1 (WPS No. 3348 of 2016) 2025:CGHC:12697 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3348 of 2016 1 - Balram Prasad S/o Ramchandra Prasad, Aged About 45 Years, Senior Agriculture Development Officer, Office Of Deputy Director, Agriculture, Civil And Revenue District Bastar, Place Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribes Development, Mantralaya Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee, Through Its Member Secretary, Tribal Research And Training Institute, Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar, Sector-4, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Deputy Director, Agriculture, District Bastar, Place Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar (Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Petitioner :- Mr. Anurag Agrawal and Md. Ruhul Ameen Memon, Advocates For State :- Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 17.03.2025 1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein calls in question legality, validity and correctness of ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.03.22 11:33:40 +0530 2 (WPS No. 3348 of 2016) order dated 30.06.2016 (Annexure P/16) passed by the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee/respondent No.2 constituted under Section 7 of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the Act of 2013’) read with Rule 19 of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Rules, 2013 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2013’), by which the petitioner’s caste certificate dated 05.05.2008 (Annexure P/8) has been invalidated. 2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop: - It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed to the post of Agriculture Development Officer in the office of Additional Director, Agriculture, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur vide order dated 09.08.1996 (Annexure P/1). On a complaint relating to validity of caste certificate of the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted by the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee, Raipur and the Vigilance Cell of the said Committee submitted its report on 03.09.2013 (Annexure P/11) and the petitioner was served with show-cause notice on 21.03.2014 (Annexure P/14). The petitioner also appeared before the Committee on 3 (WPS No. 3348 of 2016) 15.06.2016 and ultimately, impugned order dated 30.06.2016 (Annexure P/16) was passed relating to invalidation of his caste certificate, owing to which, the petitioner may be deprived from employment as the verified caste certificate is a mandatory requirement for government employment. It is the further case of the petitioner that in accordance with Section 7 of the Act of 2013 read with Rule 19 of the Rules of 2013, a five multi- member committee has to be constituted, yet, the Committee which has taken the impugned decision was not duly constituted as the Chairman of the Committee who is also the Director, Adimjati Administration & Training Institute, Raipur, has also participated in the capacity of Vice-Chairman, whereas he cannot be permitted to participate in the said capacity and therefore the Committee was not duly constituted and as such the impugned order is liable to be rejected. 3. Return has been filed by the State/respondents stating inter alia that invalidation of the petitioner’s caste certificate is in accordance with law and as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Md. Ruhul Ameen Memon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that notification dated 22-8- 2013 has been issued in accordance with Section 7 of the 4 (WPS No. 3348 of 2016) Act of 2013 read with Rule 19 of the Rules of 2013 and there has to be a five multi-member committee under the statutory notification which cannot delegate the statutory power to the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Committee and the Chairman of the Committee cannot participate in the dual capacity of both Chairman & Vice- Chairman, as the very object of the multi-member committee constituted by the said notification would frustrate and it leads to non-compliance of the notification. He would further submit that non-compliance of notification dated 22-8-2013 suffers from vice of discrimination and as a consequence of the order passed by the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee constituted under Section 7 of the Act of 2013, the social status certificate of the petitioner has been declared invalid which would have drastic civil consequences and the order passed by the said Committee is only subject to proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, constitution of the committee must be in accordance with notification dated 22-8-2013, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, learned State Counsel appearing for the State/respondents, would submit that the Committee so constituted has considered the case of the petitioner in 5 (WPS No. 3348 of 2016) accordance with law and merely because the Chairman of the Committee has also participated in the dual capacity of Chairman & Vice-Chairman as well, the same would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner more particularly, the petitioner has participated in the entire proceeding and did not raise any objection in that regard right in time and therefore the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and the order impugned deserves to be upheld. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 7. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others1, in order to streamline the procedure for issuance of social status certificate, has directed all the State Governments to 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 1 (1994) 6 SCC 241 6 (WPS No. 3348 of 2016) 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. 8. Thereafter, the Act of 2013 was enacted to protect the interest of persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and Other Socially and Educationally Backward Classes of citizens in the State from those who fraudulently obtains false Social Status Certification, certifying that the person belongs to these sections of populations, which came into force with effect from 29-4- 2013. Section 7 of the Act of 2013 provides for constitution of High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee, which states that the State Government shall constitute, by notification in the Official Gazette, one or more High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee or Committees, for conducting enquiry into Social Status Certificate(s) referred to it by District Level Certificates Verification Committee under Section 6 or by the State Government, and it shall be the duty of the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee to examine the report of the District Level Certificates Verification Committee and to proceed in the matter as prescribed under Chapter IV of 7 (WPS No. 3348 of 2016) the Act, and it shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed. However, Section 8 of the Act of 2013 provides for cancellation and confiscation of false Social Status Certificate, which states that if after enquiry under Section 7 of the Act, High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee is of the opinion that, the social status certificate was obtained wrongfully or fraudulently, it shall, by an order in writing, cancel and confiscate the certificate by following such procedure as may be prescribed. As such, cancellation or confiscation of a Social Status Certificate has drastic civil consequences upon the status of the person whose caste certificate is in question. 9. In exercise of the power under Section 7(1) of the Act of 2013, the State Government has constituted the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee, as under, by Notification dated 22.8.2013 :- dz- Lkfefr esa ukekafdr vf/kdkjhx.k v/;{k@lnL; 1- izeq[k lfpo@lfpo] NRrhlx<+ ’kklu] vkfne tkfr rFkk vuqlwfpr tkfr fodkl foHkkx v/;{k 2- vk;qDr@lapkyd] vkfne tkfr vuqla/kku rFkk izf’k{k.k laLFkku] N-x-] jk;iqj mik/;{k 3- vk;qDr@lapkyd] vkfne tkfr rFkk vuqlwfpr tkfr fodkl foHkkx] N-x-] jk;iqj LknL; lfpo 4- vk;qDr@lapkyd] vkfne tkfr vuqla/kku rFkk izf’k{k.k laLFkku] jk;iqj }kjk vkfne tkfr vuqla/kku rFkk izf’k{k.k laLFkku esa inLFk la;qDr lapkyd@mi LknL; 8 (WPS No. 3348 of 2016) lapkyd@mi lapkyd@lgk;d lapkyd@ vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh@lgk;d vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh esa ls] ukekafdr nks vf/kdkjh 10. As such, by virtue of notification dated 22-8-2013, if a Social Status Certificate is questioned, it has to be considered by the committee so constituted that is a five multi-member committee consisting of (1) Principal Secretary/Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Tribal & Scheduled Castes Development being Chairman; (2) Commissioner/Director, Tribal Research & Training Institute, Chhattisgarh, Raipur being Vice-Chairman; (3) Commissioner/ Director, Tribal & Scheduled Castes Development, Chhattisgarh, Raipur being Member Secretary; and (4) two Officers amongst Joint Director/Deputy Director/Assistant Director/Research Officer/ Assistant Research Officer posted in Tribal Research & Training Institute, Raipur, nominated by Commissioner/Director, Tribal Research & Training Institute, Raipur, being Members. 11. It is well settled law that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. (See Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad and others2.) 2 (1999) 8 SCC 266 9 (WPS No. 3348 of 2016) 12. In the matter of Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jamnagar3 it has been held that if the law requires that something to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner, and if not done in that manner has no existence in the eye of law at all. The Customs Authorities are not absolved from following the law depending upon the acts of a particular assessee. Something that is illegal cannot convert itself into something legal by the act of a third person. 13. However, the object of the constitution of the five multi-member committee has been considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal Secretary and another v. Mahendra Gupta and others4 and it has been held that the multi-member body transacts its business after debate, consultation and discussion, and it has been observed in paragraph 15 as under: - "15. The multi-member body transacts its business after debate, consultation and discussion. The view of multi-member body is expressed unanimously or by votes. For various kind of decisions by multi-member body special majorities are also provided for acceptance of the decision. Normally, all decisions of a multi- 3 (2015) 11 SCC 628 4 (2018) 3 SCC 635 10 (WPS No. 3348 of 2016) member body are expressed by opinion of majority of the members present except where the special majorities are provided in the statute itself." 14. Similarly, in the matter of S.S. Dhanoa v. Union of India and others5 it has been held that there is no doubt that two heads are better than one, but it is both necessary and desirable that the powers are not exercised by one individual, however, all-wise he may be. It has been observed as under: - "26. There is no doubt that two heads are better than one, and particularly when an institution like the Election Commission is entrusted with vital functions, and is armed with exclusive uncontrolled powers to execute them, it is both necessary and desirable that the powers are not exercised by one individual, however, all-wise he may be. It ill-conforms the tenets of the democratic rule. It is true that the independence of an institution depends upon the persons who man it and not on their number. A single individual may sometimes prove capable of withstanding all the pulls and pressures, which many may not. However, when vast powers are exercised by an institution which is accountable to none, it is politic to entrust its affairs to more hands than one. It helps to assure judiciousness and want of arbitrariness. The fact, however, remains that where more individuals than one, man an institution, their roles have to be clearly defined, if the functioning of the institution is not to come to a naught." 5 (1991) 3 SCC 567 11 (WPS No. 3348 of 2016) 15. A Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Ajit Pramod Kumar Jogi v. High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee and another 6 while dealing with constitution of committee under Section 7 of the Act of 2013 read with Notification dated 22.8.2013 held that it affects rights of parties, not simply a matter of procedure and observed as under: - "17. 'Committee' is understood as a group of people. It cannot be understood as a bunch of offices which are manned by a single person. We say this in the context of the fact that a particular individual held the office of Special Secretary to the Tribal and Scheduled Tribe Development; Commissioner, Tribal and Scheduled Tribe Development; and, Director, Tribal Research and Training Institute. Keeping aside the plea of the Petitioner that the three persons who were holding those offices were transferred out and a single person was brought to be the in charge of all the three offices, with the extraneous and oblique motive of denying fairness to the Petitioner, we may say that the constitution of the persons who are shown to have issued the impugned Annexure P/1 order as a Committee; that too, in place of a statutory Committee, does not behove the tenets of real and true justice. It smacks institutional arbitrariness which could be brimming on to the different allegations that are raised in the writ petition." 16. After having considered the provision for constituting the committee and pertinent decisions in this regard, it 6 2018 SCC OnLine Chh 114 12 (WPS No. 3348 of 2016) would be appropriate to notice the constitution of Committee in the instant case which has passed the order invalidating the caste certificate of the petitioner, which is as under: - (jkts’k lqdqekj VksIiks) lnL; lfpo tkfr izek.k&i= mPp Lrjh; Nkuchu lfefr ,oa vk;qDr] vk-tk rFkk vuq- tkfr fodkl] jk;iqj N-x (vk’kh"k dqekj HkV~V) mik/;{k tkfr izek.k&i= mPp Lrjh; Nkuchu lfefr ,oa lapkyd] vkfne tkfr vuq- ,oa izf’k- laLFkku] jk;iqj N-x- (vk’kh"k dqekj HkV~V) v/;{k tkfr izek.k&i= mPp Lrjh; Nkuchu lfefr ,oa lfpo] N-x- ’kklu vk-tk rFkk vuq- tkfr fodkl foHkkx] jk;iqj N-x- (th-,e- >k) lnL; tkfr izek.k&i= mPp Lrjh; Nkuchu lfefr ,oa milapkyd] vk-tk vuq- ,oa izf’k{k.k laLFkku jk;iqj N-x- (,u-,l jktiwr) lnL; tkfr izek.k&i= mPp Lrjh; Nkuchu lfefr ,oa milapkyd] vk-tk vuq- ,oa izf’k{k.k laLFkku jk;iqj N-x- 17. A careful perusal of the constitution of the Committee would show that the Secretary of the Department of Tribal & Scheduled Castes Development Shri Ashish Kumar Bhatt has acted in dual capacity as Chairman & Vice- Chairman, both, of the Committee, which is impermissible in law, as one person cannot be allowed to work in dual capacity, however, other members appear to have been constituted and acted in accordance with law. In the matter of Rajendra Shankar Shukla and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others7, in identical situation where one officer of the State acted in different capacities in relation to the same transaction, their Lordships of the 7 (2015) 10 SCC 400 13 (WPS No. 3348 of 2016) Supreme Court have held that each authority was expected to apply its mind independently of each other and it has also been held by their Lordships that the bare minimum requirement of trust and fairness by the State that should ensure its people in running of the Government. 18. As such, it is quite vivid that though by virtue of Section 7 of the Act of 2013, notification dated 22-8-2013 has been issued clearly stating that Chairman and Vice- Chairman of the Committee have to be two different persons one is Principal Secretary/Secretary of the Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Tribal & Scheduled Castes Development and another is Commissioner/Director, Tribal Research & Training Institute, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, but they both cannot be one and same, as wide power has been conferred to the Committee to consider and verify the caste status of a person whose caste certificate has been declared invalid and which has serious and drastic civil consequences upon that person. Therefore, one person cannot be allowed to act in dual capacity, one as Chairman and another as Vice-Chairman which runs contrary to the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in Mahendra Gupta's case (supra) and S.S. Dhanoa (supra), as the Committee is 14 (WPS No. 3348 of 2016) deprived of valid debate, consultation and discussion, and key posts like Chairman & Vice Chairman, both, are headed by one and same person and two other Members of the Committee are Joint Director/Deputy Director/ Assistant Director/Research Officer/Assistant Research Officer posted in Tribal Research & Training Institute, Raipur, and thereby verification of the petitioner's case has got prejudicially affected. 19. 19. Consequently, the impugned order dated 30.06.2016 (Annexure P-16) passed by the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the duly constituted Committee to consider and pass order afresh in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. 20. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!