Chattisgarh High Court

I. Lakra vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 January, 2022

                                     1

                                                                        AFR
            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
              Writ Petition (S) No. 266 of 2022
     I. Lakra S/o P. Lakra, Aged about 60 years, C.G.
     High    Court    Bar,    Chember      No.    40,    P.O.   and   P.S.
     Chakarbhata, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

                                                          Petitioner

                                 Versus

1.   State    of     Chhattisgarh         through       Secretary     Home
     (Prison),        Mantralaya,          Mahanadi       Bhawan,      New
     Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492002.

2.   Director      General      of       Prison    and     Correctional
     Services, Head Office, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3.   Mr.    S.S.     Tigga,     Deputy      Director        General    of
     Prison/Superintendent of Central Jail Bilaspur,
     Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

4.   The Head of the Department, State High Scrutiny
     and Monitory Committee, Ravishanker University
     Compound Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

5.   The    Head     of   the   Department,             Directorate    of
     Public Instruction (D.P.I. School), Indrawati
     Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

6.   Mr.    Joesph    Tigga,     Department,            Directorate     of
     Public Instruction (D.P.I. School), Indrawati
     Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

7.   Collector            Jashpur,               Distt.         Jashpur,
     Chhattisgarh.

8.   Tahsildar        Kunkuri,           P.O.      Kunkuri,       Distt.
     Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.

                                                         Respondents

For Petitioner : Ms. Avit Lakra, Advocate For State : Mr. Avinash Singh, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board [Through Video Conferencing]

19/01/2022

1. The Petitioner, claiming himself to be a social

worker and concerned responsible citizen of India

having been worked for the upliftment of the

tribals, has filed this writ petition seeking

cancellation of order impugned dated 31/07/1994

(Annexure P/2) by which respondent No. 3 was

appointed on the post of Jail Superintendent by the

erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. Petitioner has

further sought relief that respondent authorities

be directed to recover the Government monetary

benefits taken by respondent No. 3 from the date of

his appointment till this date and the respondent

authorities be further directed to conduct

departmental enquiry and take disciplinary action

against respondent No. 6.

2. The aforesaid reliefs have been sought by the

petitioner stating inter alia that though

respondent No. 3 has obtained caste certificate

dated 13/04/1987 (Annexure P/4) claiming that he

belongs to Scheduled Tribe category, but he does

not actually belong to Scheduled Tribe category and

without scrutinizing the domicile certificate as

well as his educational certificates, respondent

No. 3 has been appointed by the erstwhile State of

Madhya Pradesh on 31/07/1994 by simply relying upon

his caste certificate (Annexure P/4). It has

further been stated that even the names of

respondent No. 3 as well as that of his father's

are quite differently endorsed in various

certificates and the petitioner has made complaints

to various authorities, but that has not been taken

cognizance of.

3. Ms. Avit Lakra, learned counsel for the petitioner,

would submit that since respondent No. 3 does not

belong to Scheduled Tribes though caste certificate

dated 13/04/1987 (Annexure P/4) has been issued in

his favour, his appointment is liable to be set

aside. She would also submit that petitioner has

made several complaints against respondent No. 3

before various authorities but those have not been

taken cognizance of, as such, appropriate action be

taken against him.

4. Per contra, Mr. Avinash Singh, learned State

counsel, on advance copy, would submit that

petitioner has no locus standi to question the

appointment of respondent No. 3 and even if it is

held that petitioner is seeking writ of quo

warranto, then also the caste certificate of

respondent No. 3 dated 13/04/1987 (Annexure P/4)

has not been questioned by the petitioner,

therefore, it is still valid in light of the

decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the

matter of Bharati Reddy v. State of Karnataka and

Others1, as such, the instant writ petition

deserves to be dismissed at admission stage

reserving liberty in favour of petitioner to

approach the jurisdictional caste verification

committee for redressal of his grievance.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the

question of admission, considered their rival

submissions made hereinabove and went through the

records with utmost circumspection.

6. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 3 has been

issued caste certificate dated 13/04/1987 (Annexure

P/4) belonging to Scheduled Tribe against which

petitioner has also made complaints to various

authorities, but the question is, even if this writ

petition is treated as writ of quo warranto, would

issuance of writ of quo warranto be appropriate in

1 (2018) 6 SCC 162

light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court

in the matter of Bharati Reddy (supra) ?

7. Their Lordships of Supreme Court have reiterated

the principle of issuance of writ of quo warranto

in the matter of Bharati Reddy (supra) and have

held in paragraphs 23 and 24 as under :

"23. In this backdrop, th controversy will have to be analysed so as to determine whether the High Court was justified in issuing a writ of quo warranto in such a situation. Interfering in exercise of writ jurisdiction is limited to judicial review of the decisionmaking process and not of the decision itself. In this case, the final decision regarding the validity of income and caste certificate issued to the appellant has been advisedly kept open, thereby the same, in law and in fact, is still valid and in force. There is statutory presumption that such caste certificate shall be valid until it is cancelled by the competent authority. However, the only logic that can be deduced from the contemplation done by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, is that the process followed by Respondent 5 for issuing the stated certificate to the appellant is replete with serious doubt, and therefore, is prima facie fraudulent.

24. In other words, the existence of caste certificate or for that matter the fact that it has been so issued by Respondent 5, is not doubted or in dispute. It is not a case of the appellant relying on a nonexisting or officially nonissued caste certificate. Thus, enquiry will have to be made out about the circumstances warranting issuance of stated certificate in a tearing hurry by Respondent 5, allegedly to favout the appellant. The other aspect is about the discrepancies in the two affidavits submitted by the appellant and including the suppression and nondisclosure of her truthful financial information."

8. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light

of the aforesaid principle of law laid down by

their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it is quite

vivid that the main dispute raised by the

petitioner is qua caste of respondent No. 3 for

which caste certificate has been issued in his

favour way back on 13/04/1987 (Annexure P/4) that

he belongs to Scheduled Tribe category. In the

matter of Bharati Reddy (supra), their Lordships

have clearly held that once the caste certificate

has been issued by competent authority and it is

still valid and in force then there is a statutory

presumption that such caste certificate shall be

valid until it is cancelled by the competent

authority and until and unless the factum of

validity of the caste certificate is pending before

the Caste Verification Committee, it has to be

presumed that the said caste certificate is still

valid and in force. In that view of the matter,

since the caste certificate dated 13/04/1987

(Annexure P/4) issued in favour of respondent No. 3

is said to be valid on the own showing of the

petitioner, it cannot be held that a writ of quo

warranto can be issued removing respondent No. 3

from the post which he is holding at present and no

case is made out for issuance of notice to

respondent No. 6 for want of pleading and

supporting documents as such.

9. However, in Bharati Reddy (supra), their Lordships

of the Supreme Court have directed the

jurisdictional Caste Scrutiny Committee to decide

the matter on its own merits in accordance with law

by observing in paragraphs 42 and 43 as under :

"42. In a matter of this nature, the High Court, having kept open the issue regarding the validity of the income and caste certificate to be decided by the jurisdictional Caste Verification Committee and finding no legal basis to declare the certificate as void ab initio or choosing to do so, ought to have instead directed the Caste Verification Committee to expedite the enquiry and conclude the same in a time bound manner. The course adopted by the High Court has only prolonged the consideration of that issue by the competent authority and embroiled the parties in avoidable proceedings.

43. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the decisions of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court which are impugned in the present appeal. We, however, dispose of the writ petition filed by Respondents 6 to 9 being Writ Petition No. 106417 of 2016 only by directing the Caste Verification Committee to expedite the enquiry regarding the validity of the income and caste certificate issued to the appellant by Respondent 5 and conclude the same preferably within two months and also intimate its final decision to the appellant within the same time. Needless to observe that the Caste Scrutiny Committee will decide the matter on its own merit and without being influenced whatsoever by any observations made in the impugned judgments but in accordance with law. Besides, it shall deal with every contention raised before it by recording tangible reasons."

10. Accordingly, petitioner is at liberty to raise the

dispute of validity of respondent No. 3's caste

certificate before the jurisdictional Caste

Verification Committee, if not already raised, in

accordance with law.

11. The instant writ petition deserves to be and is

accordingly dismissed in limine, however with the

aforesaid liberty reserved in favour of the

petitioner, leaving the parties to bear their own

cost(s).

Sd/ (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 266 of 2022