IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C ) No.21337 of 2024 Gajendra Das …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Mishra, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA COROM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 05.03.2026 3. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the final order passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee-Opp. Party No.3 on 19.07.2024 in FCC No.2 of 2022 under Annexure-3. Vide the said order, while cancelling the Caste Certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner having belong to Scheduled Tribe with the sub- Caste being “Sabar”, various other directions were issued. 4. While assailing the impugned order, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that after initiation of the proceeding and pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P(C ) No.23507 of 2023, the Committee vide order dt.28.11.2023, took a decision to verify the genuineness of the Caste Certificate issued by the competent authority in favour of the Petitioner, basing on p. 2 p. 2 which Petitioner not only got public employment but also availed various other benefits. 4.1. It is contended that after passing of such an order on 28.11.2023, the matter was fixed before the Committee on 16.01.2024. Petitioner after his appearance, filed his reply on 04.03.2024 under Annexure-1 series. It is contended that after filing of such reply by the Petitioner on 04.03.2024 under Annexure-1 series, necessary Proclamation in terms of the provisions contained under Rule-7 of Odisha Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificate) Rules, 2023(in short, “Rules”) was issued on 23.04.2024 through the District Welfare Officer, Bhadrak and Tahasildar, Chandbali. Such a Proclamation accordingly was issued by the District Welfare Officer on 03.07.2024 and report was furnished to the Committee on 19.07.2024. 4.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that after receipt of the report after such Proclamation on 19.07.2024, no further date was fixed nor Petitioner was given any opportunity of hearing, in terms of the provisions contained under Rule- 7 of the aforesaid Rules. It is contended that since after receipt of the report after such proclamation, no date was fixed nor Petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing and Petitioner was also not allowed to examine his witnesses, the matter could not have been disposed of on the date such a report was received on 19.07.2024. 4.3. Rule-7(14) to Rule 7(20) of the Rules reads as follows: p. 3 p. 3 (14). After conducting the personal hearing, the Scrutiny Committee shall issue proclamation through the concerned District Welfare Officer and Tahasildar in the locality of the alleged person inviting objections from persons and registered organizations within fifteen days from the date of issue of proclamation by beat of drum or any other mode and to accomplish the task, the Member Convener of the Scrutiny Committee shall send the copies of the allegation petition, the enquiry report of the District Vigilance Cell, the show cause reply of the alleged person and the statements of the alleged person, the complainant and the witnesses recorded during personal hearing to the concerned District Welfare Officer and Tahasildar translated into the local language. (15). (15). Any person or organization who wants to say anything in the case, shall intimate the Chairperson of the Scrutiny Committee in writing adducing evidences either through the concerned District Welfare Officer or the Tahasildar, as the case may be, or directly within the stipulated period of fifteen days after which no petitions shall be entertained. (16) Within a week from the date of expiry of the period of fifteen days, the District Welfare Officer or Tahasildar, as the case may be, shall intimate the Member Convener of the Scrutiny Committee about the date of proclamation and the petitions received from any quarter. (17) In case the petitioner wants to be heard in person and to adduce evidences before the Scrutiny Committee he or she shall be allowed to do so either in person or through counsel. (18) The date of hearing to be fixed by the Scrutiny Committee shall be duly intimated to such petitioner and the hearing shall be conducted transparently in presence of the alleged person and his or her counsel, if any, providing him or her opportunity to defend himself or herself and the proceedings of the hearing shall be recorded. (19) After the hearing, if so required, the Scrutiny Committee may make further enquiries through the District Vigilance Cell and other concerned officers to gather evidence and ascertain the truth and thereafter the process of enquiry shall be concluded. (20) After conclusion of the process of enquiry, the Chairperson of the Scrutiny Committee shall fix up a date for consideration of the facts and findings of the case and pass the final speaking order and if any new facts come to notice, the Scrutiny Committee shall decide to address the same in the manner as it may like and then pass the final order. p. 4 p. 4 4.4. It is contended that since the aforesaid provisions were never followed by the Committee after receipt of the report on 19.07.2024, the issue could not have been finally decided with passing of the impugned order on 19.07.2024. