Surendra Kumar Kotendra vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 1076 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Surendra Kumar Kotendra vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 March, 2026

                                                                  1




                                                                                                       NAFR

                                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                                    WPC No. 921 of 2020

                   1 - Surendra Kumar Kotendra S/o Late Shri Dehari Ram Kotendra Aged
                   About 58 Years Occupation Service Lecturer, Government Boys Higher
                   Secondary School, Daundilohara, District Balod Chhattisgarh, R/o
VISHAKHA
BEOHAR             Village Badgaon, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod,
Digitally signed
by VISHAKHA
                   Chhattisgarh                                                            ... Petitioner(s)
BEOHAR
                                                              versus
                   1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Scheduled Castes
                   And     Scheduled Tribes            Development          Department,         Naya      Raipur
                   Mantralaya, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
                   2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through School Education Department, Naya
                   Raipur, Mantralaya, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
                   Chhattisgarh
                   3 - High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee Through Its Member
                   Secretary Cum Director, Tribal And Scheduled Castes And Scheduled
                   Tribes Development, Office At Block 4 D, Ground Floor, Naya Raipur,
                   Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
                   4 - Collector Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod,
                   Chhattisgarh                                                            ... Respondents
                          (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)
                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   For Petitioner        :-      Mr. R.K. Bhagat, Advocate
                   For State             :-      Mr. D.R. Minj, Dy. A.G.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SB-Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order on Board

27.03.2026

1. In the present petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order

dated 25.01.2020 passed by the High Power Certification Scrutiny

Committee, whereby the caste certificate issued in favour of the

petitioner has been cancelled and the concerned authorities have

been directed to take appropriate steps in accordance with the

provisions contained in Section 9(3) of the Chhattisgarh

Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward

Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013 and

under Rules 23(3), 23(5) and 24(1) of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled

Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes

(Regulation of Social Status Certification) Rules, 2013. By way of

this petition, the petitioner is challenging the legality, validity and

propriety of the aforesaid impugned order.

2. The petitioners have filed this Writ Petition seeking following

reliefs:-

" 10.1 That the petitioner most humbly and respectfully prays to this Hon'ble Court to issue appropriate writ/order/direction for quashment of impugned order dated 25.1.2020 contained in ANNEXURE-P/1.

10.2 That the petitioner most humbly and respectfully prays to this Hon'ble Court to issue appropriate writ/order/direction to hold that the

caste certificate issued to the petitioner contained in ANNEXURE-P/2 as valid.

10.3 Any other relief whatsoever, this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be granted to the petitioner."

3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was issued a caste

certificate by the competent authority certifying him to be a

member of Scheduled Caste namely "Mahar", which is a notified

Scheduled Caste under clause (1) of Article 341 of the

Constitution of India in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh and

continues to remain so in the State of Chhattisgarh after its

bifurcation. That, on the basis of his educational qualifications and

the benefit of his social status as a Scheduled Caste candidate,

the petitioner was appointed by respondent No. 2 on 24.01.1983

and is presently serving as Lecturer at Government Boys Higher

Secondary School, Daundilohara, District Balod (Chhattisgarh).

That, in the year 2013, a vague complaint was made against the

petitioner along with 17 other persons alleging illegal appointment

on the basis of forged caste certificates. Pursuant to the said

complaint, preliminary enquiries were conducted by the Sub

Divisional Officer (Revenue), District Balod and the District Level

Scrutiny Committee and the matter was thereafter referred on

06.02.2013 to the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee.

That, the said Committee initiated an enquiry through the

Vigilance Cell and Investigation Assistant. The Vigilance Cell, on

the basis of documentary evidence, raised certain objections and

arrived at an erroneous conclusion by introducing a non-existent

caste category termed "Baya Mahara", despite no such entry

being found in any of the documents. That, simultaneously, the

Investigation Assistant conducted a detailed enquiry including

examination of the petitioner's ancestral profession, mother

tongue, family deities and social status and submitted a report

affirming that the petitioner shares identical social status with

members of the "Mahar" community. That, despite such affirmative

findings, the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee, without

properly considering the report of the Investigation Assistant and

ignoring relevant material on record, passed the impugned order

dated 25.01.2020 cancelling the petitioner's caste certificate and

directing the concerned authorities to take action under Section

9(3) of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and

Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status

Certification) Act, 2013 and Rules 23(3), 23(5) and 24(1) of the

Rules, 2013.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned

order dated 25.01.2020 passed by the High Power Certification

Scrutiny Committee is wholly arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in

the eyes of law. It is contended that the caste "Mahar" is a duly

notified Scheduled Caste under clause (1) of Article 341 of the

Constitution of India and continues to remain so in the State of

Chhattisgarh, and therefore the very basis of cancellation of the

petitioner's caste certificate is contrary to the constitutional

scheme. It is further submitted that the Scrutiny Committee has

failed to follow the settled principles governing determination of

caste status, inasmuch as it has neither properly appreciated the

documentary evidence, including pre-Independence documents

having high probative value, nor has it considered the affinity test

conducted by the Investigation Assistant, who has categorically

affirmed that the petitioner shares identical social status with

members of the "Mahar" community. It is argued that the Vigilance

Cell has arrived at an absurd and perverse conclusion by

introducing a non-existent caste category "Baya Mahara", which

finds no place in any record, and such finding is wholly baseless.

It is further submitted that no proper opportunity of hearing was

afforded to the petitioner and the principles of natural justice have

been violated, as the veracity of documents was not tested

through proper enquiry or oral evidence. It is also contended that

the Vigilance Officer has nowhere held that the documents

submitted by the petitioner are false, nor was any competent

authority examined to discredit the same. Learned counsel further

submits that as per Rule 21 of the Rules, 2013, once the Vigilance

Cell report supports the claim of the petitioner, no adverse action

ought to have been taken, however the Scrutiny Committee has

deliberately ignored and suppressed the favourable findings of the

Investigation Assistant. It is also argued that invocation of Section

9(3) of the Act, 2013 and Rules 23(3), 23(5) and 24(1) of the

Rules, 2013 is wholly unwarranted, as there is no finding that the

petitioner obtained the caste certificate by fraud or

misrepresentation. It is further submitted that the petitioner has

been serving since 1983 and would suffer irreparable loss if the

impugned order is given effect, despite there being no allegation

of fraud. It is also pointed out that in the case of a close relative,

the caste certificate has already been verified and upheld by the

same Scrutiny Committee, and in an identical matter this Hon'ble

High Court has granted interim protection. Hence, the impugned

order deserves to be quashed being arbitrary, perverse and in

violation of settled legal principles.

5. Learned State counsel submits that the present writ petition is

devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed, as the impugned

order dated 25.01.2020 passed by the High Power Certification

Scrutiny Committee is just, proper and in accordance with law. It is

submitted that the said Committee has been duly constituted in

compliance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Ku. Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal

Development & Others in Civil Appeal No. 5854/1994 dated

02.09.1994 and is fully competent to examine the validity of caste

certificates. It is further submitted that, upon receipt of complaint

alleging that the petitioner had secured appointment on the basis

of a forged caste certificate, a detailed enquiry was conducted

through the Vigilance Cell, wherein statements of the petitioner

and other witnesses were recorded, documentary evidence

including school admission registers and ancestral records were

examined and village level enquiry (Munadi) was also carried out.

It is contended that the enquiry revealed inconsistencies in the

caste entries of the petitioner's forefathers, wherein different

documents reflected caste as "Mahara" and "Baya", and on

cumulative assessment of the material available on record, the

Vigilance Cell concluded that the petitioner belongs to "Baya

Mahara", which is not a notified Scheduled Caste in the State of

Chhattisgarh. It is further submitted that the petitioner was

afforded adequate opportunity of hearing and to produce

documents in support of his claim, however, he failed to produce

any reliable document, particularly pre-1950 record, to

substantiate that he belongs to "Mahar" Scheduled Caste, and

therefore failed to discharge the burden of proof cast upon him. It

is also submitted that the Scrutiny Committee has considered the

entire material placed before it and has rightly relied upon the

findings of the Vigilance Cell, which were based on proper enquiry

conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure and the

guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is contended that

there is no violation of principles of natural justice or statutory

provisions, as the enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance

with the provisions of the Act, 2013 and the Rules framed

thereunder. It is further submitted that as per the Presidential

Notification and settled legal position, the caste status has to be

determined on the basis of authentic records of the forefathers

prior to 1950, and in absence of such proof, the claim of the

petitioner cannot be accepted. It is thus submitted that the

Scrutiny Committee has rightly cancelled the caste certificate

issued to the petitioner, as the same was found to be not in

accordance with law, and therefore the impugned order does not

call for any interference by this Hon'ble Court and the petition is

liable to be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

7. From the bare perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner

has placed on record documentary evidence pertaining to the year

1929, wherein the caste of his predecessor/forefather has been

recorded as "Mahar". Such entry, being an old document of pre-

Constitution period, carries significant evidentiary value in caste

determination, particularly when it relates to the paternal lineage

of the claimant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil

Guidelines laid down that greater probative value is to be attached

to ancient documents and entries relating to the forefathers of the

candidate, especially those prepared prior to the commencement

of the Constitution, as such documents are less susceptible to

manipulation and provide a reliable basis for determination of

social status.

8. Further, merely because in some subsequent documents there

appears variation in nomenclature such as "Mahara" or "Baya",

the same by itself cannot dislodge the earlier authentic entry

unless there is clear material to establish that the petitioner

belongs to a different social group altogether. Variations in

spelling, local dialect or descriptive usage cannot be treated as

conclusive proof of exclusion when the core caste identity remains

traceable to the notified caste.

9. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anand v. Committee

for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims (2011) 6 SCC 523 has

held that caste verification must be based on the cumulative effect

of documentary evidence and affinity, and not on isolated

discrepancies in nomenclature. The Supreme Court emphasized

adherence to due process and natural justice during verification. It

held that individuals must receive notice, reasons, and opportunity

to present evidence before certificates are invalidated. The Court

distinguished between fraudulent claims and procedural

deficiencies, stressing that legitimate claimants should not be

penalized by administrative lapses.

10. It is also noticeable that the Investigation Assistant, after

conducting enquiry with regard to family background, social

customs, mother tongue, traditional occupation and affinity traits,

submitted a report supporting the petitioner's claim that he shares

identical social characteristics with members of the "Mahar"

community. Once such favourable material was available, the

Scrutiny Committee was required to assign cogent reasons for

discarding the same; however, the impugned order does not

reflect any proper consideration of that report. On the contrary, the

Vigilance Cell introduced the expression "Baya Mahara", which

admittedly does not find place in any statutory Scheduled Caste

notification. Such conclusion, unsupported by any authentic

material, cannot form a valid basis to deprive a person of his

established caste status.

11. The Court further takes note of the fact that the petitioner

was appointed in service as far back as 24.01.1983 and has

continued in service for several decades. At present, he is serving

on the post of Lecturer and is stated to be near

retirement/promotion stage. There is no finding recorded by the

Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner obtained the caste

certificate by practising fraud or by deliberate suppression of

material facts. In absence of any proved fraud, long standing civil

consequences flowing from service cannot be disturbed on

doubtful interpretation of caste entries.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v.

Milind (2001) 1 SCC 4 has emphasized that while caste

verification must be strict, findings must rest on clear legal

foundation and not on conjectural assumptions. The decision

reaffirmed the constitutional scheme that protects the integrity of

Scheduled Tribe lists. It curtailed state-level flexibility and

underscored the finality of presidential notifications. The judgment

also affected thousands of individuals who had received benefits

under mistaken caste certificates, leading to subsequent policy

and legal discussions on protecting bona fide beneficiaries while

maintaining constitutional fidelity.

13. It is equally settled that a person cannot be denied the caste

status to which he genuinely belongs merely because of marginal

inconsistency in later records when foundational ancestral

documents support his claim. In the present case, the earliest

available document of the year 1929 consistently supports the

petitioner's claim of belonging to "Mahar", which is a notified

Scheduled Caste under Article 341 of the Constitution, and the

said document has not been declared forged or fabricated by any

competent authority.

14. Accordingly, considering the totality of facts, this Court is of

the view that the impugned order dated 25.01.2020 passed by the

High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee suffers from illegality,

perversity and non-consideration of material evidence and

therefore cannot be sustained in law.

15. Consequently, the impugned order dated 25.01.2020 is

hereby quashed and set aside. The writ petition stands allowed.

sd/-

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha