[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Prabhakar Kharsel vs State Level Scrutiny Committee .... ... on 8 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) NO. 18065 OF 2015
In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
Prabhakar Kharsel .... Petitioner
-Versus-
State Level Scrutiny Committee .... Opp. Parties
represented through R.D.C., Northern
Division-cum-Chairman, State Level
Scrutiny Committee, Northern
Division, Odisha, Sambalur & others
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : M/s Himansu Sekhar Mishra, A.K.
Mishra, A.K. Tripathy & K. Badhee,
Advocates
For Opp. Parties : Mr. U.C. Behura,
Addl. Government Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing & judgment : 08.12.2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 1 of 14
PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD,J.
Petitioner is essentially aggrieved by order dated 01.11.2014,
whereby the State Level Scrutiny Committee (SLSC) found his
claim, for Social Status as a Scheduled Tribe, to be fraudulent. As
a consequence, the Committee issued a slew of directions inter alia
for cancellation of Scheduled Tribe Certificate vide Miscellaneous
No.485 of 1989 and for launching criminal proceedings, apart from
instructing the Collector to dismiss him from service.
2. Learned Advocate Mr. H.S. Mishra appearing for the
Petitioner vehemently argues that:
(a) The Committee has misdirected itself in concluding the
inquiry proceedings contrary to the parameters prescribed by the
Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, AIR
1995 SC 94.
(b) After the whole lot of exercise enumerated in Paragraph 13
of Madhuri Patil supra is undertaken, all copies of reports &
findings should be given to the candidate to have his say in the
matter, and this procedure has not been followed sans any
justification.
(c) No reasonable opportunity of hearing was given to the
Petitioner and thus the impugned order is vulnerable for challenge
on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice.
(d) Once the impugned order is set at naught, Petitioner is liable
to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits,
inasmuch as, he lost his job on account of the impugned order, was
made to go to jail, all without any justification whatsoever.
3. Learned AGA Mr. Behura appearing for the official OPs
vehemently resists the petition refuting the contentions of
Petitioner and making submission in justification of the impugned
order. He points out that the impugned order is well reasoned,
and that it has been issued as an institutional decision
unanimously arrived at by all the constituent members of the
committee. He also tells the Court that these members of the
committee are high functionaries of the Government with
accumulated expertise and therefore, Court should loathe to
interfere. Lastly, he contends that merely because SLSC order is to
be set aside, that ipso facto cannot result into automatic
reinstatement of dismissed employee, a host of factors enter in the
fray. So submitting, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant
indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:
4.1. Social Status, be it of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or
other backward classes, has been developed as a special branch of
jurisprudence. It assumes importance in the matter of public
employment, admission to public educational institutions, gaining
entry to professional courses, electoral constituencies, etc. Several
States in the country had lacked statutory framework for dealing
with the claim for Social Status and the apex Court in Madhuri
Patil supra laid down the broad parameters & guidelines.
Thereafter, States have enacted statutes and promulgated binding
rules. The State Legislature has enacted Odisha Act 8 of 2014, i.e.,
the Odisha Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and backward
Classes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste
Certificates) Act, 2012. The State Government has promulgated the
Odisha Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and backward Classes
(Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificates)
Rules, 2023.
4.2. The first contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner that
the guidelines laid down in Madhuri Patil supra have not been
followed in pith & substance by the committee while holding the
inquiry, has some force. At Para 13 the following guidelines have
been laid down:
"13. The admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained
on the basis of false social status certificate necessarily has the effect of
depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or OBC
candidates as enjoined in the Constitution of the benefits conferred on
them by the Constitution. The genuine candidates are also denied
admission to educational institutions or appointments to office or posts
under a State for want of social status certificate. The ineligible or
spurious persons who falsely gained entry resort to dilatory tactics and
create hurdles in completion of the inquiries by the Scrutiny
Committee. It is true that the applications for admission to educational
institutions are generally made by a parent, since on that date many a
time the student may be a minor. It is the parent or the guardian who
may play fraud claiming false status certificate. It is, therefore,
necessary that the certificates issued are scrutinised at the earliest and
with utmost expedition and promptitude. For that purpose, it is
necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of social status
certificates, their scrutiny and their approval, which may be the
following:
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, (1) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer
higher in rank of the Director of the department concerned, (11) 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-a-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."
The above guidelines ought to have been scrupulously followed,
inasmuch as the 2012 Act in question and the 2023 Rules
promulgated thereunder not being retrospective. However, the
wisdom from the provisions of the Act is always available,
whoever wants to seek it.
4.3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner is right in arguing that
once the proceedings at the level of Officials of Revenue or Social
Welfare Department is held in terms of Madhuri Patil guidelines,
copies thereof have to be supplied to the candidates to have their
say in the matter. Apparently, these copies were selectively
furnished to the Petitioner and therefore, he was in a
disadvantageous position to take up effective stand in his favour.
Mere exchange of notices would not constitute compliance with
the requirement of principles of natural justice nor supply of
selective documents. Effective participation is essential and
therefore, all copies of relevant documents have to be furnished,
subject to all just exceptions. After all, principles of natural justice
are not a matter of ritual compliances.
4.4. Learned AGA Mr. Behura and also Mr. Jee are right in telling
the Court that the 2012 Act in general and 2023 Rules in particular
are prospective in operation, although they have been structured
in the backdrop of what has been said in Madhuri Patil supra and
therefore, even if the matter is remanded, the parameters to be
applied are what have been prescribed in Madhuri Patil. The
policy content, as expressed by the terminology, and the intent of
this piece of legislation and of delegated legislation do indicate
their prospective operation. However, as already mentioned,
nothing prevents drawal of milk from the same, if need be.
4.5. The contention of Mr. Behura that the Writ Court should not
undertake deeper examination of the matter, when high
functionaries of the Government have looked into the same, has to
be treated with a pinch of salt. Merely because functionaries of
law happen to be high authorities, it is seldom a guarantee that the
pith & substance of law will be followed. More often than not, it is
not followed. Howsoever high one may be, law is above him. That
apart, justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to have been
done, said Lord Hewart, the then Lord Chief Justice of England in
Rex v. Sussex Justices, [1924] 1 KB 256.
4.6. The last submission of Mr. Mishra that once the impugned
order is set at naught, reinstatement in service should happen as a
logical consequence, is difficult to agree with. Our Constitution
provides for affirmative action by the State for the upliftment of
downtrodden communities, who had suffered social
disadvantages for centuries. The policy of reservation, which the
makers of the Constitution have evolved as a means to achieve
socio-economic equality, is an exception to the general rule of
equality. At the same time, one cannot lose sight of unscrupulous
claim for the grant of social status. A few of such claims are made
innocently, is also true. The benefit of reservation should reach
only the individuals for whom such a policy is promulgated.
When order denying social status is set aside and matter is being
remitted for consideration afresh, the claim for reinstatement in
service cannot be pressed as a matter of course. The grant of
benefit of reservation is confined to the reserved categories and till
the status of such a category is duly adjudged on remand, there
cannot be reinstatement or such other consequential benefits, as
rightly contended by learned AGA Mr. Behura.
In the above circumstances, this petition is allowed in part. A
Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order dated
01.11.2014. Matter is remitted to the State Level Scrutiny
Committee for consideration afresh, in the light of observations
hereinabove made, within an outer limit of three months. A
meaningful opportunity of hearing shall be given to all the
stakeholders, including the Petitioner herein. All contentions are
kept open.
It is open to the Committee to solicit any information or
document from the side of Petitioner or such other quarters as may
be required for due consideration of the remand. However, in that
guise delay shall not be brooked.
Costs made easy.
Web copy of order shall be acted upon by all concerned.
(Dixit Krishna Shripad)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 8th day of December, 2025/Basu
Designation: ADDL. DY. REGISTRAR-CUM-ADDL.
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
Date: 11-Dec-2025 13:55:23
