1 WPS No. 4747 of 2016 2025:CGHC:23491 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4747 of 2016  Chandradhari Ram (Dead) Through Lrs. (i) Atvari Devi Wd/o Chandradhari Ram, aged about 58 years; (ii) Dharmendra Kumar Bharti S/o Chandradhari Ram, aged about 36 years; (iii) Pooja Bharti W/o Amit Kumar, aged about 28 years; (iv) Neha D/o Chandradhari Ram, aged about 25 years; (v) Jitendra Kumar S/o Chandradhari Ram, aged about 19 years All are R/o Camp-1, Bhilai, Bindanagar, nearby Ganesh Kirana Store, post Supela, Police Station Chhawani, Tahsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Chief Secretary, Kaushal Vikash Takniki Shiksha Mahandi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, Adim Jati Anusandhan evam Prasikshan Sansthan Pt. Deendayal Nagar, Sector-4, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.06.16 16:51:52 +0530 2 WPS No. 4747 of 2016 3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Durg Collectorate Building G.E. Road, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4. Principal, Uday Prasad Uday, Govt. Polytechnic Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, 491001. ... Respondents For Petitioners :- Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocate. For State :- Mr. Pankaj Singh, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 12/06/2025 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.07.2016 by which the petitioner’s services has been terminated from the post of Lab Assistant on the basis of the order of the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 27.06.2016/02.07.2016. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was earlier appointed as Lab Assistant on 08.02.1990. Thereafter, on the complaint made against the petitioner, his caste certificate was sent for verification to the Vigilance Cell and after due scrutiny and verification the Vigilance Cell submitted its report before the Chhattisgarh High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee and the petitioner was also served with the show cause notice along 3 WPS No. 4747 of 2016 with the enquiry report. Personal opportunity was also afforded to the petitioner to appear before the Committee on 27.06.2016. The petitioner appeared before the Committee but he failed to submit any documents showing that he or his ancestors are residing in the geographical area of State of Chhattisgarh prior to Presidential Notification dated 10.08.1950. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 27.06.2016/02.07.2016 was passed by the Scrutiny Committee relating to his caste leading to invalidation of his caste certificate. It is the further case of the petitioner that in accordance with Section 7 of the Chhattisgarh 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”), 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 has also participated in the capacity of Vice-Chairman, whereas he cannot be permitted to participate 4 WPS No. 4747 of 2016 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. Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the original petitioner has died during the pendency of this writ petition. He would also submit that as per notification dated 22.08.2013, in accordance with Section 7 of the Act of 2013 read with Rule 19 of the Rules of 2013 there has to be a five multi-member committee under the statutory notification which cannot delegate the statutory power of 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. To buttress his submission, he would rely upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Ramchandra Keshav Adke Ors. v. Govind Joti Chavare and Ors. 1 in which it has been held 1 1975 (1) SCC 559 5 WPS No. 4747 of 2016 by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that when power is given to a certain thing in a certain way, then it has to be done in that way or it cannot be done att all in the other way and failure to comply with would vitiate the proceeding from the beginning. A such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on that ground only. 5. Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned State counsel appearing for the State/respondents, would submit that the Committee so constituted has considered the case of the petitioner in 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 and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone 6 WPS No. 4747 of 2016 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 others 2 , 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 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 2 (1994) 6 SCC 241 7 WPS No. 4747 of 2016 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 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 8 WPS No. 4747 of 2016 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 lapkyd@mi lapkyd@lgk;d lapkyd@vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh@lgk;d vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh esa ls] ukekafdr nks vf/kdkjh LknL; 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 9 WPS No. 4747 of 2016 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 Kishroe Jha v. Mahavir Prasad and others 3 , Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jamnagar 4 & Ramchandra Keshav Adke (supra)). 12. However, the object of the constitution of the five multi- member committee has been considered by their Lordships of 3 (1999) 8 SCC 266 4 (2015) 11 SCC 628 10 WPS No. 4747 of 2016 the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal Secretary and another v. Mahendra Gupta and others 5 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-member body are expressed by opinion of majority of the members present except where the special majorities are provided in the statute itself." 13. Similarly, in the matter of S.S. Dhanoa v. Union of India and others 6 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- 5 (2018) 3 SCC 635 6 (1991) 3 SCC 567 11 WPS No. 4747 of 2016 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." 14. A Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Ajit Pramod Kumar Jogi v. High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee and another 7 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 7 2018 SCC OnLine Chh 114 12 WPS No. 4747 of 2016 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." 15. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is quite vivid that Chairman and the Vice-Chairman were the same in the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee who passed the order dated 27.06.2016/02.07.2016. However, the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee is constituted under the provisions of Section 7 of the Act of 2013 read with notification dated 22.08.2013, which is a five member committee and by virtue of Section 7 of the Act of 2013 and notification 22.08.2013 has clearly stated 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 13 WPS No. 4747 of 2016 of whom the caste certificate has been declared invalid and which has serious and drastic civil consequences of a that person. Therefore, one person cannot be allowed to act in dual capacity, one as Chairman and another as Vice-Chairman which also 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 deprived of valid debate, consultation and discussion, and key posts like Chairman & Vice Chairman, both, are headed by one and same person and thereby verification of the petitioner's case has got prejudicially affected. 16. Since no separate departmental enquiry proceeding was conducted and only on the basis of the enquiry report the impugned order dated 27.06.2016/02.07.2016 was passed by the five member High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee which was not constituted in accordance with Section 7 of the Act of 2013 read with notification dated 22.08.2013, the order dated 27.06.2016/02.07.2016 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed and consequently, termination of the petitioner vide order dated 21.07.2016 (Annexrure P/3) is also hereby quashed. As the original petitioner has already died during the pendency of 14 WPS No. 4747 of 2016 this writ petition, no order for reinstatement can be passed and similarly, matter cannot be remitted for fresh inquiry to Caste Scrutiny Committee. However, the legal representatives of the petitioner are at liberty to make representation before the respondents-authorities for grant of consequential benefits, which will be considered and decided by the respondents-authorities in accordance with law expeditiously. 17. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- - Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit