Madhya Pradesh High Court

Gaurav Dahiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 February, 2024

Author: Vivek Agarwal

Bench: Vivek Agarwal

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 22 nd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 15565 of 2015

BETWEEN:-
SHANKER PRASAD DAHIYA S/O SHRI SOMESHWAR
PRASAD DAHIYA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, VILL.
NAUDHIYA PASCHIM BY PASS DEOSAR POST OFFICE
JIYAWAN DISTT. SINGROULI (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI K.C. GHILDIYAL - SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI
ADITYA VEER SINGH - ADVOCATE)

AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY SCHEDULE CASTE WELFARE
DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)

2. COMMISSIONER SCHEDULE CAST WELFARE
D E PA R T M E N T DISTT. BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)

3. JOINT DIRECTOR ADIM JATI ANUSANDHAN
SANSTHA DISTT. BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. SECRETARY SCHEDULE CAST WELFARE
D E PA R T M E N T DISTT. BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)

5. CHAKRADHAR SINGH CHANDEL GENERAL
SECRETARY DISTRICT YUVAK CONGRESS REWA
DISTT. REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 4)

WRIT PETITION No. 2069 of 2011

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHWANI
PRAJAPATI
Signing time: 26-02-2024
18:02:35
2

BETWEEN:-
RAJENDRA PRASAD SAKET S/O SHRI MANFER RAM
SAKET, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, VILL. PADRA, TAH.
GOPAD BANAS, DISTT. SIDHI. (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI K.C. GHILDIYAL - SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI
ADITYA VEER SINGH - ADVOCATE )

AND
1. SECRETARY THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
REVENUE DEPTT. VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)

2. COMMISSIONER LAND RECORDS &
SETTLEMENTS (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. COLLECTOR DISTT. SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. COMMISSIONER REWA DISTT. REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)

5. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER DISTT. SINGRAULI
(MADHYA PRADESH)

6. SHIWANS DAHIYA S/O SHANKAR PRASAD DAHIYA
VILL. JIYAWAN POST JIYAWAN WEST BY PASS
ROAD DISTT. SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 5)

WRIT PETITION No. 26744 of 2018

BETWEEN:-
SHIWANS DAHIYA S/O SHRI SHANKAR PRASAD
DAHIYA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PATWARI VILL. NODIYA POST OFFICE JIHAWAN TEH.
DEOSAR DISTT. SINGROULI (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI K.C. GHILDIYAL - SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI
ADITYA VEER SINGH - ADVOCATE)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHWANI
PRAJAPATI
Signing time: 26-02-2024
18:02:35
3
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SCHEDULE CAST
WELFARE DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT RESERVATION
CELL VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)

4. COMMISSIONER SCHEDULE CAST WELFARE
D EPARTM EN T RAJEEV GANDHI BHAWAN 35
SHYAMLA HILLS (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER LAND
RECORDS SETTLEMENTS (MPBHUABHILEKH)
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

6. COLLECTOR SINGRAULI DISTT. SINGRAULI M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

WRIT PETITION No. 1987 of 2019

BETWEEN:-
1. GAURAV DAHIYA S/O SHRI SHANKAR PRASAD
DAHIYA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT R/O. VILL. NODIYA POST OFFICE
JIHAWAN TEH. DEOSAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. SHIWANGI DAHIYA W/O SHRI SONU DAHAYAT,
D/O SHRI SHANKAR PRASAD DAHIYA, AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: EMPLOYED R/O
VILLAGE NODIYA POST OFFICE JIHAWAN TEHSIL
DEOSAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. KRITIKA DAHIYA D/O SHIWANS DAHIYA, AGED
ABOUT 3 YEARS, OCCUPATION: THR. NATURAL
GUARDIAN FATHER SHRI SHIWANS DAHIYA R/O
VILLAGE NODIYA POST OFFICE JIHAWAN TEHSIL
DEOSAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHWANI
PRAJAPATI
Signing time: 26-02-2024
18:02:35
4
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SURENDRA VERMA - ADVOCATE)

AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SCHEDULED CASTE
WELFARE DEPT. VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)

2. THE COLLECTOR SINGRAULI DISTT. SINGRAULI
M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER DEOSAR
SINGRAULI DISTT. SINGRAULI M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER

These bunch of petitions (Writ Petition No.15565/2015, W.P.No.26744/2018 & W.P.No.1987/2019), have been filed being aggrieved of the order of the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee declaring that the caste certificates issued in favour of petitioners showing them to be of Scheduled Category, are incorrect and, therefore, they are not entitled to reap benefits of Scheduled Caste category.

2. Placing reliance on Annx.P/5, which is the report of the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 25.07.2015, it is submitted that the findings recorded are perverse.

3. Shri K.C. Ghildiyal, learned Senior Advocate, placing reliance on the judgment of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others [(1994) 6 SCC 241], raises two issues to challenge the said order, namely, constitution of High Level Caste

Scrutiny Committee and the procedure which was required to be followed by the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee.

4. As far as the first ground is concerned i.e. constitution of the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, it is fairly submitted that this issue has already been answered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Rajendra Singh Saluja Vs. State of M.P. and another [2012 (3) MPLJ 199], wherein, Hon'ble Coordinate Bench has held that merely inclusion of a person being a Research Officer in the Scheduled Tribe Department, cannot be said to be not having knowledge of the Scheduled Caste and unless it is proved otherwise, such inclusion will not vitiate the constitution of the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee. Therefore, without adverting to the first issue any further, this Court would like to concentrate on the second issue.

5. It is submitted that the guidelines which have been given in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) and as have been enumerated in para 13 of the said judgment are sacrosanct as has been held by Supreme Court in G.M. Indian Bank Vs. R. Rani and another (2008 AIR SCW 352), Paragraphs 3 & 4 of which are read to point out that these directions given in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) are sacrosanct.

6. Reliance is also placed on three Judges Bench judgment of Supreme Court in Dayaram Vs. Sudhir Batham and others [(2012) 1 SCC 333], wherein, Hon'ble three Judges Bench of Supreme Court in para 22 has noted as under :-

"Therefore, we are of the view, that Directions 1 to 15 issued in exercise of power under Articles 142 and 32 of the Constitution, are valid and laudable, as they were made to fill the vacuum in the absence of any legislation, to ensure that only genuine Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates secured the benefits of reservation and the bogus candidates were kept out. By issuing such directions, this

Court was not taking over the functions of the legislature but merely filling up the vacuum till the legislature chose to make an appropriate law."

7. Thus, it is submitted that directions which have been given in para 13 are sacrosanct.

8. Reading from the judgment in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), it is pointed out that in Sub-para (5) of para 13, it is provided that "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 and thereafter, whole procedure is read over by Shri K.C. Ghildiyal, as is contained in Sub paras (1) to (15) of para 13, to point out that this procedure was not followed.

9. To support his contention, it is pointed out from the impugned order Annx.P/5, that initial investigation in the caste certificate of Shri Shankar Prasad Dahiya, petitioner in Writ Petition No.15565/2015, was carried out by the

Deputy Commissioner, Tribal Development, Rewa, who had given his report on 08.10.1997. This report was furnished on the basis of a complaint which was made by one Youth Congress Representative, Chakradhar Singh Chandel and it was found that Shri S.P. Dahiya, working as Development Block Education Officer, Jaisingh Nagar, despite belonging to OBC category, had obtained a forged certificate under SC category and had obtained appointment. It is submitted that since the initial enquiry was made by the Deputy Commissioner, there is violation of the provisions contained in Sub-para (5) of para 13 of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) and such investigation cannot be said to be valid to record a finding of cancellation of caste certificate of the petitioners.

10. It is pointed out that vide Annx.P/1, Ministry of Law and Justice, issued a Gazette Notification, Thursday, December 18, 2014, (Scheduled Caste) Orders (Amendment) Act, 2014, was notified, wherein, Entry-B on internal Page 2 in Part IX - Madhya Pradesh, for Entry 18, Substitute, - "18. Dahait, Dahayat, Dahat, Dahiya" was substituted. Thus, it is submitted that once through the Presidential Notification, the community has been included, there was no justification for the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee in cancelling the caste certificates issued in favour of the petitioners herein.

11. It is further submitted that these benefits will accrue retrospectively and in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind and others [(2001) 1 SCC 4], the settled position should not be upset and they be allowed to continue in the job or the educational institutions on the strength of their respective caste certificates.

12. Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Govt. Advocate, in his turn, submits that as far as procedure to be followed is concerned, which is the bone of the contention in the present matter, Annx.P/5 reveals that matter was referred to the Superintendent of Police, Rewa, and after obtaining report from the Superintendent of Police, Rewa, which is the spirit of the provisions contained in Sub-para (5) of para 13 of Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra), impugned order has been passed which cannot be faulted with.

13. It is submitted that subsequent notification will not have any retrospective application and, therefore, caste certificates obtained prior to the Presidential Notification contained in Annx.P/1, are required to be set aside and have been rightly set aside by the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee.

14. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, since only issue which is required to be adjudicated with the consent of the

parties is in regard to procedure to be followed, when impugned order Annx.P/5, is examined, then it has come on record that in case of Shankar Prasad Dahiya S/o Shri Someshwar Prasad, Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Project, Piprahi, R/o Village Kankar, Tahsil Teonthar, District Rewa, caste certificate was issued on 02.12.1988 by the Tahsildar Teonthar, Rewa. It has come on record that in the preliminary enquiry, it was found that Shankar Prasad Dahiya belongs to Kotwar caste as per the statements of the villagers and the school register for which statements of the Principal/ Headmaster of the concerned schools were obtained.

15. The matter was sent to the Superintendent of Police vide communication No.Anusandhan/06.07/6638, dated 23.12.2006. Superintendent of Police Rewa, vide his letter No.189, dated 08.02.2007, had sought certain information like clear copy of the caste certificate of Shankar Prasad Dahiya. Thereafter, he had sent his report on 15.11.2011, in which it is mentioned and as was noted by the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee that Headmaster of Government Purva Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, Kankar and Gurh, had informed that as per the school records, caste of the petitioner Shankar Prasad Dahiya was mentioned as Kotwar. He had taken admission in the school on 09.09.1959, when he had mentioned his caste as Kotwar. His father Someshwar was found to be illiterate, therefore, no educational qualification document was found in his context.

16. It was also found that prior to 10.08.1950, house of Someshwar Prasad Dahiya was at Village Kankar, Police Station Gurh, District Rewa, but for last five years, he was residing at Village Nodiya, Police Station Jiyawan, District Sidhi, in his private house.

17. It was found that in the year 1989-90, resident certificate as was issued by Tahsil Teonthar, residence of the petitioner was found to be Village Kankar, Tahsil Teonthar District Rewa.

18. Shri Shankar Prasad Dahiya, had following documents :-

(i) 'Bhu Adhikar Pustika' No.141597 and name of his father is mentioned as Someshwar Kotwar.

(ii) In Khasra Mouza, Tahsil Teonthar, District Rewa, year 2001-02 and 2002-03, Shankar Tanay Someshwar Kotwar, is mentioned.

(iii) Headmaster of Government Purva Madhyamik Vidhyalaya Rewa and Principal Government Higher Secondary School, Gurh, Rewa, in their certificates have shown that as per the school records, caste of Shankar Prasad was mentioned as Kotwar.

19. It has come on record that vide communication No.8614 dated 24.12.2011, enclosing report of the Superintendent of Police Rewa, notice was given to Shankar Prasad Dahiya, asking him to give his version within 15 days, but when no reply was received, then he was given reminder No.0799, dated 03.03.2012 and letter No.142, dated 10.04.2012, letter No.2881, dated 05.07.2012, letter No.8678 dated 22.01.2014, but he did not file any reply.

20. Letter No.6380, dated 22.11.2014, was served on Shankar Prasad Dahiya, through the Deputy Commissioner, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Welfare, Rewa. Though the case was in the personal capacity, but Shri Shankar Prasad Dahiya in his capacity as the Project Officer of the Integrated Tribal Development Project, Piprahi, submitted letter No.637, dated 30.12.2014, in response to communication dated 22.11.2014. In that letter, he mentioned that he has filed a case against said investigation report in the High Court and since that proceeding is pending and his service book has been taken over,

which has not been returned, therefore, he did not file any reply on merits.

21. It is mentioned in the report itself that he did not file any evidence to show that he belongs to Dahayat Scheduled Caste community. Then on 16.1.2015, again a letter No.8203, was sent to Shri Shankar Prasad Dahiya to know his version and he was also informed that original service book is not called and if, he has any acknowledgment of calling of his service book that may be produced, but no cogent reply was produced and he only made allegations of partiality and said that report of Superintendent of Police Sidhi and Singrauli was not called for. But, again he did not produce any evidence to show that he is a member of Dahayat community.

22. Shri Shankar Prasad Dahiya was given a letter asking him to appear before the committee on 25.07.2015, but despite service of this communication dated 03.07.2015, he did not appear before the authorities.

23. At this stage, it will not be out of place to mention that Shri Ghildiyal, Senior Advocate, submits that there was some contemplation at the level of the State Government, inasmuch as, vide letter No.F23-40/2000/25-04 dated 15.10.2004, some communication was made in regard to inclusion of Kotwar community in the fold of Scheduled Caste, but that letter was stayed vide communication dated 25.01.2006, and was ultimately quashed vide order dated 11.12.2014. Thus, it is submitted that when there was a inclusive contemplation, then issuance of caste certificates during that contemplation, cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal.

24. However, fact of the matter is that State government if was contemplating to add Kotwars under the Dahayat community or to include Dahayat community under the fold of Scheduled Caste, then it was not within its domain to issue a

Presidential Notification as has been issued and as contained in Annx.P/1. Therefore, that contemplation may at best be for political or social reasons, but will not give any assistance to the petitioners, because any certificate issued prior to issuance of Presidential Notification as contained in Annx.P/1 dated 18.12.2014, will not come to the assistance of any person who obtained caste certificate prior to that date.

25. In fact, a caste certificate issued prior to 18.12.2014, when Annx.P/1 was issued, will still be a forged and invalid certificate.

26. Thus, when the procedure adopted by the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee is examined in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) and the steps which the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee was required to take in terms of the stipulations contained in para 13 from Sub-paras (1)to (15), then no procedural irregularity can be attached to the steps taken by the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee.

27. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that since Gazette Notification Annx.P/1 dated 18.10.2014, will not have any retrospective application, any caste certificate issued prior to that will not give any right to the persons obtaining such caste certificate to claim benefits of a Scheduled Caste community and, therefore, cancellation of caste certificate as has been ordered by the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee as contained in Annx.P/5, will have its natural consequences as have been noted in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) in para 14, which reads as under :-

"Since this procedure could be fair and just and shorten the undue delay and also prevent avoidable expenditure for the State on the education of the candidate admitted/appointed on false social status or further continuance therein, every State

concerned, should endeavour to give effect to it and see that the constitutional objectives intended for the benefit and advancement of the genuine Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes as the case may be, are not defeated by unscrupulous persons."

28. Therefore, when examined in the light of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, then natural consequence will be cancellation of the appointment of the petitioners secured on the basis of the false caste certificates.

29. The benefit of Milind (supra), is under the extraordinary circumstance, inasmuch as, he had taken admission in a Medical College and the Supreme Court took a compassionate view that a seat in the Medical College be not allowed to be vested, whereas, that view taken under Article 141 of the Constitution is not a binding president and that cannot be exercised by the High Court. Therefore, ratio of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Milind (supra) will be of no assistance to the facts of the present case.

30. Accordingly, petitions (Writ Petition No.15565/2015, W.P.No.26744/2018 & W.P.No.1987/2019), fail and are dismissed.

31. So far as petition (W.P.No.2069/2011) is concerned, petitioner is claiming appointment on the post of Patwari. His contention is that he is a wait listed candidate. It is submitted that in connected cases, Shri Shivansh Dahiya, obtained appointment as Patwari on the basis of forged caste certificate and that caste certificate has been set aside by the State Level, High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee and that has been upheld by this Court, a direction be issued to the respondents to consider his case and if, the operation of the waiting list is permissible, then they may issue appointment order to the persons

whose name are mentioned in the waiting list strictly in accordance to seniority and the procedure to be followed in that behalf.

32. This prayer is not opposed by Shri Manas Mani Verma, Government Advocate.

33. Accordingly, petition (W.P.No.2069/2011), i s disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and since this Court has upheld the cancellation of caste certificate of Shri Shivansh Dahiya, if petitioner finds place at Serial No.1 in the waiting list, or if there is some other more meritorious candidates, then the petitioner in the waiting list, then his case be considered for appointment in accordance with law. Let this exercise be completed within sixty days of receipt of certified copy of the order being passed today.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE A.Praj.