Ramesh Kumar Kamar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 1670 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Ramesh Kumar Kamar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 April, 2026

                                                                  1




YOGESH Digitally signed by
       YOGESH TIWARI                                                               2026:CGHC:17111
TIWARI 16:57:34 +0530
       Date: 2026.04.15


                                                                                             NAFR

                                       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                                      WPC No. 2572 of 2021
                             Ramesh Kumar Kamar S/o Late Shri Sitaram Kamar Aged About 52
                             Years Occupation- Nayab Tahsildar, Pathriya, Mungeli, District- Mungeli,
                             Chhattisgarh.
                                                                                           ... Petitioner
                                                               versus
                             1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department of
                             Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Post Office
                             Mantralaya, P.S. - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
                             2 - The Director Directorate of Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe
                             Development Department, Block 4D, Indravati Bhawan, Post Office
                             Mantralaya, P.S.- Rakhi, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
                             3 - The High Power Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee Adim Jati
                             Research And Training Institute, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University
                             Campus, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
                             4 - The Assistant Commissioner Aadivasi Vikas Gariyaband,
                             Collectorate Building, District- Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                                      ... Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Ujjawal Choubey, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 15.04.2026

1. By filing the present petition, the petitioner calls in question the

legality and validity of the notice dated 03.04.2021 issued by

respondent No. 4, whereby the caste status of the petitioner's

daughter, Aradhya Kamar, is sought to be re-verified by

respondent No. 4 without any authority of law. The petitioner has

prayed for following relief(s):-

"10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Quash the notice dated 03.04.2021 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent no. 4, in the interest of justice.

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire relevant records from the respondents.

10.3 That, Any other order of orders or Direction or Relief though just and fit in the circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted."

2. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that the petitioner is

serving as Nayab Tahsildar at Pathariya, District Mungeli

(Chhattisgarh). His daughter, Aradhya Kamar, born on

02.04.1991, passed the Senior Secondary Examination in the

year 2008, and her mark-sheet dated 21.05.2008 records her

name along with the names of her parents, reflecting her caste as

Kamar. Upon due verification of documents, the Sub-Divisional

Officer, Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh), issued a permanent caste

certificate in her favour on 04.07.2008. Subsequently, the High

Power Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Raipur, confirmed

her caste status as Scheduled Tribe by issuing a caste verification

certificate dated 23.07.2008.

3. Despite the aforesaid verification, respondent No. 4 issued a

notice dated 04.03.2021 seeking to verify the caste status of the

petitioner's daughter. The petitioner submitted a representation

dated 13.03.2021 stating that the caste status had already been

duly verified by the competent authority. It is further the case of

the petitioner that in earlier proceedings relating to caste

verification, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had granted a

stay order on 16.10.2019 in WPC No. 3663/2019.

4. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 again issued the impugned notice

dated 03.04.2021 directing the petitioner to appear along with

relevant documents for verification of the caste status of his

daughter. Hence, the present petition has been filed challenging

the said notice.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the caste status of

the petitioner's daughter has already been duly verified by the

competent authority, i.e., the High Power Caste Certificate

Scrutiny Committee, which issued a caste verification certificate

on 23.07.2008 after conducting proper scrutiny. Once such

verification has been carried out by the statutorily competent

committee, the same attains finality and is binding on all

subordinate authorities.

6. It is further submitted that in view of the law laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Additional

Commissioner, Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241, the

power of verification and scrutiny of caste certificates vests

exclusively with the Scrutiny Committee, and no other authority is

empowered to re-open or re-verify the caste status once it has

been conclusively determined. Thus, respondent No. 4, being an

authority subordinate to the Scrutiny Committee, has acted wholly

without jurisdiction in issuing the impugned notices.

7. Learned counsel contends that the impugned action of

respondent No. 4 in repeatedly issuing notices for re-verification,

despite the existence of a valid and subsisting caste verification

certificate, is not only without authority of law but also amounts to

an abuse of process. It is argued that the respondents are under

an obligation to act in accordance with the certificate already

verified and cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the Scrutiny

Committee.

8. It is lastly submitted that once the caste certificate has been

verified by the competent committee, all authorities are bound to

accept the same and proceed accordingly, and any attempt to

reopen the issue by an incompetent authority is arbitrary, illegal

and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Hence, the impugned notice deserves to be quashed.

9. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the

impugned notice has been issued in the course of administrative

verification and for ensuring the correctness of records, and the

same cannot be said to be without jurisdiction at the threshold. It

is contended that the authority has acted bonafide in calling for

documents to satisfy itself regarding the caste status in the

relevant context. However, learned State counsel fairly does not

dispute the fact that the caste status of the petitioner's daughter

has already been verified by the High Power Caste Certificate

Scrutiny Committee and that a caste verification certificate has

been issued in her favour on 23.07.2008.

10. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and

perused the material available on record.

11. It is not in dispute that the caste status of the petitioner's daughter

has already been duly verified by the High Power Caste

Certificate Scrutiny Committee, which is the competent authority

constituted for such purpose, and a caste verification certificate

has been issued in her favour on 23.07.2008 after following the

prescribed procedure.

12. Once the caste certificate has been subjected to scrutiny and duly

verified by the competent Scrutiny Committee, the same attains

finality and is binding on all authorities subordinate thereto. In

view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), the power of verification and

adjudication of caste status vests exclusively with the Scrutiny

Committee, and no parallel or subordinate authority can assume

jurisdiction to re-open or re-verify the same. Any such attempt

would be clearly without jurisdiction and contrary to the settled

legal position. In the present case, despite the existence of a valid

and subsisting caste verification certificate issued by the

competent Scrutiny Committee, respondent No. 4 has proceeded

to issue the impugned notice dated 03.04.2021 calling upon the

petitioner to appear along with documents for re-verification of

caste status. Such an action, in the considered view of this Court,

is wholly arbitrary, without authority of law and amounts to

overreach of jurisdiction. The respondents are bound to act in

accordance with the certificate already verified and cannot sit in

appeal over the findings recorded by the Scrutiny Committee.

13. The action of respondent No. 4 also falls foul of Articles 14 and 16

of the Constitution of India, as it subjects the petitioner to

unnecessary and repeated verification proceedings despite a

conclusive determination by the competent authority. Permitting

such repeated inquiries would defeat the very purpose of

constituting a specialized Scrutiny Committee and would lead to

uncertainty and harassment.

14. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 03.04.2021 issued by

respondent No. 4 is hereby quashed and set aside. It is held that

respondent No. 4 has no authority to re-verify the caste status of

the petitioner's daughter once the same has already been verified

by the High Power Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee.

15. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh