Tripura High Court
Shri Nani Gopal Bhaumik vs The State Of Tripura And Others on 18 March, 2021
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
_A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
WP(C) No.162 of 2018
Shri Nani Gopal Bhaumik
......Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
The State of Tripura and others
......Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. H. Sarkar, Advocate,
Mr. G.K. Nama, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 18th March, 2021.
& Order
Whether fit for reporting : NO.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
This petition is filed for challenging an order dated 22.12.2017
passed by State Level Scrutiny Committee (Constituted as per Provisions
Contained in Rule 7A of the Tripura Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
Reservation Rules, 1992) (hereinafter to be referred to as SLSC).
[2] Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner was engaged as
an Assistant Teacher in Government school in the year 1985. In due course
of time, he reached the level of headmaster of the school. He retired on
superannuation with effect from 31.01.2012.
[3] The petitioner claimed that he belonged to Mahisya Das
Community which is a Scheduled Caste recognized in the State of Tripura.
He also possessed a Scheduled Caste certificate on such basis and had
availed of the reservation policy of the State Government during his service
career.
[4] On 17.12.2013, the petitioner received a show-cause notice in
which it was stated that a complaint was received against him that he had
falsely obtained Scheduled Caste certificate. Upon such complaint an
inquiry was also conducted by the Vigilance Cell. The report of the
Vigilance Cell dated 30.07.2005 suggested that the petitioner belonged to
Debnath Community which is not a Scheduled Caste and not a Mahisya
Das Community. In the notice it was further pointed out that the Scheduled
Caste Welfare Sub-Committee of Matabari Block had also passed a
resolution on 26.08.2011 to the effect that the petitioner did not belong to
Scheduled Caste. On the basis of such materials the SLSC was prima facie
of the opinion that the petitioner's caste certificate was not genuine.
[5] The petitioner opposed the proceedings. One Shri Pran
Krishna Das, Deputy S.P. Special Vigilance Cell was examined by the
department. He had inquired into the caste status of the petitioner. He
stated that during his inquiry, he visited the birth place of the petitioner and
examined his mother as well as the husband of his sister. He examined the
Pradhan of Nagar Panchayat and recorded their statements. He also
examined one near relative of the petitioner. On the basis of his inquiries he
found that the petitioner belonged to Debnath Community which was not
recognized as a Scheduled Caste. He accordingly submitted his report on
27.07.2005. He was cross-examined by the petitioner.
[6] The petitioner examined himself as OPW-1 in which he had
stated that he was staying in SC/ST boarding school attached to Ramesh
H.S School, Udaipur during his school days. His sister and brother also
enjoyed Schedule Caste certificate. The petitioner examined his brother
Amiya Bhowmik who also supported the petitioner staying in Scheduled
Caste boarding hostel during the school days. One Smt. Sanjibani Das was
examined as OPW-3 who claimed that her family and the family of the
petitioner belonged to Mahisya Das Community and both came from
Bangladesh.
[7] On the basis of such materials on record the SLSC passed the
detailed speaking order dated 22.12.2017 which the petitioner has
challenged in this petition. In the said order detailed analysis of evidence
has been undertaken. The committee came to the conclusion that the
petitioner belonged to Debnath Community which was not a Scheduled
Caste. The committee also referred to the deposition of the petitioner and
his supporting witnesses. Detailed reasons have been cited for discarding
their depositions. It was noted that none of these witnesses had produced
any document in support of their statements. It was recorded that though
the petitioner claimed that he had applied to the school for providing
documents but the school could not provide due to destruction in fire, in the
cross-examination he admitted that he had not made any such written
application. Most importantly, it was recorded that the petitioner was born
on 25.01.1959 and the Scheduled Caste certificate which he had obtained
was issued in the year 1981 meaning by such time he was 22 years old.
This would destroy the petitioner's theory that he stayed in the hostel
during his school days as an SC student.
[8] In case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another versus Addl.
Commissioner, Tribal Development and others reported in (1994) 6 SCC
241, while directing establishment of Caste Scrutiny Committees the
Supreme Court gave exclusive original jurisdiction to such committees in
the matter of disputes of the caste certificates and caste status and also
provided that any decision by such a committee would not be open to
challenge before any other Court except before the High Court in a writ
petition. It was also cautioned that interference in such decisions would not
be as a matter of course by the appellate authority. Even otherwise, when
admiring the findings of facts arrived at by the SLSC are based on evidence
on record, in absence of any perversity the order calls for no interference.
[9] Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to certain decisions
where despite cancellation of the caste certificate the Courts had suggested
milder action. However, in the present case, the Government has not even
initiated any proceedings against the petitioner. The question of what
would be the fall out of the confirmation of the impugned order of the
SLSC cannot be forced in at this stage.
[10] In the result, petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if
any, also stands disposed of.
(AKIL KURESHI), CJ
Dipesh
