1 2025:CGHC:4592-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 40 of 2025 Jitendra Prasad Gond S/o Shri Jagannath Prasad Gond Aged About 49 Years R/o S/24, Pairi Colony, Tehsil And District Gariyabandh, (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resource Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur C.G. 2 - Engineer-In-Chief Water Resource Department, Shivnath Bhawan, C.G. Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Raipur 3 - Chief Engineer Mahanadi Project, Water Resource Department, Raipur, C.G. 4 - Chief Engineer Water Resource Department, Gariyaband, C.G. 5 - High Powered Caste Scrutiny Committee Office Of Commissioner, Scheduled Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development, Indravati Bhavan, Naya Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Harneet Kaur Khanuja, Saurabh Gupta on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.01.27 18:47:41 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 27.01.2025 1. Heard Ms. Harneet Kaur Khanuja and Saurabh Gupta on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent / State. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 26.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3242/2020 (Jitendra Prasad Gond Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner belongs to the Gond caste which is a Scheduled Tribe notified by the President of India for the State of Chhattisgarh. The writ petitioner migrated to the State of Chhattisgarh along with his father in the year 1992. The domicile certificate and the social status certificate were issued by the Competent Authority in favour of the petitioner in the year 1993. The writ petitioner was appointed on 20.01.1994 on the post of Assistant Grade-Il reserved for Scheduled Tribes under the Water Resources Department on the basis of Social Status Certificate. An anonymous complaint was made against the writ petitioner to the effect that he does not belong to the Scheduled Tribe Community and an investigation was initiated by respondent No.5. A report from the Vigilance Inspector was called by the High Power Caste 3 Scrutiny Committee which was submitted on 27.7.2017 wherein it was observed that the writ petitioner is a permanent resident of Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh. The details of the family were also given in that report. The writ petitioner was afforded proper opportunity and thereafter, the High Powered Caste Scrutiny Committee passed an order and cancelled the Social Status Certificate of the writ petitioner. Consequently, the services of the writ petitioner were also terminated. Being aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner / appellant herein preferred W.P.(S) No. 3242/2020, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 26.11.2024. 4. Challenging the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 26.11.2024 in writ petition, instant appeal has been filed by appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned single Judge has failed to appreciate that the writ petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Grade-II with the respondent No. 1 department since 1994 and has work for more than 26 years. Under Section 7 of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Statue Certification) Act, 2013 respondent No. 5 has no jurisdiction in initiating any inquiry. Further, respondent No. 5 has conducted inquiry without providing any opportunity of hearing and the witnesses were not allowed to be cross-examined and based upon the inquiry conducted which is without jurisdiction by the 4 respondent no. 5 who has no authority cancel the caste certificate as same was obtained in due procedure prescribed and therefore no liable to be cancelled under Section 8 of the Act, 2013. No fraud has been played by the writ petitioner in obtaining caste certificate. It is admitted fact that the writ petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe 'Gond' and only on the basis that ancestors of the writ petitioner did not reside in the State of Chhattisgarh before 06/09/1950, the caste certificate issued has been cancelled. The writ petitioner was nowhere at fault in gaining employment on the basis of caste certificate, the same was issued after following due process. The writ petitioner has obtained his caste certificate and domicile certificate on 03/08/1993 from Tahsildar Dharamjaigarh, Raigarh, as the petitioner/appellant is residing with his father and migrated to the State of Chhattisgarh along with his father. The judgment relied by the learned Single Judge is distinguishable in the facts of the case. The report says that the appellant/petitioner belongs to 'Gond Community' and Gond are recognized in State of Uttar Pradesh and also in the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh and now State of Chhattisgarh also. So the community/caste of the appellant/petitioner is not in dispute and has obtained the caste certificate after following due process and has not played any fraud. The appellant/petitioner is not aged about 49 years and has been ineligible for any appointment to earn his livelihood due to his old age and removal from services at this age has destroyed not only means of livelihood and the family of the appellant/petitioner are facing financial hardship and the appellant/petitioner is not in a 5 stage to start a new avenue for source of income and he is not eligible for any of the competitive exam for attaining a government job, looking to the aforesaid facts the authorities may be directed to consider the case of the appellant/petitioner mercifully and the order impugned in the writ petition be quashed/set-aside. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which, no interference is sought for. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order and materials available on record. 8. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner / appellant herein relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Bhadar Ram (dead) through Legal Representative vs. Jassa Ram and Others, (2022) 4 SCC 259 and has held that admittedly, the wit petitioner is a permanent resident of the State of U.P. He along with his father shifted to the State of Chhattisgarh in the year 1993. The Social Status Certificate and Domicile Certificate were issued in his favour by the Competent Authority. The writ petitioner got the appointment as Assistant Grade-ll in the Water Resources Department on the basis of Social Status Certificate. A complaint was made and an enquiry was conducted wherein it was found that the writ petitioner is not a permanent resident of the State of Chhattisgarh, therefore, he was 6 not entitled to get the benefit of the social status of Gond Community as notified in the State of Chhattisgarh. A complaint was made before the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, therefore, the enquiry was conducted by the said Committee. A report from the Vigilance Cell was called and according to that report which was conducted by the Vigilance Inspector at Khushinagar, U.P., it was found that the writ petitioner is a permanent resident of village Kushinagar though they belonged to Gond Community but they are not a permanent resident of the State of Chhattisgarh. The documents were supplied to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner was provided sufÏcient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and thereafter, the Social Status Certificate was cancelled. The appointment of the writ petitioner on the post of Assistant Grade-ll was also cancelled as the writ petitioner was appointed against the post reserved for the Scheduled Tribes category. After considering all these aspects and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the learned Single Judge concluded that The High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee has not committed any error of law in cancelling the social status certificate of the writ petitioner and the department has also not committed any error of law in terminating the services of the writ petitioner. 9. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm view that the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons as in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In an intra Court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable 7 infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 10. In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet