Page No.# 1/17 GAHC010187122021 2025:GAU-AS:12269 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6498/2021 MAHENDRA CHOUHAN S/O. LT. GANESH BAHADUR CHOUHAN, VILL. BHAWRAGURI, P.O. NAGRIJULI, P.S. TAMULPUR, DIST. BAKSA, ASSAM, PIN-781368. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, PETROLEUM MINISTRY, SASHTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110001. 2:THE CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. G9 ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG BANDRA EAST MUMBAI PIN-400051 3:THE CHIEF AREA MANAGER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. INTEGRATED AREA OFFICE 2 DR B K KAKOTI ROAD KACHARI BASTI ULUBARI GUWAHATI PIN-781007. 4:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM WPT AND BC DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. Page No.# 2/17 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BAKSA MUSHALPUR DIST. BAKSA ASSAM PIN-781372. 6:DHRUBA KODEL S/O. TIKARAM KODEL VILL. BHAORAGURI P.O. NAGRIJULI P.S. TAMULPUR DIST. BAKSA ASSAM PIN-781368. 7:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 8:THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT ASSAM LAKHI MANDIR BELTOLA GUWAHATI-28. 9:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER TAMULPUR DIST- TAMULPUR (BTC) ASSAM PIN-781367 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M SARANIA, MS N RAI,MR H MEDHI,MD. S U AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., MR. R .M DAS, SC SOCIAL JUSTICE & EMPOWERMENT DEPTT.,MS. A LALA (r-6),MR. S UPADHAY (r-6),MR. B CHAKRAVARTY (r- 6),MR. A K DUTTA (C.G.C., R1),GA, ASSAM,SC, I O C,SC, WPT AND BC Page No.# 3/17 Linked Case : WP(C)/2093/2021 DHRUBA KODEL S/O- TIKARAM KODEL R/O- VILL- BHAORAGURI P.O. NAGRIJULI P.S. TAMULPUR DIST.- BAKSA ASSAM PIN- 781368 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM WPT AND BC DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-6 2:THE STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SAID COMMITTEE-CUM-SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM WPT AND BC DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-6 3:THE DY. COMMISSIONER BAKSA DIST.- BAKSA ASSAM 4:THE ALL ASSAM OTHER BACKWARD CLASSES ASSOCIATION K.N.BARUAH ROAD GHY-6 REP. BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE SAID ASSOCIATION 5:MAHENDRA CHOUHAN S/O- GANESH BAHADUR CHOUHAN R/O- VILL- BHAORAGURI P.O. NAGRIJULI P.S. TAMULPUR DIST.- BAKSA ASSAM PIN- 781368 6:THE CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR Page No.# 4/17 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. G9 ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG BANDRA WEST MUMBAI- 400051. 7:THE CHIEF AREA MANAGER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. INTEGRATED AREA OFFICE 2 DR. B.K. KAKATI ROAD KACHARI BASTI P.O.- ULUBARI P.S.- PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI- 781007. 8:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. ------------ Advocate for : MR. P SARMAH Advocate for : SC WPT AND BC appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 04-09-2025 Heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2093/2021 and Mr. M. Sarania, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 6498/2021. Also heard Mr. A.K. Dutta, learned CGC appearing for the respondent No. 1 in W.P.(C) No. 6498/2021, Mr. R.M. Das, learned standing counsel appearing for the Social Welfare Department/ respondent No. 2 in W.P.(C) No. 2093/2021 and Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the IOCL in W.P.(C) No. 6498/2021. 2. The issues arising in the above noted two writ petitions being common and Page No.# 5/17 interconnected, the writ petitions, as consented to by the learned counsel for the parties, are taken up analogously for hearing and is being disposed of by the present order. W.P.(C) No. 2093/2021 The petitioner in the present proceeding has presented a challenge to the order dated 11-02-2021, passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, inter alia, concluding that the petitioner does not belong to Other Backward Classes (OBC). The petitioner has further prayed for allowing the petitioner to continue to avail the status of OBC in the matter. W.P.(C) No. 6498/2021 The petitioner in the present proceeding has prayed for cancellation of the Letter of Intent (LoI) dated 18-02-2015 proposed to be issued awarding the “Rajiv Gandhi Rural LPG Distributorship” in Bhawraguri to the respondent No. 6, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2093/2021. The petitioner has further assailed the letter of appointment dated 03-03-2016 issued to the respondent No. 6, i.e. the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2093/2021, along with cancellation of the OBC certificate issued to the respondent No. 6. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of the said distributorship under OBC category to the petitioner, herein. 3. The facts as requisite for adjudication of the issue arisen in the above noted writ petition is noticed as under. Page No.# 6/17 The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) authorities had issued an advertisement dated 29-12-2013 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for allotment of the Rajiv Gandhi Rural LPG Distributorship. One of the site as identified for issuance of the said distributorship was at Bhawraguri under Tamulpur Revenue Circle in the district of Baska. The said site was exclusively reserved for OBC community candidates. The petitioners in the above noted writ petitions, by projecting that they belong to the OBC community submitted their respective applications in response to the said advertisement. On scrutiny being made of the applications submitted by the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions, they being found to be eligible for participation in the selection process, their names were shortlisted for the draw of lots to be held for selection for award of the said distributorship. In pursuance to the draw of lots held in the matter, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2093/2021 came to be awarded the LPG distributorship at Bhawraguri by the IOCL authorities. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 6498/2021 being aggrieved by the award of distributorship to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2093/2021, by contending that the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 2093/2021, does not belong to OBC community, but belongs to Brahmin caste, had assailed the same before this Court by way of instituting the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2831/2015. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 6498/2021, also by way of instituting a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 5322/2016, had assailed the caste certificate issued in respect of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2093/2021. The said writ petitions were analogously considered by a coordinate Bench of this Court and Page No.# 7/17 vide order dated 23-03-2018, the writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to the State Level Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste status of the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 2093/2021, within a period of 04 (four) months after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the above noted writ petitions as well as other persons as may be considered necessary by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. It was further provided that in the event the State Level Scrutiny Committee finds that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2093/2021 does not belong to the OBC category, the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 6498/2021 was granted liberty to challenge the order of allotment made in favour of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2093/2021. It is seen that in pursuance to the direction passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23-03-2018, the matter was considered by the State Level Scrutiny Committee and on such consideration, the State Level Scrutiny Committee vide a speaking order dated 11-02-2021 proceeded to hold that the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 2093/2021 does not belong to the OBC community. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. The learned counsel for the parties have advanced their submission with regard to the stands taken by them in the above noted writ petitions. 5. On consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that at the outset the speaking order dated 11-02-2021 under challenge in W.P.(C) No. 2093/2021 would be required to be considered. Page No.# 8/17 6. The speaking order dated 11-02-2021 being so required to be taken into consideration and the same being relevant, is extracted here-in-below: GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM WELFARE OF PLAIN TRIBES & BACKWARD CLASSES DEPARTMENT DISPUR ::: GUWAHATI – 6 Block- D, 3rd Floor, Janata Bhawan, wptbc.assam.gov.in, wptbc2014@gmail.com No. TAD/BC/785/2018/193 Dated Dispur the 11th February, 2021 SPEAKING ORDER Whereas, a contempt case (C) No. 482/2018 and a complaint petition received from Shri Mahendra Chouhan, S/O Ganesh Bahadur Chouhan, Village- Bhaoraguri, P.O. Nagrijuli, P.S. Tamulpur, Dist.-Baksa, Assam, PIN-781368 by WPT&BC Department regarding Caste Status of Shri Dhruba Kodel, son of Shri Tikaram Kodel of village- Bhaoraguri, P.O. Nagrijuli under Tamulpur police station in the Dist.- Baksa, Assam, PIN-781368. Whereas, on receipt of the above, it became needful for the State Level Scrutiny Committee to verify and establish the Caste Status of Shri Dhruba Kodel, therefore, an enquiry was conducted through the Deputy Commissioner, Baksa. Whereas, a hearing of State Level Scrutiny Committee was held on 12-12-2018 at 11:30 a.m. ni which both the complainant and respondent were heard. Whereas, the Deputy Commissioner submitted his report stating that Shri Dhruba Kodel falls under OBC category. But, the State Level Scrutiny Committee verified the documents submitted by the complainant and considering the facts stated by the President, Asom Gorkha Sammelan, Baksa District Committee, the State Level Scrutiny Committee found the following: 1. The father of Shri Dhruba Kodel belongs to General category (Brahmin). The voter list of 1965 reflects clearly as the father’s name was recorded as Tikaram Kodel Sharma. 2. The name of a brother of Shri Dhruba Kodel was recorded as Mohan Prasad Kodel Sharma in the land documents. 3. In the NRC data the name of the brother of Tikaram Kodel (father of Shri Dhruba Kodel) was written as Lila Ballav Kodel Bamun. 4. As stated by the respondent and the President of Asom Gorkha Sammelan, Baksa District Committee, the Caste Status of a male degraded by the inter caste marriage system of the lower caste. The State Level Scrutiny Committee carefully examined all the above aspects and seated several times to discuss the various instructions issued from Govt. of India and finally consider the guidelines issued vide circular letter No. 35/1/72/-R.U.(SCT.V), Dated the April 1975/ Vaisakha, 1897 in which the caste status of a person cannot be changed through marriage. Page No.# 9/17 As such, the State Level Scrutiny Committee is of the opinion that Shri Dhruba Kodel, son of Shri Tikaram Kodel of village- Bhaoraguri, P.O.- Nagrijuli under Tamulpur police station in the Dist.-Baksa, Assam, PIN-781368 does not belong to Other Backward Classes, sub-caste Chetri (Nepali) of Assam, listed by the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt. of India. Sd/- Chairperson, State Level Scrutiny Committee & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam WPT&BC Department Sd/- Sd/- Member Member State Level Scrutiny Committee State Level Scrutiny Committee & & Director, WPT&BC Department Director (I/C), Welfare of SC, Assam On perusal of the said speaking order dated 11-02-2021, it is revealed that State Level Scrutiny Committee in pursuance to the directions passed by this Court had taken up the matter basing on the complaint raised by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 6498/2021 with regard to the caste status of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2093/2021. It is further revealed that the State Level Scrutiny Committee had considered the matter in its meeting held on 12-12-2018, wherein both the writ petitioners in the above noted writ petitions were heard. The order further reveals that the jurisdictional District Commissioner had submitted his report stating that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2093/2021 falls under the OBC category. However, the said report having been received, the State Level Scrutiny Committee proceeded to consider the documents submitted before it, by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. Page No.# 10/17 6498/2021, along with the facts stated by the President, Asom Gorkha Sammelan, Baska District Committee. On a scrutiny of the said materials coming on record, the State Level Scrutiny Committee concluded that the father of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 2093/2021 belonged to the General Community (Brahmin) and in the Voters List of 1965, the name of his father was reflected as Tikaram Kodel Sharma. Further it was recorded that the name of the brother of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2093/2021, was also recorded as Mohan Prasad Kodel Sharma in the land records produced before the said Committee. Further in the NRC data that was placed before the Scrutiny Committee, it was found that the name of the brother of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2093/2021 was recorded as Lila Bhallav Kodel Bamun. Upon noticing the disclosure made from the said documents, the State Level Scrutiny Committee also noticed the statement of the President of Asom Gorkha Sammelan, Baska District Committee, to the effect that the caste status of a male gets degraded by inter-caste marriage system to a lower caste. Basing on the said materials the State Level Scrutiny Committee concluded that the caste status of a person cannot be changed through marriage. Accordingly, the State Level Scrutiny Committee proceeded to conclude that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2093/2021, does not belong to the OBC community and accordingly, necessary directions were came to be issued towards cancellation of the caste certificate issued by the jurisdictional District Commissioner to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2093/2021. 7. Having noticed the conclusions reached by the State Level Scrutiny Committee Page No.# 11/17 and the manner it was reached, this Court is of the considered view that before examining the same, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Dev. & Ors., reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241, is to be noticed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 13 of the said decision, with regard to the need to streamline the procedure for issuance of a social status certificate, laid down the following guidelines: “1. The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level. 2. The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn and attested by a competent gazetted officer or non- gazetted officer 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 officers, namely, (1) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the department concerned, (11) 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 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. 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 officer should personally verify Page No.# 12/17 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 officer 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 officer to the candidate by a registered post with acknowledgement due or through the head of the educational institution concerned in which the candidate is studying or employed. The notice should indicate that 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. Page No.# 13/17 9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as 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 officer 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 affidavit duly sworn by the parent/guardian/candidate before the competent officer or non-official 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. 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 offices 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 acknowledgement 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 office in a post.” 8. On applying the procedure to be followed for the purpose of caste Page No.# 14/17 determination, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra), to the facts of the present case, it is found that the procedure as laid down in the said decision has not been followed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, while proceeding to ascertain the caste status of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2093/2021. The requisite study required to be carried out to ascertain the caste status of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2093/2021, had not been carried out. It is seen that the enquiry required to be made at the field level to ascertain the claim made by a person to belong to a particular caste, is not seen to have been carried out in the matter. The speaking order dated 11-02-2021 reveals that the jurisdictional District Commissioner had given a report wherein it was highlighted that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2093/2021 belongs to the OBC community. The basis of the said report was not considered by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. It is a requirement in pursuance to the guidelines framed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra) that the Vigilance Office is to personally verify and collect all facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent of guardian, as the case may be. He also being required to examine the school records, birth registration, if any and thereafter to examine the family members of the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the caste status of the person concerned and then to submit a report in the matter with all particulars relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, Page No.# 15/17 death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. The said exercise having admittedly not been carried out by the State Level Scrutiny Committee for arriving at its conclusion as reflected in the speaking order dated 11-02-2021, pertaining to the caste status of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2093/2021, this Court is of the considered view that the said speaking order dated 11-02-2021 would not be sustainable and would call for interference from this Court. 9. In view of the said conclusion drawn by this Court in the matter, this Court is left with no other option but to interfere with the speaking order dated 11-02-2021. Accordingly, the speaking order dated 11-02-2021, stands set aside. 10. The materials brought on record, having questioned the caste status of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2093/2021, this Court in view of the disputed question of facts, coming on record, is not in a position to arrive at a definite conclusion with regard to the caste status of the said petitioner. Accordingly, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra), the matter is remanded back to the State Level Scrutiny Committee, with a direction to the Committee to verify the caste status of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2093/2021, strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra), as well as the guidelines that may have been issued by the Govt. of Assam in this connection. While proceeding to consider the caste status of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2093/2021, in terms of the directions passed by this Court, hereinabove, the State Level Scrutiny Page No.# 16/17 Committee shall provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in both W.P.(C) No. 2093/2021 and W.P.(C) No. 6498/2021 and thereafter, by following the procedure mandated to be followed in the matter, arrive at a conclusion with regard to the caste status of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2093/2021 and issue a speaking order in the matter. The caste status of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2093/2021 being also relevant to be so determined for award of the Rajiv Gandhi Rural LPG Distributorship by the IOCL, it is provided that the award of the said distributorship to the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 2093/2021 would be subject to the outcome of the exercise required to be carried out towards verification of the caste status of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2093/2021 by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. Necessary follow up action in the matter would be taken by the District Commissioner, Baska as well as the IOCL authorities basing on the decision that would now be rendered in the matter upon verification of the caste status of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2093/2021 by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, in terms of the directions passed hereinabove. The State Level Scrutiny Committee shall complete the exercise now required to be carried out by it, strictly by following the procedure mandated, within a period of 03 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order from either of the petitioners, in the above noted writ petitions. With the above observations and directions, the W.P.(C) No. 2093/2021 and W.P. (C) No. 6498/2021 stand disposed of. Page No.# 17/17 JUDGE Comparing Assistant