Jharkhand High Court
Ritlal Prasad Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 September, 2024
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No.2300 of 2021
----
Ritlal Prasad Mandal, aged about 55 years, son of Govind
Mandal, presently residing at Q. No.LKP-B/13, Bandhabahal,
P.O. & P.S.-Bandhabahal, District-Jharsuguda, PIN 768211
(Odisha) and permanent resident of Village-Chungalo, P.O.
& P.S.-Jamua, District-Giridih, PIN 815318 (Jharkhand)
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, Department of Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled
Caste, Minority and Backward Class Welfare, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.-
Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand)
3. Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms & Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan,
P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand)
4. Tribal Welfare Commissioner, Govt. of Jharkhand, 2nd Floor,
Government Secretariat, Project Bhawan, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.-
Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand)
5. Joint Secretary, Department of Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled
Caste, Minority and Backward Class Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand,
Project Bhawan, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagannathpur, District-
Ranchi (Jharkhand)
6. Director, Dr. Ramdayal Munda Tribal Welfare Research Institute,
having office at Tribal Museum, Tagore Hill Road, Tetartoli, PO-
Morabadi, PO-Gonda, District-Ranchi, PIN 834008 (Jharkhand)
.... .... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Adv.
: Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush, Adv.
For the Respondents : Ms. P.M. Indu, AC to AAG-IV
----
th
15/Dated: 09 September, 2024
1. Heard the parties.
2. It appears that in the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the
order contained in Memo No.521 dated 27.02.2021 issued under the signature of
Member Secretary, Caste Inquiry Committee-cum-Joint Secretary, Department of
Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste, Minority and Backward Class Welfare,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. From the arguments and pleadings of the parties, it appears that petitioner
has claimed himself to be a member of Scheduled Tribe. His mother namely,
Parwati Korin is a Member of Scheduled Tribe community and this fact has not
been disputed. She got married with one Govind Mandal who is a member of the
backward caste community and a hindu and the petitioner has born out of their
wedlock.
5. It appears that petitioner has claimed that he has been raised as a member
of the Scheduled Tribe and accordingly he has applied for the caste certificate
which has been granted by the State of Bihar vide Caste Certificate dated
15.06.1992.
6. It appears that from the strength of the above caste certificate, he got
appointment in Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Sambalpur on the post of
Production-cum- Safety Assistant in the year 1995.
7. It further appears that a complaint has been made to the concerned
department regarding the status of the petitioner vis a vis caste and thereupon a
departmental proceeding has been initiated and the petitioner has been terminated
vide order dated 25.07.2008. It further appears that the said termination order has
been challenged by filing W.P.(C). No.20594 of 2009 in the Hon'ble Orissa High
Court and the same has been allowed vide order dated 06.08.2015 by quashing
the said order of termination.
8. It further appears that thereafter, the employer has referred the matter to
the caste scrutiny committee and upon such reference, recommendation has been
made by impugned memo and after getting the matter enquired, the Committee
has cancelled the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner vide memo
dated 27.02.2021.
9. It further appears that in the meantime a criminal case has also been lodged
being G.R. No.995 of 2006 in which the petitioner has been acquitted by the trial
court vide judgment dated 10.12.2012.
10. In view of above factual matrix, learned counsel for the petitioner has
raised the following issues:-
i. The Caste Scrutiny Committee is not a competent authority to cancel the
caste certificate rather he has to only recommend for cancellation.
ii. The mandatory process prescribed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Kumari Madhuri Patil case has not been followed in the present case.
11. He has also relied upon the judgment reported in 2023 SCC Online
Jharkhand 48 in the case of Samri Lal Vrs. State of Jharkhand by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court.
12. Learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned order and it has
been submitted that after due enquiry, the order has been passed.
13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the
record, it appears that the caste of the petitioner has been disputed. The Hon'ble
Apex Court in the judgment reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 in the case of Kumari
Madhuri Patil Vrs. Additional Commissioner Tribal Development has issued
a detailed guideline. The said judgment has been reiterated in the case of
Dayaram Vrs. Sudhir Batham reported in (2012) 1 SCC 333.
14. The said judgment in similar circumstance has been considered by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.01.2023 passed in W.P.(C)
No.1583 of 2022. Relevant paragraph Nos.39, 40, 41 and 58 of the said judgment
are quoted hereinbelow:
39. Having observed so, Their Lordships have streamlined the procedure for
the issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and approval as
contained in paragraph-13 which is as under:
"1. The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to
the Revenue Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy
Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such officer rather
than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level.
2. The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be, shall file
an affidavit duly sworn and attested by a competent gazetted officer or
non-gazetted officer with particulars of castes and sub-castes, tribe,
tribal community, parts or groups of tribes or tribal communities, the
place from which he originally hails from and other particulars as may
be prescribed by the Directorate concerned.
3. Application for verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny
Committee shall be filed at least six months in advance before seeking
admission into educational institution or an appointment to a post.
4. All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three
officers, namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer
high-er in rank of the Director of the department concerned, (II) the
Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as
the case may be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another
officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of
the social status certificates. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the
Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes,
tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities.
5. Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of
Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in over-all charge and such
number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims.
The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original
place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of
migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed
from. The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the
facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or
guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the school
records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent,
guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other
persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and
then submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars as
envisaged in the pro forma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes
relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity,
rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial
of dead bodies etc. by the castes or tribes or tribal communities
concerned etc.
6. The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the vigilance
officer if he found the claim for social status to be "not genuine" or
'doubtful' or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director
concerned should issue show-cause notice supplying a copy of the
report of the vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post with
acknowledgement due or through the head of the educational
institution concerned in which the candidate is studying or employed.
The notice should indicate that the representation or reply, if any,
would be made within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the
notice and in no case on request not more than 30 days from the date of
the receipt of the notice. In case, the candidate seeks for an opportunity
of hearing and claims an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the Director
on receipt of such representation/reply shall convene the committee
and the Joint/Additional Secretary as Chairperson who shall give
reasonable opportunity to the candidate/parent/guardian to adduce all
evidence in support of their claim. A public notice by beat of drum or
any other convenient mode may be published in the village or locality
and if any person or association opposes such a claim, an opportunity
to adduce evidence may be given to him/it. After giving such
opportunity either in person or through counsel, the Committee may
make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-à-
vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an
appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof.
7. In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be
genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the
report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or
fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is
envisaged in para 6 be followed.
8. Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the
parents/guardian also in case candidate is minor to appear before the
Committee with all evidence in his or their support of the claim for the
social status certificates.
9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible
preferably by day-to-day proceedings within such period not exceeding
two months. If after inquiry, the Caste Scrutiny Committee finds the
claim to be false or spurious, they should pass an order cancelling the
certificate issued and confiscate the same. It should communicate
within one month from the date of the conclusion of the proceedings
the result of enquiry to the parent/guardian and the applicant.
10. In case of any delay in finalising the proceedings, and in the
meanwhile the last date for admission into an educational institution or
appointment to an officer post, is getting expired, the candidate be
admitted by the Principal or such other authority competent in that
behalf or appointed on the basis of the social status certificate already
issued or an affidavit duly sworn by the parent/guardian/candidate
before the competent officer or non-official and such admission or
appointment should be only provisional, subject to the result of the
inquiry by the Scrutiny Committee.
11. The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive
only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
12. No suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie.
13. The High Court would dispose of these cases as expeditiously as
possible within a period of three months. In case, as per its procedure,
the writ petition/miscellaneous petition/matter is disposed of by a
Single Judge, then no further appeal would lie against that order to the
Division Bench but subject to special leave under Article 136.
14. In case, the certificate obtained or social status claimed is found to
be false, the parent/guardian/the candidate should be prosecuted for
making false claim. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and
sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as an offence involving
moral turpitude, disqualification for elective posts or offices under the
State or the Union or elections to any local body, legislature or
Parliament.
15. As soon as the finding is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee
holding that the certificate obtained was false, on its cancellation and
confiscation simultaneously, it should be communicated to the
educational institution concerned or the appointing authority by
registered post with acknowledgement due with a request to cancel the
admission or the appointment. The Principal etc. of the educational
institution responsible for making the admission or the appointing
authority, should cancel the admission/appointment without any further
notice to the candidate and debar the candidate from further study or
continue in office in a post."
40. Thus in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has laid down detailed procedure for investigating the claim of social
status of any person. It has been observed that there should be a vigilance cell
consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in over-all charge and
such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims.
The Inspector will visit the local place of residence and original place from
where the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to a town
or city, the Inspector will visit the place from which the said candidate hails.
The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of
social status claimed by the candidate or the parents or guardian, as the case
may be. He should examine the school records, birth registration, if any, as
well as the parents, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or
such other persons who may have knowledge of social status of the candidate
and then to submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars as
envisaged in the proforma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribe relating to its
peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode
of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. Their
Lordships have further held that if on receipt of the report from the vigilance
officer, the Director concerned finds the claim for social status to be "not
genuine" or 'doubtful' or "spurious" or "falsely or wrongly claimed", the said
authority will issue show-cause notice to the candidate supplying a copy of
the report of the vigilance officer and in case the candidate seeks for an
opportunity of hearing and claims an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the
Director concerned on receipt of such representation/reply shall convene
meeting of the committee and the Joint/Additional Secretary as Chairperson
of the Committee, shall afford reasonable opportunity to the
candidate/parents/guardian to adduce all evidence in support of their claim. It
has also been held that a public notice shall also be published in the village or
locality so as to give opportunity to the concerned person for adducing
evidence if he wishes to oppose such a claim and thereafter the Committee
may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-à-
vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and then pass an
appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof.
41. Facts of the present case suggests that the said Committee on receipt of
the complaint of the respondent no.4 sought inquiry report from the Deputy
Commissioner, Ranchi vide departmental letter no. 2385 dated 26.11.2020
whereupon the Circle Officer, Badgai, Ranchi was directed to make an
enquiry who after conducting the same submitted his report vide letter no.
896 dated 09.12.2020 which was sent to the Committee through the Deputy
Commissioner, Ranchi and thereafter a notice was issued to the petitioner
along with copies of the complaint and report. It further transpires that the
Committee in the meantime also called for the records from the Ranchi
Municipal Corproation and RIMS with respect to the residential status of the
petitioner/his ancestors and service records of his father- Late Mishrilal
Balmiki, however the same were not sent by both RMC and RIMS due to
unavailability of such records. Thereafter the Committee requested the
Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi to submit its further report on specific point as
to whether at the time of issuance of caste certificate in the year 2009, the
guidelines mentioned in various letters of Government of India as well as of
Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha,
Government of Jharkhand were followed. In response to the said query, it was
reported by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi that no record was available in
the office of the Circle Officer, Town Circle, Ranchi to suggest that the
petitioner's family was residing within the territorial jurisdiction of State of
Jharkhand prior to the year 1950. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi further
reported that the benefit taken by the petitioner on the basis of caste
certificate issued to him in the year 2009 was improper as he did not fulfill
the eligibility criteria of being a member of Scheduled Caste belonging to the
State of Jharkhand. The petitioner was then asked to submit reply and
thereafter the Committee passed the impugned order cancelling his caste
certificate.
58. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 01.04.2022
passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee cannot be sustained in law and thus
the same is quashed. The matter is remitted to the Cast Scrutiny Committee
with following directions:-
(i) The concerned department of the Government shall constitute a
Vigilance Cell in conformity with the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra).
(ii) The Vigilance Cell will conduct a preliminary inquiry on the
complaint of the respondent no.4 and submit a report to the Committee
strictly following the procedures laid down in the judgment rendered in
the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra).
(iii) If it is found from the report that the caste certificate of the
petitioner is illegal, the Committee will issue show cause notice to the
petitioner to submit reply, otherwise the Committee will drop the
proceeding.
(iv) The Committee, after receiving reply of the petitioner (if the
situation so warrants), will provide adequate opportunity to the
petitioner as well as the respondent no.4 to adduce their respective
evidences and to rebut the rival claims.
(v) Thereafter, the Committee will pass final order on affording due
opportunity of hearing to the parties.
15. In the present case, the enquiry has not been done by the vigilance cell
which is a mandatory procedure prescribed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
16. In view of the factual matrix of this case and the law laid by this Court, the
impugned Memo No.521 dated 27.02.2021 issued under the signature of Member
Secretary, Caste Inquiry Committee-cum-Joint Secretary, Department of
Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste, Minority and Backward Class Welfare,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi is, hereby, quashed and set aside as the caste
scrutiny committee has not followed the mandatory procedure prescribed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court.
17. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of in terms of
paragraph-58 of the above judgment reported in 2023 SCC Online Jharkhand
48.
18. With the above observation and direction, the present writ petition stands
disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Shahid-
Uploaded
