Jharkhand High Court
Ruby Hurdwar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 July, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 4045 of 2021
---
Ruby Hurdwar ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and
Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Secretary, Department of Schedule Tribe, Schedule Caste, Minority
and Backward Class Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. The Secretary, Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
5. The Chairman, Caste Scrutiny Committee, Welfare Department, Ranchi
6. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi
7. The Circle Officer, Kanke, District- Ranchi .... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. J.J. Sanga, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, G.A.-IV
Order No. 04 Dated: 06.07.2022
The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon
the respondent no. 5- the Chairman, Caste Scrutiny Committee, Welfare
Department, Ranchi to take decision with respect to caste status of the
petitioner's son - Soumya Sambhaw in pursuance of the petitioner's
representation dated 12.04.2021 addressed to the respondent no. 5 in the
light of notification dated 08.07.2004 issued by the Department of
Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of
Jharkhand.
2. Mr. J.J. Sanga, Learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that
petitioner is the member of Scheduled Tribe (Munda). Marriage between
the petitioner and one Raman Kumar Jha was solemnized on 29.05.2010
and out of the said wedlock, their son- Soumya Sambhaw was born on
08.12.2011. The matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and
Raman Kumar Jha could not continue for long and their marriage got
dissolved under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide
judgment dated 10.12.2020 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Bokaro in Original Suit No. 96 of 2020. It is further submitted that Soumya
Sambhaw remained with the petitioner since his birth and even after
dissolution of marriage of the petitioner, he is staying with her. Thus, she
has the reasons to believe that Soumya Sambhaw must also be treated as
a member of Scheduled Tribe. Accordingly, she made an application before
the respondent no. 5 on 12.04.2021 keeping in view the notification dated
08.07.2004 issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand in the light of
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari
Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal
Development & Ors. reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241, however, no
decision has been taken on the caste status of Soumya Sambhaw on
merit.
3. Mr. Mithilesh Singh, learned G.A.-IV appearing on behalf of the
respondents, refers to the minutes of meeting of the Caste Scrutiny
Committee dated 06.10.2021 and submits that pursuant to the petitioner's
application, the matter with regard to issuance of caste certificate of
Scheduled Tribe to the petitioner's son Soumya Sambhaw was taken up as
Agenda No. 26, however the same was not considered on merit observing
that the matter of the petitioner was not within the jurisdiction of Caste
Scrutiny Committee.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials
available on record.
5. The respondents in their counter affidavit have also referred to
notification no. 1436 dated 18.02.2019 issued by the Department of
Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of
Jharkhand wherein domain of the Caste Scrutiny Committee has been
explained. It has been mentioned in clause-1 that only those cases should
come before the Caste Scrutiny Committee which require consideration at
the higher level as also the same have been referred by the authorised
officers to high level committee. As per clause-2, those cases are to be
considered by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in which applications for grant
of certificate of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Extremely Backward
Class (Schedule-I)/Backward Class (Schedule-II), and Other Backward
Class (OBC) have been rejected by the authorised officers and appeals
have been filed before the said committee against rejection of such
applications.
6. The original notification issued by the state government on
08.07.2004 in terms with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
rendered in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another (supra),
also contains the same condition that only such matters should be placed
before the Caste Scrutiny Committee which require consideration by a high
level committee.
7. So far as the fact of present case is concerned, it is not possible for
the district level authorities to determine the caste status of Soumya
Sambhaw keeping in view the background of the said child as has been
mentioned above. Otherwise also, it has not been brought to the notice of
this Court that the district level caste scrutiny committee has been
constituted.
8. Hence, without commenting on the caste status of the petitioner's
son- Soumya Sambhaw, the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Jharkhand is
directed to take up the matter of the petitioner's son- Soumya Sambhaw
afresh and to take an appropriate decision on his caste status after
following due procedure within two months from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid direction.
Ritesh/ (Rajesh Shankar, J.)
