1 2025:CGHC:17379-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 243 of 2025 Narendra Kumar Vental S/o Late Sitaram Vental Aged About 64 Years District Superintendent of Police (Retired) R/o Village Ghuthera (Nawagaon), Tahsil and PO Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Home, Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee Through President-Cum- Secretary Department of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Development, Tribal Research Training Institute, Pt. Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar, Sector-4, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 16 .04.2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.04.22 14:21:34 +0530 2 2. Heard Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents/State on I.A. No. 1 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufÏcient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2025 is allowed and delay of 182 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 2430 of 2017 (Narendra Kumar Vental vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Another), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner herein. 5. Brief facts of the case are that vide order dated 31.10.1984 appellant was appointed as ‘Sub Inspector’ against the post reserved for Scheduled Caste category candidate. On receipt of a complaint dated 20.10.2010 regarding caste status of appellant, respondent No. 2 took cognizance on the complaint and wrote letter to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance Cell) Raipur to inquire regarding caste of appellant and submit report. After conducting inquiry, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance Cell) on 01.03.2017, opining that appellant is not found to be member of Scheduled Caste ‘Sunkar’ community. On receipt of said report, respondent No. 2 issued show- cause notice dated 29.04.2017 (Annexure P/7 in the writ petition) to 3 appellant seeking explanation regarding his caste. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the caste certificate in favour of appellant was issued by the competent authority i.e. Tahsildar, Mungeli, on 25.09.1981 clearly mentioning that appellant belongs to Scheduled Caste category. The proceedings were drawn by respondent No. 2 based on complaint made before it and not on the basis of reference by the District Level Certificate Verification Committee and as such, respondent No. 2 could not have taken cognizance on the same. If there is any suspicion on the caste or caste certificate of any person, the inquiry is to be conducted initially by the District Level Caste Certificate Verification Committee, as constituted under Section 7 of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013 (for short, ‘Act of 2013’). Even if the complaint is filed by the institution, employer or State Government, it ought to have been referred to the District Level Certification Committee and the Committee could not have proceeded with the same. He also submits that the complaint against the caste of appellant is to be rooted through the District Verification Committee and the Committee could not have directly entertained the complaint submitted by a private person or Association. He further contended that proper opportunity of hearing was not provided by the Committee. Documents submitted by appellant were not properly considered and further, he was not given opportunity to adduce any evidence. 7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has not obtained social status certificate by practicing fraud and even in the report of Vigilance Cell it is mentioned that there is doubt 4 regarding caste of the appellant to be Halba. He further contended that this Court vide order dated 12.05.2017 has also passed an order in WPC No. 1274 of 2017 (Mahesh Kumar Kumbhare vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), granting stay in favour of the appellant, thereby mentioning inter-alia that, unless there is a reference made by the District Level Certificate Verification Committee to the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee on the basis of report of Vigilance Cell, further action shall not be taken against the appellant by the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 11.07.2024 is untenable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for. He further submits that the complaint against the appellant was made in the year 2010. Upon receipt of complaint, appellant was directed to submit requisite information in the prescribed formant and thereafter, respondent No. 2 directed the Vigilance Cell to conduct an inquiry with respect to social status of appellant and submit report. On receipt of report, respondent No. 2 issued show-cause notice to appellant to submit explanation regarding his caste. Thus, there is no error in the procedure adopted by the Committee for verification of caste certificate issued in favour of appellant. On the date of sending the complaint to the Vigilance Cell for verifying social status of appellant, no specific law was prevailing and social status certificate of any person is to be verified by the members of Committee constituted pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari 5 Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241. Complaint is forwarded by the respondent No. 2 to the Vigilance Cell, in turn, Vigilance Cell submitted its report on 01.03.2017, which is the outcome of the inquiry conducted based on statement of certain persons recorded and other material collected during inquiry, opining that appellant does not belong to ‘Sunkar’ caste i.e. Scheduled Caste. Considering the report of the Vigilance Cell, a show- cause notice was issued by respondent No. 2 to appellant. However, due to existence of interim order passed by the learned Sinlge Judge, the Committee has not taken any decision. He also contended that on the date of receipt of complaint questioning social status certificate of appellant along with others, the Act of 2013 was not in force and therefore, verification of caste certificate of any person was being done by the Committee constituted as per direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). Hence, the ground raised by appellant with regard to holding inquiry by Vigilance Cell on the complaint is not tenable. He also contended that petitioner has not submitted any reply to show-cause notice along with supporting documents showing that he belongs to ‘Sunkar’ caste, which falls within the category of Scheduled Caste. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record. 10. It is not in dispute that appellant secured employment as a reserved category candidate i.e. Scheduled Caste, based on social status certificate issued in his favour by the Tahsildar, Mungeli on 25.09.1981. On receipt of complaint by respondent No. 2 regarding social status of 6 appellant, it was referred to the Vigilance Cell for inquiring into the complaint. This complaint was made on 20.10.2010 before the Chief Minister of the State in Jan Shikayat programme. None of the parties to writ petition has pointed out that on the date of receipt of complaint by respondent No. 2, there was any specific Act or law within the State of Chhattisgarh, prevailing to deal with complaint received by the Committee. 11. The Committee is constituted on the basis of direction issued in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has formulated the procedure for issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval. Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein below for ready reference:- “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 ofÏce 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 scrutinized at the earliest and 7 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 OfÏcer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such ofÏcer rather than at the OfÏcer, Taluk or Mandal level. 2. The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be, shall file an afÏdavit duly sworn and attested by a competent gazetted ofÏcer or non- gazetted ofÏcer 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 ofÏcers, namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any ofÏcer 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 ofÏcer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificate. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research 8 OfÏcer 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 ofÏcer 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 ofÏcer 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 ofÏcer to the candidate by a registered post with acknowledgment due or through the head of the educational institution concerned in which the candidate is studying or employed. The notice should indicate that 9 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 10 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 ofÏcer 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 afÏdavit duly sworn by the parent/guardian/candidate before the competent ofÏcer or non-ofÏcial 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. 11 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 ofÏces 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 acknowledgment 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 ofÏce in a post.” 12. Bare reading of Clause-4 of paragraph 13 of Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case (supra) reveals that procedure formulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is a direction to the State Government to constitute a ‘Committee’ of three ofÏcers and in Clause-5 there is a direction for constitution of ‘Vigilance Cell’ consisting of Deputy Superintendent of Police in over-all charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims and it is the Vigilance Cell who has to submit report after conclusion of inquiry to the Director or the Committee to further take recourse to law if found social status certificate of person concerned to be suspicious, doubtful or false; the Committee to 12 follow the procedure as provided therein of providing opportunity of hearing, mentioning that concerned person can file reply or representation to show-cause notice etc. 13. Objection raised by learned counsel for appellant with regard to authority of the Committee for taking cognizance on complaint, is not sustainable because the complaint is filed prior to coming into force of the Act of 2013 and constitution of the District Level Committee. Upon receipt of complaint by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, constituted under the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the cognizance was taken and complaint was processed before coming into force of the Act of 2013. It is the Vigilance Cell, who conducted inquiry pursuant to direction of High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, which is also constituted as per direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil’s case (supra). 14. Perusal of the documents annexed along with writ petition as also pleadings, reveals that the Committee after receipt of inquiry report from the Vigilance Cell, on 29.04.2017 a show-cause notice (Annexure P-7 in the writ petition) was issued by the Director of respondent No. 2 mentioning whether appellant wants personal hearing, whether he wants oral inquiry, whether he wants to submit any further document, witness and if yes, to supply the list, and further cautioned him that if reply is not received within specified time, then it will be deemed that appellant does not want to say anything and ex-parte proceeding will be drawn. 15. Perusal of record further reveals that on receipt of show-cause notice, which was issued to appellant based on the report of Vigilance Cell, appellant instead of submitting his reply before respondent- 13 Committee, has approached this Court by way of filing writ petition, obtained an interim order in his favour that no further action shall be taken against the appellant pursuant to the impugned notice/order. Therefore, no decision has been taken in the matter by respondent-Committee. Application of mind by the Committee on the inquiry report submitted by the Vigilance Cell as well as reply to the show-cause, documents and other evidence, if any, to be submitted by appellant, is still to take place. In such a situation, the learned Single Judge held that the writ petition filed by appellant is a premature, and therefore, the learned Single Judge was refraining itself to pass any order commenting on merits of the case. It will be the Committee constituted for specific purpose by the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court, who has to take decision in accordance with law, considering report of vigilance cell, reply of appellant to show-cause notice as well the documents and evidence, if any, to be brought on record by appellant, if opted, after providing personal hearing. 16. The High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee has issued show-cause notice specifically asking the appellant whether he wants personal hearing, oral inquiry, to produce witness or evidence in support of his social status certificate, if yes, to produce list. From the above question posed, opportunity provided it is apparent that if for any reason appellant could not get proper opportunity to prove his caste certificate, he can place all the material and evidence before the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee. He can also appear in person before the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee and make his submissions, and therefore, the submission that proper opportunity not granted is also not acceptable. 17. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant of protection of 14 service is also premature, that stage has yet not reached. At present stage the Committee is inquiring into social status certificate of the appellant, final order is yet to pass following the procedure as mentioned in the notice. If the order of the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee comes against appellant that the social status certificate is wrongly obtained and he does not belong to member of Scheduled Tribe of the State of Chhattisgarh, then only the said prayer may be made at appropriate stage and not at the stage of inquiry. 18. For the foregoing reason, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. However, learned Single Judge further observed that the writ petition was pending since 2017 and this Court has already passed interim order dated 08.01.2019 directing respondents not to take any coercive steps against appellant, the learned Single Judge granted a opportunity to the appellant to submit reply to show-cause notice dated 29.04.2017 and to submit his option whether he wants personal hearing or wants other options, as mentioned in the notice. In case, appellant submits reply within two months from the order or opts for any option as mentioned in show-cause notice, then the Committee after providing such opportunity to the appellant, shall pass the order in accordance with law, taking into consideration the vigilance report as well as reply, documents and evidence, if any, to be submitted by appellant following due procedure of law as also the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the law applicable to the case. 19. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while 15 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 20. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan