Anaar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 1050 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Anaar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 July, 2025

         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28815




                                                              1                             WP-19195-2025
                              IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT JABALPUR
                                                         BEFORE
                                              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
                                                    ON THE 2 nd OF JULY, 2025
                                                WRIT PETITION No. 19195 of 2025
                                                    ANAAR SINGH
                                                       Versus
                                      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                                   Shri Ayur Jain - Advocate for the Petitioner.
                                   Shri   Mohan     Sousarkar      -   Government    Advocate    for   the
                           Respondent/State.

                                                                  ORDER

The present petition has been filed challenging the Order Annexure P- 6 whereby the representation of the petitioner for cancelling appointment of respondent No.4 has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that selection process for appointment of Panchayat Karmi was initiated in the year 2006 wherein the respondent No.4 was at Sr. No.1 in the merit and the petitioner was at Sr.

No.2 in the merit list. The respondent No.4 was appointed but later, it was brought to the notice of the petitioner that the Caste Certificate of Respondent No.4 mentioning him to be ST Candidate was in fact obtained fraudulently and he does not belong to ST community but belongs to Lohar Community which is OBC in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon the complaint

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28815

2 WP-19195-2025 of the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted by the Naib Tahsildar and the Naib Tahsildar after conducting detailed enquiry has found that the respondent No.4 in fact belongs to Lohar Caste which is OBC in the State of Madhya Pradesh and does not belong to Gond Tribe for which he has got ST status Certificate. Therefore, he ought to have been removed from the post. The petitioner's representation has been erroneously rejected vide Order Annexure P-6 on the ground that the respondent No.4 was not appointed on the basis of ST Certificate but was appointed on the basis of his own merit without giving any benefit of ST status to respondent No.4.

3. It is contended that irrespective of this fact, once ST status Certificate was fraudulently obtained, then respondent No.4 has to be removed from service.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition.

5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the rival parties, it is evident that it is undisputed that the respondent No.4 was granted ST status certificate of Gond Tribe. The said Certificate has not been declared fraudulent by the Higher/State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil And Another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others reported in AIR 1995 SCC 94.

6. The petition seeking to challenge the appointment of respondent No.4 only on the basis of enquiry conducted by Naib Tahsildar is utterly misplaced because this Court would not issue any writ only on the basis of a subsequent enquiry carried out by a Class III Officer holding the rank of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:28815

3 WP-19195-2025 Naib Tahsildar without the Caste Scrutiny Committee taking any decision in the matter. The Caste Certificate has not been found to be forged but it is being alleged to be obtained by fraud as the respondent No.4 is being stated to be of OBC Category in place of ST Category.

7. Unless a Caste Certificate once issued and is not found to be forged, no interference can be made by this Court unless, it is declared to be fraudulently obtained by the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted in terms of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) . The petitioner could have approached the said Committee alongwith report of Naib Tehsildar, but he chose not to do so.

8. Even otherwise, as per Annexure P-6, the Respondent No.4 did not get any benefit of ST status and was selected on his own merit without getting any reservation or preference or weightage of ST Status.

9. In view of the aforesaid, the petition being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.

(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE

veni