Orissa High Court
Trilochan Digal vs State Of Odisha And Others on 5 May, 2025
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.78 of 2025
Trilochan Digal .... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Respondents
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Appellant : Mr. Anjan Kumar Biswal, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Bimbisar Dash
Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
HON' BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
JUDGMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing and Judgment: 5th May, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARISH TANDON, CJ.
1. The instant case involves a serious issue where a candidate
secured the public employment offering his/her candidature under
a reserved category, i.e., Scheduled Tribes (ST) although the
documents would galore that he belongs to the Scheduled Castes
(SC) category. Though the appellant served in such post for a
considerable period of time but after an objection is raised flagging
such serious issue, the ball rolled into the domain of the authority
to determine whether the appellant belonged to the ST category.
The Court never encourages the litigant who secured the public
employment on the basis of a false declaration. He should be
shown the wide door for his departure therefrom.
2. Undeniably, the recruitment process was ensued for filling
up of various posts earmarking some of them to be filled up with a
candidate belonging to a particular reserved category. Admittedly,
the appellant offered his candidature as an ST category candidate
without any supporting document i.e., the certificate to be issued
by a competent authority and secured a merit position under such
category. It is undeniable that at the time of the initiation of the
recruitment process, though the posts were earmarked for a
particular reserved category, but there was no insistence for the
certificate to be appended at the time of offering the candidature
and such process continued on a mere declaration and/or an
affirmation made by each of the candidates.
3. Believing the testimony of the candidate, the authorities
proceeded and offered the post to the appellant where he rendered
service for a considerable period of time. After the objection was
raised against the appellant the authorities proceeded to enquire
into the matter and took into consideration the materials unearthed
during the said enquiry and found from the Record of Rights
(RoR) being the public document where the caste of the appellant
was shown as 'Pana' and not 'Kui'.
4. Admittedly, the caste 'Pana' is not included in the category
of the Scheduled Tribes but included in the category of Scheduled
Castes. There is a gulf of difference between a person belonging to
the SC and the ST. The separate lists are prepared both by the
Central as well as the State including various castes within the
circumference of the SC as well as the ST and unless the person is
shown within a particular category, he cannot claim to have been
included in another category.
5. Since the appellant seriously raised an issue that the wrong
entry in the RoR cannot be used against his claim that he belonged
to the ST, a direction was passed by this Court in one of the writ
petitions to consider whether the entry wrongly made in the RoR
relating to the caste is required to be rectified and/or corrected. Till
date, such record has not been corrected. We are conscious that the
entry made in the RoR does not create any impact on the title of a
person into the property nor extinguish the same; however, such
entry is sacrosanct with regard to the other aspect unless
contradicted with cogent evidence. The record would reveal that it
was all along shown in the records that the appellant belongs to
'Pana' caste and not 'Kui'.
6. There is serious doubt on the certificate issued by a
political person to the effect that the person belongs to a particular
category of caste as the law is well settled that such certificate can
only be issued by a competent authority and upon proper
verification to be done in this regard. The strict adherence to the
list prepared by the Central as well as the State Government on the
basis of the caste coming within the purview of Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe and, therefore, the safeguard is to be taken when a
certificate issued by a political person without adherence of the list
and the reliance there upon.
7. Bearing in mind the aforesaid obstacle having manifestly
blocked the path, Mr. Biswal, learned counsel for the appellant
relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court, rendered in case of
Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal
Development and others, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 for the
proposition that an extensive enquiry is required to be made in
order to ascertain the social status of a person and the role of the
local inhabitants is one of the important facets of such
investigation.
8. The aforesaid judgment is cited for the proposition that the
appellant was denied of personal hearing and to bring the relevant
witnesses of the locality who can throw light on the above issue,
more particularly, that the appellant belonged to 'Kui' caste and
not 'Pana'.
9. In course of the hearing it is arduously submitted before us
that the appellant was all along following, observing and
performing the rituals attributable to a 'Kui' caste and not a 'Pana'
caste and, therefore, cannot be treated as the person belonging to
such caste 'Pana'.
10. The judgment rendered in the above report does not appear
to lend any support on the contentions raised by the appellant. The
fact involved in the said report was a classic example of a misuse
of the powers of the statutory authorities in securing the service in
the public employment. The appellants therein being the daughters
of one Laxman Pandurang Patil, who were admitted in the school
in 1943 and the register maintained by the school discloses the
certificate as 'Hindu Koli', but they applied before the authority
for issuance of a caste certificate as 'Mahadeo Koli' a Scheduled
Tribe. Such application was initially rejected by the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Bombay Suburban District, which was challenged by
filing an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Konkan
Division, Bombay. Since one of the appellant was intending to
offer candidature in the MBBS course claiming as such belonging
to the ST category, a direction was passed by the High Court to
dispose of the said appeal and direct the Dean to permit her to
appear for the interview and admit her in the college, if she is
found fit. It appears that the caste 'Mahadeo Koli' was declared as
the ST in the Bombay Province as far back as in the year 1933 and
by virtue of Article 342, the President of India in consultation with
the competent Government ratified the same.
11. In pursuit of the adjudication, it was observed that any
entry made in the record (school records) made prior to the
independence must possess a greater probity value and once the
grand-father has declared having belong to the Hindu Koli, the
grand-children cannot take a different view or different stand.
However, even after having held that a person through unfair
means and relying on a spurious document should not secure the
admission in such an important educational qualification course,
yet did not intend to interfere for the reason that she has already
pursued the study and was appearing in the last year examination.
It was expressly held that such decision should not be taken as a
precedent as it is passed bearing the interest of the candidate who
has reached at the verge of the educational course.
12. Certain enlightening observations made in the said
judgment are worth recapitulation having some bearing on the
issues involved in the instant matter. It is categorically held that the
authority should not fall prey to the tricks of the section of society
who started asserting themselves as tribes in order to earn the
concession and the facilities reserved for the Scheduled Tribes. It
was held that such tricks are common and, therefore, to be judged
on a legal and ethnological basis. Having observed so, the apex
Court held as under:
"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, (I) an
Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher
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."
13. So far as the Division Bench judgment of this Court passed
in Markesh Mallick v. State of Orissa, reported in 2011 (Supp.-II)
OLR-677 is concerned, the same is cited by Mr. Biswal, learned
counsel for the appellant solely on the ground that once the
reliance is made to a particular document, an opportunity to
counter the same by adducing cogent evidence is one of the normal
corollary of the natural justice and, therefore, the authorities must
afford an opportunity to the person who suffers an adverse decision
to be heard and be given an opportunity to controvert or make an
explanation on the document so relied upon by the authorities.
14. In the said report, the caste certificate issued by the
competent authority was sought to be challenged on various
parameters and the proceeding was initiated on the basis of a show
cause notice issued by the competent authority. It was never in
dispute in the said case that the appellant therein relied upon the
caste certificate issued by a competent authority i.e., the Tahasildar
on the basis a report of the Revenue Inspector (RI) of the
concerned jurisdiction within the purview of the relevant statute.
15. The allegation is made on the genuinity, authenticity of
the caste certificate issued by a competent authority, the principle
of natural justice is ingrained and inhered into the system and an
opportunity is required to be given to the person who would be
affected by the decision to be taken therein more particularly when
the caste certificate relied upon by him is under a serious scrutiny.
In the perspective of the same, it was held that since the caste
certificate was issued by a jurisdictional Tahasildar, who is
competent under the relevant statute based upon the report of the
R.I. which is sine qua non for such caste certificate to be issued,
the proceeding of such nature demands the adherence of natural
justice and the opportunity to adduce evidence.
16. In the instant case, there is no certificate which was relied
upon by the appellant and, therefore, the genuinity and/or
authenticity thereof is not in question. It is not the case where the
appellant has been kept aloof from the entire investigation but was
permitted to participate therein and to adduce evidence even the
writ petition does not contain any such document when the
approach was made before the learned Single Judge nor we find
any semblance of such document in the instant appeal as fairly
submitted by learned counsel for the appellant.
17. As indicated hereinabove, in absence of any counter
evidence having produced which would throw light on the
genuinity, sanctity and/or authenticity of the reports having
submitted, the Court should not apply the principles of natural
justice in an abstract manner as it is to be seen in the facts of the
case and in the context in which it is sought to be applied. The
appellant was all along aware about the entry in the RoR; even was
the beneficiary of the order passed by this Court in the writ petition
where the direction was made upon the authority to take a decision
on the correction of an entry made in the RoR, and, therefore,
cannot be said to be ignorant of the said fact. Till date, such entry
has not been corrected nor declared to have been erroneously
made. Furthermore, the jurisdictional authority has not issued any
certificate indicating that the appellant belonged to the Scheduled
Tribes and not the Scheduled Castes as reflected from various
documents and, therefore, merely on the surmise and conjectures,
the appellant is not entitled to a relief so claimed.
18. We do not find any infirmity in the ultimate decision of
the learned Single Judge. The appeal is thus dismissed, however, in
the circumstances with no order as to costs.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
S. Behera
A. Nanda
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 15-May-2025 17:38:59