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. It is also contended that on the face of the interim order passed by this Court on 30.08.2024, Petitioner was terminated from his services vide order dt.30.08.2024 under Annexure-7. 5. Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed. 5.1. It is contended that in the Proceeding in question, after issuance of the Proclamation in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 7(14) of the Rules and after receipt of the report from the Committee on 19.07.2024 the State Level Scrutiny Committee basing on the available materials, came to a finding that the Caste Certificate has been issued wrongly in favour of the Petitioner. It is contended that since after going through the records and the report, the Committee came to a conclusion that Petitioner has obtained the Caste Certificate by fraudulent means, the same has been rightly cancelled with issuance of other direction vide the impugned order. Stand taken in para-6 & 11 of the counter affidavit reads as follows: p. 5 p. 5 6. That, in reply to the Paragraph No.6(ii) of the writ application, it is humbly submitted that as per the Rule-7 (5) of Odisha Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes & Backward Classes (Regulation of Issuance and verification of Caste Certificates) Rules, 2023, the Committee has the power to direct to the District Vigilance Cell (DV) to conduct re-inquiry with reference to the observation of the Scrutiny Committee, if it is found to be not satisfactory. In the instant case during scrutiny, it is noticed that the DVC report and joint enquiry report of Tahasildar, Chandbali & DWO, Bhadrak dated 13.03.2023 differs each other. Hence, the committee asked the S.P., Bhadrak to re-enquiry into the specific points. Hence, the petitioner's claim is false, fabricated and is liable to be rejected. Copy of the Odisha Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes & Backward Classes (Regulation of Issuance and verification of Caste Certificates) Rules, 2023 is Annexed herewith and marked as Annexure B/3. Further it is to mention here that the Tahasildar, Chandbali, Bhadrak & Dist. Welfare Officer, Bhadrak enquired the case on dated 29.07.2021 as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in WP(C) No.2601 of 2021. They stated in their report that, on verification of the Hal RoR No.48 of Mouza-Patuli, it transpires that the particular land schedule stands recorded in the name of Girish Chandra Das, S/o-Bagha Das and the caste is recorded as Sabar (ST). Referring this ROR No.48, the Petitioienr Gajendra Das, S/O-Brundaban Das had obtained the caste certificate from Chandbali Tahasil as ST. He is the grandson of Girish Chandra Das. For further clarification and to examine genuineness of the ST caste certificate issued in his favour, the Tahasildar, Chandbali requested the OIC, Record Room, Collectorate, Bhadrak vide letter No.2529 dt.14.07.2021 to supply Sabik RoR in connection with Hal ROR 48 of Mouza- Patuli. The OIC, Record Room, Collectorate furnished a certified copy of Sabik RoR bearing No.45 against Hal RoR No.48 of Mouza- Patuli vide letter No.69 dt.29.07.2021. On perusal of Sabik ROR, it is ascertained that the RoR No.45 stands recorded in the name of Girish Chandra Das, S/o-Bagha Das and his caste is recorded as Nalua Kela (SC). In view of the above-mentioned facts and evidence, it is clear that the caste of Gajendra Das is Nalua Kela (SC) as per Sabik RoR. That from comparison of both RORs, it is understood that, the Hal ROR might have been prepared wrongly by the settlement officer without taking into consideration of its corresponding Sabik ROR. p. 6 p. 6 That, the S.P., Bhadrak was asked vide letter No.5846 dt.08.05.2023 to re-examine the enquiry report submitted by him considering the joint enquiry report of Tahasildar, Chandbali and D. W.O., Bhadrak and to submit report along with other relevant documents. As such the Supdt. of Police, Bhadrak vide letter No.1628 dt.03.07.2023 submitted the 2nd enquiry report of S.D.P.O., Chandbali which reveals that, the alleged person Gajendra Das, S/o-Brundaban Das is "Nalua Kela" (SC) by caste as per the verification of Sabik RoR 45 of vill.