p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.13972 of 2019 Prem Kumar …. Petitioner Mr. Soumya Mishra, Advocate -Versus- State of Orissa & others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Panda, ASC for O.P. Nos.1 to 6 Mr. D.P. Nanda, Senior Advocate for O.P. No.7 CORAM: JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK DATE OF HEARING: 20.02.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:29.05.2026 1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned decision by order dated 28th September, 2012 of the State Level Scrutiny Committee (SLSC) under the Chairmanship of Revenue Divisional Commissioner, namely, opposite party No.4 vide Annexure-18 and all other consequential letters by the opposite parties directing implementation of the same as per Annexures-11, 19 and 20 series declaring the caste certificate issued in his favour in connection with Misc. Case No.1400 of 1991 as at Annexure-1 as valid on the grounds stated therein. 2. According to the petitioner, the Tahasildar, Khurda in Misc. Case No.1400 of 1991 conducted necessary inquiry in AFR p. 2 accordance with the Rules 4 and 5 of the Orissa Caste Certificate (for Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) and was pleased to issue the caste certificate i.e. Annexure-1. It is claimed that prior to the issuance of the caste certificate in favour of the petitioner, proper inquiry was held revealing that he belongs to Schedule Tribe with ‘Kol Loharas’ as sub-caste and a similar certificate was issued in favour of his sister vide Misc. Case No.3525 of 1991 and not only that, the petitioner’s uncle, namely, Gouri Shankar Prasad was issued with such a caste certificate by order dated 24th December, 1981 in Misc. Case No.1537 of 1981 vide Annexure-2. 2.1. It is pleaded that the petitioner after completion of Diploma in Electrical Engineering enrolled himself under the Rourkela Employment Exchange, Rourkela in the year 1995 and on the basis of letter of appointment joined the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) in the post of Senior Technician-cum- Operative. It is claimed that in the year 2006, dispute arose in the family over joint family properties, as a result of which, the petitioner instituted a suit for partition in C.S. No.63 of 2006 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rourkela against his father, namely, opposite party No.7 and sister as the defendants and being a member of the Schedule Tribe applied for exemption in the payment of court fees, but it was opposed and therein, the defendants produced letter dated 12th October, 2006 sent by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Khurda to the Deputy General Manager p. 3 (Vigilance) and Additional CVO, Rourkela Steel Plant, referring to which the earlier order was recalled directing him to pay the same and it was challenged in W.P.(C) No.15012 of 2006 disposed of on 21st November, 2006 with a direction to provide him an opportunity of hearing before passing any such order. 2.2. In the meanwhile, the caste certificate of the petitioner was sent to the Collector, Khurda for verification and in that connection, it was ascertained that the record in Misc. Case No.1400 of 1991 was not traceable, but confirmed that such certificate was issued in his favour. It was informed to the Collector, Khurda that as per the report of the Tahasildar, Khurda, the caste status of the grandfather of the petitioner as reflected in 1962 RoR is Marwari and the same finds no place in Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes Presidential Orders. After receipt of the letter dated 12th October, 2006 of the learned Additional District Magistrate, Khurda, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by the SAIL Authority for having provided wrong information regarding his caste at the time of joining in service and accordingly, a chargesheet was served. It is further pleaded that the petitioner was directed to show cause complied with by a reply dated 8th November, 2006 as per Annexure-4. Consequent upon the show cause received, the Assistant General Manager (Personnel), SAIL lodged an FIR at the local P.S. alleging that the petitioner managed employment in the plant by fraudulent means and as a result, a case under G.R. No.2235 of 2006 was registered. Page 4 of 20 2.3. According to the petitioner, the disciplinary action and also the criminal case filed against him were stayed pursuant to filing of W.P.(C) No.5206 of 2007 and CRLMC No.1831 of 2007 respectively. It is contended that the Tahasildar, Khurda after receiving notice in W.P.(C) No.5206 of 2007 initiated a proceeding vide Caste Certificate Case No.182 of 2007 and passed an order dated 28th July, 2007 without issuing any notice and providing him an opportunity of hearing, cancelled the certificate issued to the petitioner alleging it to be fake followed by a direction to revoke all such benefits appropriated on the basis of the certificate and again it was challenged in W.P.(C) No.4469 of 2008 disposed of on 28th August, 2008 with a direction that any such inquiry on the caste shall have to be conducted by the SLSC in terms of the Apex Court’s decision in Kumari Madhuri Patil & another Vrs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development & others AIR 1995 SC 94. 2.4. In pursuance of the complaint received from opposite party No.7 necessary correspondence vide Annexure-9 was made with a direction to the SLSC to take necessary action and similarly, it was followed by an intimation received by the Deputy Director, SSD and Member, Cuttack vide Annexure-10. Consequent upon the letter of the Superintendent of Police, Khurda to conduct an inquiry, the SDPO, Khurda responded to it with a finding vide Annexure-11 that the petitioner belongs to General category and is not a Schedule Tribe. On 19th January, 2012, the Joint Director SSD and Member Convener SCLC wrote a letter p. 5 i.e. Annexure-12 addressed to the petitioner to submit a show cause reply for necessary action by the SLSC, but as pleaded on record, such notice was sent to opposite party No.7, hence, being unaware of the same, could not file response. The contention is that notice has never been served on the petitioner as it was sent to the residential address of opposite partyNo.7, who himself was the complainant. Such plea of the petitioner is with reference to Annexures-13 to 17 series, with the claim that no proper service of notice was accomplished in connection with the inquiry by the SLSC which finally vetted the corrective action of the Collector, Khurda. The pleading on record is that the entire exercise was taken up and concluded behind the back of the petitioner without a proper service of notice served on him in his actual place of residence and hence, the impugned order of the SLSC vide Annexure-18 is liable to be interfered with and set aside. 3. Opposite party Nos.4 and 5 filed the counter affidavit and it has been pleaded therein that the SLSC, on receipt of the reports along with incriminating materials, issued notice to the petitioner to show cause and submit a reply within fifteen days from then, but no response was received and it was followed by a reminder vide Annexure-A/4. It is pleaded that the petitioner was issued with a notice to appear before the SLSC for a personal hearing, which was received by opposite party No.7, but on the date fixed i.e. 24th August, 2012, he was absent on call, subsequent to which, a proclamation vide Annexure- C/4 was issued in the p. 6 locality through District Welfare Officer (DWO), Khurda, but in spite of that no reply was received, however, the inquiry was proceeded with. 3.1. Referring to the research findings and relevant extract of the Anthropological Survey of India-All Communities Volume-5 (Annexure-D/4), it is pleaded by the State that the petitioner belongs to ‘Marwari’ community and there is no Schedule Tribe sub-caste in that community and therefore, the petitioner allegedly obtained the caste certificate with an ulterior motive. Further pleaded that the statement of opposite party No.7 was recorded and cancellation of the Caste Certificate was ordered by the Tahasildar, Khurda on 28th July, 2007 and as the original caste status was alleged to be ‘Byahut Kaluar’ as per the RoRs (No. 648/852 and Khata No.468) of village-Jajarsingh respectively at Annexure-F/4 series with such other reports received in the inquiry, the SLSC reached at a conclusion that the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner is fake and as such he does not belong to Schedule Tribe community and accordingly, it was followed by the impugned order i.e. Annexure-18. It is claimed that the SLSC issued notice to the petitioner and issued a proclamation and proceeded ex parte and ultimately concluded with a finding on the caste status of the petitioner and therefore, the writ petition is void of any merit and hence, liable to be dismissed. 4. Perused the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner to the counter of opposite party Nos.4 and 5 and it is pleaded p. 7 therein that no notice has been issued to the petitioner as it was addressed to opposite party No.7, hence, the petitioner did not have the knowledge about the inquiry by the SLSC. It is also pleaded that the inquiry has not been held in terms of the guidelines issued in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). It is claimed that the place of residence is at Rourkela, hence, any such notice for the purpose of inquiry by the SLSC to the petitioner should have been addressed accordingly and in proof of residence Annexure-21 series is referred to. According to the petitioner, it is apparent on the face of the record that the procedure in terms of the notification dated 12th June, 2009 (Annexure-22) issued by the SC & ST Development Department, Government of Odisha was not followed. It is pleaded that the RoRs and other documents at Annexure-23 series reveal that the family of the petitioner belongs to the Schedule Tribe community and therefore, its cancellation could not have been directed by the Tahasildar, Khurda, which was set aside in W.P.(C) No.4469 of 2008 vide Annexure-6. 4.1. Apart from the above, an additional rejoinder is filed with the pleading that a certificate issued by a competent authority in terms of the Rules could not have been tampered with. Furthermore, proper inquiry has not been held by the SLSC complying the decision in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). Referring to a decision in Dayaram Vrs Sudhir Batham and others (2012) 1 SCC 333, it is further pleaded that verification of caste certificate issued with prior inquiry is not to be examined by the SLSC, p. 8 inasmuch as, such verification and the purpose behind subjecting a caste certificate to scrutiny is to avoid false and bogus claims. Referring to Annexure-28, it is also pleaded that an inquiry was earlier held in respect of the petitioner’s grandfather, namely, late Raghunath Ram and hence, further verification into the caste status of the family was unnecessary. Lastly, a decision in J. Chitra Vrs. District Collector &Chairman, State Level Vigilance Committee, Tamil Nadu and others (2021) 9 SCC 811 is cited with a pleading that with the earlier inquiry held as per Annexure- 28, a later verification could not have been held in absence of any proof of fraud or issuance of the caste certificate without proper inquiry. 5. Perused the reply of opposite party No.7 and it is pleaded therein that the family members belong to Schedule Tribe with sub-caste ‘Kol Loharas’ and in so far as the suit in C.S. No.63 of 2006 is concerned, it was disposed of on a compromise with mutual terms agreed upon. It is also pleaded that one Ranjit Kumar Prasad, namely, brother’s son of opposite party No.7 hailing from the common ancestor was alleged to have procured a certificate as Schedule Tribe by illegal means and it was inquired upon with a report as per Annexure-A/7. Further referring to Annexures- B/7 and C/7 series, it is pleaded that opposite party No.7 purchased a piece of land claiming himself as a Schedule Tribe referring to a caste certificate as ‘Kol Loharas’. It is claimed that opposite party No.7 belongs to Schedule Tribe and a resident of village-Jajarsingh in the p. 9 district of Khurda as a resident of Ward No.8 and living there for generations and the local authorities have also duly certified him as a Schedule Tribe ‘Kol Loharas’. 6. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Panda, learned ASC for the State and Mr. Nanda, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the intervenor. 7. In fact, I.A. No.421 of 2023 filed by the intervener is allowed as after hearing the arguments advanced by Mr. Nanda, learned Senior Advocate, it has become formal and hence, impleaded as opposite party No.8. 8. Perused the file/record produced before the State. 9. According to Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner after inquiry held, the caste certificate was issued to the petitioner but since, there was a property dispute in the family and a litigation before a Court, opposite party No.7 lodged the complaint, which was acted upon and finally led to the cancellation of the caste certificate and the decision of the SLSC under challenge. The contention is that the petitioner was never served with any such notice to participate in the proceeding before the SLSC, which declared the caste certificate issued to him as fake only relying upon the statement of opposite party No.7 and without holding a proper inquiry as contemplated following mandatory guidelines of the Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). Not only that, the notices were never served on the petitioner and the proclamation was also p. 10 ineffective. The contention of Mr. Mishra, learned counsel is that there is an absence of a field inquiry and solely relying on the RoRs, it has been concluded that the petitioner is not a Schedule Tribe, which is no conclusive proof of caste. When there is a presumption for a caste certificate validly issued after inquiry and following the Rules 5, 6 and 7 of the Rules, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel would submit that the SLSC ought not to have declared the caste status of the petitioner otherwise and that apart, in view of the previous inquiry in 2003, further verification was not permissible since the Apex Court in J. Chitra (supra) held and observed that once a caste certificate is issued after due inquiry, it should not be subjected to repeated verification or scrutiny unless vitiated by fraud. 9.1. Furthermore, the learned Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela in I.D. Misc. Case No.10 of 2009 declined to accord approval of the action of the SAIL Management while dealing with an application under Section 32(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act by an order dated 2nd September, 2022, hence, under such circumstances, the stand of opposite party No.8 has weakened further. Referring to the fact that once a verification was held in 2003 and it has become final, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel submits that reopening of inquiry is only permitted if the exercise was vitiated by fraud or caste certificate was issued without inquiry, neither of which is applicable to the petitioner, who was issued with a caste certificate in 1991 with a due process followed. Page 11 of 20 10. On the other hand, Mr. Panda, learned ASC for the State submits that only upon complaint of opposite party No.7, the inquiry was initiated and ultimately with a proceeding concluded by the SLSC, the caste status of the petitioner could be ascertained, which is in accordance with law and complying the decision in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). It is contended that notices were issued and even a proclamation, but the petitioner did not turn up and ultimately considering the evidence received in such inquiry with findings, the caste status was declared and therefore, the decision of the SLSC as per Annexure-18 is perfectly justified and hence, calls for no interference. 11. Mr. Nanda, learned Senior Advocate for opposite party No.8 contends that due procedure has been followed and at last the SLSC reached at a conclusion, which is in consonance with the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). That apart, the SLSC issued notices directing the petitioner to reply and respond and the contention is that when no show cause reply was received from him, it had no other option except to scrutinize the evidence and by a re-verification to confirm his caste status. It is further contended by Mr. Nanda, learned Senior Advocate that in case the Court is inclined to hold that no notice was served on the petitioner, considering the likely consequences to follow, a hearing in his presence may be directed to be concluded within a time line fixed since such an exercise is indeed necessary for the fact that the SAIL Authority has taken an action departmentally and p. 12 removed him from service in 2009 upon a subjective satisfaction reached at vis-à-vis his caste claim for not being a Schedule Tribe. But on the merits, it is the submission that the re-verification has been held in terms of the decision in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) and it has clearly proved that the petitioner is not a Schedule Tribe but belongs to a General caste of Marwari Community and therefore, the decision of the SLSC vide Annexure-18 deserves to be upheld. 12. Referring to Annexure-1, it is claimed that the petitioner belongs to sub-caste ‘Kol Loharas’ a Scheduled Tribe recognized under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Orders, 1950. But then opposite party No.7 objected to the claim of the petitioner before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rourkela while the latter demanded exemption from payment of court fees not being a Scheduled Tribe and it has led to the exercise undertaken by the SLSC. The contention of the petitioner is that he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community and pleaded all such grounds already discussed hereinbefore. The first and foremost contention of Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner is that no proper enquiry has been held in terms of the decision in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). The contention is that there is absence of field enquiry, inasmuch as, the Vigilance Officers failed to visit the petitioner’s place of birth, residence at Rourkela and educational institutions where he had studied, which is held to verify the social status besides the traditional customs and rituals, the p. 13 family follows. However, Mr. Panda, learned ASC for the State would submit that a detailed enquiry has been conducted and it was placed before the SLSC, hence, in absence of any show cause reply from the side of the petitioner, acceptability of the same or otherwise cannot be questioned by the petitioner. Mr. Nanda, learned Senior Advocate for opposite party No.8 submits that the enquiry was held in the manner contemplated under law and in the light of the decision in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), hence, findings therein are not to be tampered with. 13. Admittedly, at the behest of the SLSC, action was initiated and enquiry was held with evidence submitted. The materials collected during such enquiry were received by the SLSC which thereafter issued notice to the petitioner. Whether the materials on record before the SLSC do determine the caste status could have been well-judged with the participation of the petitioner. Had there been a show cause reply from the side of the petitioner to the findings of the enquiry, it would have been appreciated by the SLSC to reach at a conclusion, one way or other. The Court is of the view that the response of the petitioner was very much necessary and therefore, it was with the SLSC to ensure his presence with a proper notice served on him. But the fact remains, notice was issued and served on opposite party No.7 at whose instance the entire exercise was initiated. One cannot expect appearance of the petitioner with any such notice served on opposite party No.7, who is none other than the complainant himself and at whose instance, the p. 14 proceeding was initiated by the SLSC. Any such notices issued by the SLSC and even by a proclamation at Khurda and not at Rourkela, where the petitioner resided at the relevant point of time, was of no use, hence, it was ineffective. In fact, opposite party No.7 was at Khurda and notice was issued to his address, whereas, the petitioner was staying at Rourkela by then and therefore, it could not be served on the latter. The file/record submitted to the Court by Mr. Panda, learned ASC for the State, on its perusal, bears no acknowledgment of personal service of notice on the petitioner. It can therefore be said that the service of the notice was never accomplished, as a result, the petitioner failed to turn up to participate and defend the action before the SLSC. 14. Since a full enquiry has been held irrespective of any such reply from opposite party No.7 before this Court and there has been no show cause reply ever received by the SLSC and the entire exercise was held in absence of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the legality of the findings of the enquiry whether held properly and in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) should be left open for determination by the SLSC. In other words, this Court is inclined and in favour of a hearing in presence of the petitioner even at this distant point of time for the reason that it relates to the caste status of his family being questioned followed by adverse findings by the SLSC and as there are other repercussions to follow. Page 15 of 20 15. In fact, some of the Record of Rights (RoRs) revealed that the petitioner belongs to Marwari community and of Byahut Kaluar caste. It is alleged that there is no sub-caste and hence, the petitioner is not a Scheduled Tribe. Whether the above community has a sub-caste requires a determination from the materials collected during enquiry. Merely referring to the RoRs, this Court is in agreement with the contention of Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner that it would not alone be a conclusive proof of caste of the petitioner, nevertheless, a piece of evidence to be appreciated with other materials on record. Hence to ascertain the veracity of the claim of the petitioner claiming himself a Scheduled Tribe, the Court is of the further view that the action against him cannot be brought to an end only for the reason that it was initiated on the basis of a hostile claim of opposite party No.7 due to a property dispute in the family. Any such enquiry commenced by the SLSC, in the considered view of the Court shall have to reach at its logical conclusion and hence, cannot be terminated on any such grounds advanced. 16. There is no denial of the fact that a caste certificate issued by a competent authority after due enquiry carries a presumption of validity, but when there is a complaint received alleging a false claim, such a presumption becomes a rebuttable one. In fact, the complaint was before a Civil Court in a suit instituted for partition and therein, the demand of exemption towards payment of court fees by the petitioner was opposed with the claim by opposite party p. 16 No.7 that they are not Scheduled Tribes and under the above circumstances, no fault lies in initiating an action to reverify such claim primarily to ascertain as to whether a proper enquiry was held by the authority concerned before issuance of the caste certificate to him. Against the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioner cannot oppose the action standing behind the veil of a presumption which may be dislodged at the end of the enquiry by the SLSC by placing rebuttal evidence. So, the petitioner cannot be permitted to object the action by the SLSC demanding presumption of validity in respect of the caste certificate issued to him. If a fraud is employed or without proper enquiry any such caste certificate issued by the competent authority and in connection therewith, a complaint is received, the SLSC shall be competent and well within its jurisdiction to enquire about the same to find out and ascertain whether the decision of such authority thereon needs a revisit. With the above conclusion, this Court is inclined to hold that the action against the petitioner by the SLSC is maintainable especially after a complaint received from opposite party No.7, who cannot later turn around and plead that the complaint was misplaced with the claim that the family belongs to Scheduled Tribe. Perhaps, for the reason that the family arrived at a settlement leading to the disposal of the suit by compromise influenced opposite party No.7 to change his stand on the caste claim of the petitioner. That apart, with the plea that some other family members have also been issued with caste certificates earlier by itself p. 17 cannot be a ground to close the chapter since the exercise is initiated by the SLSC and it has received materials adverse to the caste claim of the petitioner. So, the Court is of the view that the proceeding before the SLSC demands a hearing with a finding within a stipulated period, notwithstanding the delay it has occasioned, more importantly, when the consequences are most likely to justify the caste claim of the petitioner in case it is terminated on any such ground as is advanced. 17. Earlier, an enquiry was held with respect to the family’s caste status. The contention is that the grandfather of the petitioner faced the enquiry and it was concluded therein that he is a Scheduled Tribe. Such evidence shall be considered by the SLSC and therefore, it would be premature to hold that the family’s caste is confirmed as ‘Kol Lohar’ especially after having received complaint from opposite party No.7. At the relevant point of time, as it is made to understand, the RoR was referred to ascertain the caste status of the petitioner’s grandfather. As earlier discussed, RoR itself is not a conclusive proof of caste status. But, since such an enquiry was held long back, at this juncture, this Court, instead of confirming the family’s caste status as a Scheduled Tribe, is inclined to leave it for the SLSC to examine and to take a decision thereon. But the Court is not in favour of accepting the contention of Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner that the earlier enquiry followed by the one before the SLSC amounts to double jeopardy. It depends on the nature of enquiry to p. 18 determine the caste status. In case, any such evidence is received and it creates a doubt regarding the caste of an individual, a fresh enquiry may be held. It is not that the petitioner himself faced the enquiry. If it were an enquiry vis-à-vis the petitioner, one would have claimed that the action by the SLSC is hit by double jeopardy. In J. Chitra (supra), it has been held that there is a bar on repeated enquiries. But this Court is of the view that the above decision is distinguishable for the fact that the enquiry was reinitiated after it was once concluded earlier. If it is to be held that the grandfather of the petitioner faced an enquiry, hence, no further verification regarding the family’s caste status is necessary, this Court is inclined to hold that in view of the complaint received against the petitioner, a detailed enquiry is needed which is at present has been undertaken by the SLSC and therefore, it cannot be terminated on any such plea of repeated enquiries. 18. No doubt, the decision on removal of the petitioner from service by the SAIL Management received no approval from the Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela in a proceeding under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, but it has been on the premise that there is no legal evidence on the caste status. The further conclusion was that the Management should have waited till the findings of the enquiry pending before the SLSC. Such an order dated 2nd September, 2022 by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D. Misc. Case No.10 of 2009 is of no assistance to the petitioner in demanding discontinuation of the proceeding before the p. 19 SLSC. Any such approval in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act shall have to be dependent on prima facie evidence legally acceptable, hence, considering the same, the Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela denied it on an application moved by the Management for a disciplinary measure, more so when, the findings of the SLSC had not arrived. 19. According to Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, the SLSC is only to verify whether any such certificate issued by the competent authority was with or without prior enquiry. In support of the above contention, the decision in Dayaram (supra) is referred to. In the considered view of the Court, upon receiving a complaint from opposite party No.7, a similar exercise has been undertaken by the SLSC only to scrutinize whether a proper enquiry was ever held while issuing the caste certificate in favour of the petitioner and nothing beyond. The petitioner’s certificate was issued in 1991 and obviously after a local enquiry and in view of the complaint, it may be rechecked. If a proper enquiry has been held or not, it would be the responsibility of the SLSC to verify and to conclude whether the competent authority was right and justified in issuing the caste certificate on the anvil of the complaint received. To claim that a previous enquiry by the authority concerned while issuing the certificate completely bars or ousts jurisdiction of the SLSC to verify the caste claim even after a complaint is received is unacceptable when the aim and primary objective of such enquiry is only to ensure that the benefits are received by the real beneficiaries. Page 20 of 20 20. In view of the discussion hereinbefore and considering the response of Mr. Nanda, learned Senior Advocate appearing for opposite party No.8 that closure of enquiry initiated by the SLSC on any such plea of the petitioner would have repercussions, this Court is of the irresistible conclusion that though there has been delay in the meantime, the petitioner should respond to the materials received during the enquiry with a show cause reply submitted for a final determination on his caste claim and a decision at the end by the SLSC. 21. Accordingly, it is ordered. 22. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the direction as aforesaid for compliance. It is further directed that upon restoration of the proceeding before the SLSC and after receiving a show cause reply from the petitioner, it shall be disposed of followed by an order at the earliest preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. As a necessary corollary, the impugned decision by order dated 28th September, 2012 of the SLSC vide Annexure-18 is hereby set aside. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Alok/Balaram Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT