.
9. It is open for the respondents to follow the mandate of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra) and refer the matter to the Vigilance Cell afresh and then pass appropriate order based on the report submitted by the Vigilance Cell."
9. Since according to the writ petitioner, no adverse order has been passed by cancelling the caste certificate post allowing of the writ petition cancelling the order dated 01.03.2023, thus the matter needs to be revisited by the District Development Officer, Fatehpur, 7th respondent. Accordingly, the order dated 16.09.2023 passed by the District Development Officer, Fatehpur is set aside. The matter stands remitted back to the authority to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law bearing in mind the fate and the outcome of the caste certificate pursuant to the cancellation of the caste certificate on 01.03.2023 and setting aside of the said order in Writ-C No.10465 of 2023 (Budhiram and 7 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 7 others) passed on 21.05.2025 within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
10. It is provided that the status of the writ petitioner, as on today, shall be maintained till the passing of the fresh order.
11. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
November 11, 2025
R.S. Tiwari
