Chattisgarh High Court
Jagdish Mandal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 January, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (C) No. 499 of 2022
Jagdish Mandal S/o Kailo Mandal, Aged About 49 Years, Currently
Residing At Quarter No. B/126, Dalwadih, Post Dalwadih, District
Korba, Chhattisgarh, Permanent Address - R/o Loriyama, District
Giridih, Jharkhand. ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Tribal Development
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Member/secretary, District Level Caste Certificate Verification
Committee, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector (Tribal
Development), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
3. The Collector (Tribal Development), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. T. K. Tiwari, Advocate
For State : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order On Board
25.01.2022
1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to Annexure P-1 dated
31.12.2021 which is a notice issued by the office of the District Level
Caste Certificate Verification Committee.
2. The contention of the counsel for petitioner is that the verification part
could not have been done at the behest of the District Level
Committee as the same would be against the mandate laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and
another Vs. Addl. Commissioner Tribal Development and others
reported in (1994 (6) SCC 241. According to the petitioner, the
authorities ought to have, if at all if they wanted to get the matter
inquired, should have referred the matter to the State Level Caste
Scrutiny Committee as has been laid down by the Supreme Court in
the case of Madhuri Patil (supra), therefore, the impugned notice at
this juncture needs to be stalled.
3. At the outset, this Court is reluctant to entertain the writ petition for
more than one reason. Firstly, the State of Chhattisgarh has
subsequent to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Madhuri Patil (supra) and all the subsequent decisions thereto on
the subject matter, framed an Act itself dealing with the regulation of
the social status certificate. The Act is known as "the Chhattisgarh
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes
(Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act of 2013" (in short "the
Act of 2013"). The said Act is also accompanied by the rules framed
by the State Govt. in this regard. The Act and the Rules specifically
provide for a mechanism under which the social status of a person
belonging to the reserved category of SC, ST and OBC can be
verified/inquired upon for the purpose of certification. Both the
aforesaid Act and the Rules specifically envisage that there shall be a
Committee at the district level and also there shall be a State Level
High Powered Committee in this regard. Both these Committees
have been empowered to conduct an inquiry and verification so far as
the social status of an individual.
4. Thus, the impugned notice under challenge in the present writ petition
is one which has been issued by the District Level Committee
constituted in terms of the aforesaid statute i.e. the Act of 2013 and
the Rules framed therein. Since the proceeding has been drawn by
an agency empowered under the law, this Court finds it difficult to
interfere with the same exercising the writ jurisdiction at this juncture.
5. The other reason that this Court is reluctant to entertain the writ
petition is that the petitioner on an earlier occasion was terminated
from employment of SECL on the ground of his caste certificate to be
false. The said termination of service dated 25.06.2007 was
subjected to challenge in a writ petition i.e. WPC No. 1306/2008. The
writ petition finally stood allowed on 15.09.2021 wherein the High
Court had quashed the order of termination and ordered for
reinstatement of the petitioner. However, the respondents were
granted the liberty to refer the matter to the appropriate caste scrutiny
committee constituted by the appropriate State Govt. to verify the
validity of the caste certificate and also for determination of the caste
status of the petitioner. This in other words means that the High
Court while allowing the previous writ petition had permitted the State
Govt. to conduct an inquiry in respect of the caste status of the
petitioner.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also in the case of Collector, Bilaspur Vs.
Ajit P. K. Jogi and others reported in (2011) 10 SCC 357, in
paragraph-18 has held as under:
"18. ....this Court thus formulated a scheme for
verification of tribal status and held that any application
for verification of tribal status as a Scheduled Tribe
should be carried out by such Committees. The
verification of the validity of caste certificates and
determination of the caste status should therefore be
done by the Scrutiny Committees constituted as per the
directions in Madhuri Patil (supra) or in terms of any
statute made by the appropriate Government in that
behalf."
7. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly reflects
that the State Governments were given permission to have a statute
specifically for this purpose and in the State of Chhattisgarh, there is
an Act and also the Rules framed in this regard in the year 2013.
Under the said Act of 2013, there are District Level Caste Certificate
Verification Committees as also a State Level High Powered Caste
Scrutiny Committee available.
8. Once when the State has its own statute and a proceeding has been
drawn in accordance with the said statute coupled with the fact that
the High Court in the earlier round of litigation of the petitioner himself
in WPC 1306/2008 decided on 15.09.2021 had directed the State to
conduct an inquiry, this Court finds it difficult to hold that the show
cause notice issued to the petitioner was in any manner in excess of
jurisdiction or without jurisdiction.
9. Whatever contentions that the petitioner has, so far as the genuinity
of the certificate that has been issued or in respect of the social status
of the petitioner is concerned are all matters for which the petitioner
would have the right to apprise the said Committee by way of a
suitable reply supported with all relevant documents in his support.
Subject to the petitioner submitting his detailed reply, the authorities
concerned are expected to take an appropriate decision in
accordance with law after giving the petitioner a fair and reasonable
opportunity of hearing.
10. The writ petition thus stands disposed of with the aforesaid
observations.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
Judge
Khatai
