Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010272252024 2025:GAU-AS:1324 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6880/2024 ABDUL HANNAN S/O- MD. ABDUL KALAM, R/O- VILLAGE EAST BARHAWOR , P.O- BARHAWOR, DIST- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782439 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19. 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI-36 4:ALL ASSAM OTHER BACKWARDCLASS ASSOCIATION REP. BY THE PRESIDENT OBC COMPLEX DISPUR S.K BARUAH ROAD GUWAHATI-06 5:THE GOVERNING BODY OF MANGALDAI COLLEGE MANGALDAI DIST- DARRANG ASSAM Page No.# 2/4 PIN-784125 6:THE PRINCIPAL MANGALDAI COLLEGE DIST- DARRANG ASSAM PIN-784125 7:MD. AMIR HUSSAIN S/O- LATE SURUJ JAMAL R/O- VILLAGE NO-2 THEKERABARI P.O- DHULA P.S- DHULA DIST- DARRANG ASSAM PIN-78414 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P MAHANTA, V KHAKHALARY,C SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, HIGHER EDU BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY O R D E R 10.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. A.R. Tahbildar, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department for the respondent nos. 1 & 2; and Mr. R. Dhar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 3. 2. The petitioner has stated that on 19.12.2022, the respondent no. 6 published an advertisement inviting applications from candidates with all testimonials for direct recruitment in a numbers. of sanctioned vacant posts of Assistant Professors in Mangaldoi College, including a post of Assistant Professor in Arabic, which was reserved for candidates belonging to the unreserved Page No.# 3/4 category. In response to the said advertisement, the petitioner and the respondent no. 7 along with other candidates, submitted their candidatures. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 7 belongs to unreserved category and he had crossed the age-limit fixed for applying for the post for unreserved category. The petitioner has claimed that the respondent no. 7, in order to get benefit of higher age-limit for OBC/MOBC category, had obtained a caste certificate from the respondent no. 4, counter signed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup [M] District, and submitted the same while applying for the post of Assistant Professor in Arabic for unreserved category. As a result, the respondent no. 7 was allowed to participate in the selection process and finally, he has also been selected for the post of Assistant Professor in Arabic in Mangaldai College. 4. Contending that the respondent no. 7 could not have been selected on the basis of a fraudulent OBC caste certificate, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while obtaining the OBC caste certificate, the respondent no. 7 had presented his address at Guwahati whereas he is an original inhabitant of Darrang. 5. Mr. Dhar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 3 argues that whether a caste certificate is a fraudulent one or otherwise can be examined by the State Level Scrutiny Committee and the petitioner instead of approaching this Court, ought to have approached the State Level Scrutiny Committee to get the genuineness or otherwise of the OBC caste certificate of the respondent no. 7 verified. 6. It is not in dispute that in terms of determination made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr vs Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors. reported in 1994 INSC 348 Page No.# 4/4 the State of Assam has constituted two State Level Caste Scrutiny Committees, one dealing with the dispute as regards caste certificate of Schedule Tribe and the other committee is dealing with the disputes as regards status of Schedule Caste and OBC. In Madhuri Patil (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has in fact laid down the procedure and guideline in this regard and the State has also by way notifications laid down the detailed procedure in this regard. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this court would not like to exercise its power of judicial review to determine a dispute as regards genuineness of caste certificate of the respondent No. 7 raised by the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition stands closed. However, it is needless to say that if the petitioner is aggrieved, he shall be definitely at liberty, to approach the appropriate authority (Caste Scrutiny Committee) constituted under the dictum of Madhuri Patil (supra). JUDGE Comparing Assistant