-Patuli under Chandbali Tahasil, which stands recorded in the name of Girish Chandra Das, S/o-Bagha Das (grandfather of alleged). Further, the I.O. stated that, the Headmaster, Patuli U.P. School reported that Gajendra Das belongs to Kela category as per old records available in the school. The cross section of local people also stated before the I.O. that, the caste and culture of Gajendra Das is of Nalua Kela in nature. That, the socio culture(ethnological) characteristics of tribal people are distinct and unique. Most of the time to identify and to recognize tribal people, their ethnological characteristic features are essentially to be verified along with other features. In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court has rightly observed in its historic judgement of Kumari Madhuri Patil case that:- "xxx An argument of social mobility and modernization often alluringly put forth to obviate the need to pass the affinity test is only a convenient plea to get over the crux of the question. Despite the cultural advancement, the genetic traits pass on from generation to generation and no one could escape or forget or get them over. The tribal customs are particular to each tribe or tribal communities and are still being maintained and preserved. Their cultural advancement to some extent may have modernized and progressed but they would not be oblivious to or ignorant of their customary and cultural past to establish their affinity to the membership of a particular tribe." In this particular case the cross section of local people stated before the DVC, Bhadrak that, the forefathers of the alleged Gajendra Das have been migrated from Jajpur district and they belong to Kela (SC) community but the alleged has obtained Sabar (ST) certificate. He has received stipend as SC student during his school carrier. Moreover, two number of witnesses namely Surendra Sahoo and Hemanta Das appeared before the SLSC on dtd 28.11.2023 and deposed that the alleged Gajendra Das and his family members are Kela (SC) by caste and he has obtained Sabar (ST) caste certificate and employed in Govt. Service.” p. 7 p. 7 xxx xxx xxx 11. That, in reply to the Paragraph No.7 of the writ application, it is humbly submitted that sufficient opportunity have been given to the Petitioner for the purpose. As such the SLSC considered the reports Tahasildar, Chandbali & D/W.O., Bhadrak, report of DVC, Bhadrak, statements and depositions of alleged person & witnesses caste status recorded in revenue records and other documents available in the record, came to the conclusion that the alleged person Gajendra Das, S/o- Brundaban Das, Vill-Patuli, Tahasil-Chandbali, Dist-Bhadrak is “Nalua Kela” by caste which is not notified as ST in the State of Odisha. 5.2. It is accordingly contended that since after going through the records, the Committee came to a conclusion that the Caste Certificate has been wrongly issued in favour of the Petitioner, the same has been rightly interfered with and basing on such order, Petitioner has been dismissed from his services vide order dt.30.08.2024 under Annexure-7. It is contended that since by the time this Court passed the interim order, Petitioner was already terminated vide order dt.30.08.2024, it cannot be held that such an order was passed in violation of the interim order. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that in the Proceeding in question in FCC No.2 of 2022, the Committee passed an order on 28.11.2023 holding therein that the Committee is competent to look into the issue with regard to issuance of the Caste Certificate in favour of the Petitioner. 6.1. As found from the impugned order, after such a decision was taken vide order dt.28.11.2023, Petitioner was noticed to appear on 16.01.2024. Petitioner thereafter, p. 8 p. 8 appeared on 29.01.2024 and filed his reply on 04.03.2024. After filing of the reply, Proclamation was issued by the Committee in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 7(14) of the Rules on 23.04.2024 and the District Welfare Officer submitted the report before the Committee on 19.07.2024. 6.2. It is found that on the very same date, the Committee after verifying the records, passed the final orders under Annexure-3, wherein the Caste Certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner was cancelled and other directions were issued. 6.3. This Court placing reliance on the provisions contained under Rule-7 of the Rules finds that after issuance of the Proclamation in terms of Rule 7(14) and after receipt of the report, Petitioner was required to be given an opportunity of hearing by fixing a date of hearing in that regard in terms of the provisions contained under Rule-7(17) to (19) of the Rules. 6.4. But as found from the impugned order, on the date, the report was received on 19.07.2024, the matter was finally decided and disposed of vide the impugned order dt.19.07.2024 . Since provisions contained under Rules-7 has not been followed after receipt of the report on 19.07.2024 on such Proclamation, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, while quashing order dt.19.07.2024, so passed under Annexure-3, this Court remits the matter to Opp. party No.3 to proceed with the Proceeding from the p. 9 p. 9 stage of receipt of the Report from the Committee, after such Proclamation, and decide the issue in accordance with law and by giving due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. Petitioner is also at liberty to adduce his evidence in support of his stand. This Court directs the Committee-Opp. Party No.3 to re-decide the issue, as directed, within a period of 6(six) months from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner is directed to provide a copy of this order before Opp. party No.3 within a period of 7 (Seven) days from the date of receipt of this order. 7. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita