Raushan Kumar Nanda vs The State Of Jharkhand And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 4737 Jhar

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                W.P.(S) No. 4454 of 2019

                Raushan Kumar Nanda                           ...      ...     Petitioner
                                     Versus
            The State of Jharkhand and others    ...       ...       Respondents
                                     ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

            For the Petitioner       : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
                                     : Ms. Apoorva Singh, Advocate
            For the Respondents      : Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, Advocate
                                     ---

08/28.11.2022          Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the petitioner along with Ms. Apoorva Singh, Advocate.

2. Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465 para 39 (Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan versus State of Maharashtra and Others) and submits that the necessary enquiries in connection with the scrutiny of the caste certificate of the petitioner has not been done in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another versus Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 and therefore the impugned order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. He has submitted that the consequential order of dismissal of the petitioner are also not sustainable. He has also submitted that if the report of the Caste Scrutiny Committee is set aside then the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner would also not survive.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has produced the original records of Caste Scrutiny Committee. Two officers of the Welfare Department have also appeared before this court. The affidavit on the basis of which caste certificate was issued to the petitioner has not been found in the records of Caste Scrutiny Committee in connection with which it was alleged that the caste certificate was issued by filing false affidavit. The records of the case indicates that notices were issued to the petitioner by the caste scrutiny committee vide letters

dated 26.04.2019 and 02.05.2019 to produce the necessary documents. The notices are at Annexure-19 and Annexure-19/1 of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the caste certificate issued in favour of father of the petitioner in the year 2003, which has been filed along with the writ petition, was never produced by the petitioner or his father before the Caste Scrutiny Committee. He has also submitted that the certificate issued in the year 2003 shows that the father of the petitioner is a permanent resident of Mandar, Ranchi although caste certificate/residential certificate issued in the year 1989/1998 showed that the father of the petitioner is a permanent resident of Rohtas District and before the Caste Scrutiny Committee also, a specific stand was taken by the petitioner and his father that they are permanent resident of Rohtas, Bihar. He has also submitted that caste certificate issued to the petitioner indicated that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Mandar which has a bearing in the claim of reservation of the petitioner. The petitioner claims to belong to SC category (Dhobi).

5. Arguments concluded.

6. Post for this case for dictation of judgment on 29.11.2022.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit