1 / 11 2025:CGHC:7120 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1815 of 2013 Order Reserved on 11.11.2024 Order Delivered on 07.02.2025 Padam Bhushan Kashi, aged about 51 years, S/o Shri M.L. Kashi, R/o B-217 Shri Ram Tower, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, P.S. Tarbahar, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Presently posted as Deputy Director, Urban Administration Department, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Urban Administration & Rural Development Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2. High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, Through its President cum Secretary, Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe Development Department, Tribal Research Training Institute, Pt. Dindayal Upadhayay Nagar, Sector-4, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocates For State/Respondents : Mr. Swajeet Singh Ubeja, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge C A V Order 1. Heard Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Swajeet Singh Ubeja, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondents. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.02.12 12:07:21 +0530 2 / 11 2. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 08/10/2013 passed by respondent No.2 i.e. High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as “Committee”), by which respondent No.2 has cancelled the caste status of the petitioner being ‘Majhi’ (Scheduled Tribe) as well as directed the employer to take necessary action in accordance with law. 3. The petitioner while challenging the aforesaid order has sought for following relief(s) :- “i. To kindly quash the impugned order dated 08/10/2013 issued by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee (Annexure P/1). ii. To kindly direct the respondent No.1 not to take any action in respect of impugned finding dated 08/10/2013 thereby keeping the petitioner on the post of Deputy Director or in-charge Joint Director Urban Administration Department intact. iii. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 4. Brief facts for disposal of the instant writ petition are that, the petitioner belongs to Majhi caste, in respect of which, a caste certificate has been issued by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner was selected by the Public Service Commission Indore (M.P.) (hereinafter referred to as “PSC”) for 3 / 11 the post of Assistant Director in Local Administration Department vide order dated 16.02.1989. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Director vide order dated 29.07.1989, since then, the petitioner was working on the aforesaid post. In the appointment order itself, it has been mentioned that the seniority of the petitioner will be maintained as per merit list forwarded by the PSC. It was also mentioned that petitioner was placed at Serial No.2 in the merit list; meaning thereby that the petitioner was selected on the aforesaid post as ‘General Category Candidate’ and not under the ‘Reserved Category Candidate’ as he was secured higher marks than by the General Candidates. It has been further mentioned that the petitioner secured 40 marks whereas one Prem Narayan Pande, a candidate of General Category secured 35 marks. From the said fact, it is apparent from the face of the record that in fact, petitioner was selected on the basis of his marks obtained above the General Category Candidate and as such, he has been selected under the General Category and not under the Schedule Tribe Category. No where, it has been mentioned that the petitioner was selected by taking benefit of reservation. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Deputy Director vide order dated 25.06.1997, and at the time of promotion also, he has been promoted as General Category Candidate and has not taken any benefit of reservation. 5. After formation of State of Madhya Pradesh, petitioner has opted 4 / 11 for the State of Chhattisgarh and was working as Deputy Director in the Urban Administration Department, Bilaspur. On the basis of some complaint, the Committee has issued notice vide letter dated 12.08.2011 to the petitioner, thereafter, another notice dated 30.12.2011 was issued to the petitioner by the Vigilance Cell alleging that upon enquiry, it was found that the petitioner belongs to ‘Kewat’ caste, which has been mentioned in the service book of his father, namely Munna Lal Kashi. The admission register pertaining to the year 1952 also goes to show that the petitioner was studying at Government School, Baikunthpur, District Surguja (now District Korea). In the said register, the caste of the father has been shown to be ‘Kewat’. Likewise, caste of the brother of the petitioner was also shown to be ‘Kewat’, as such, petitioner was required to demonstrate the records prior to 06.09.1950 showing that he belonged to ‘Majhi’ caste. 6. The petitioner replied to the aforesaid notice and stated that he belonged to ‘Majhi’ caste, which is a Schedule Tribe. ‘Majhi’ caste has been further amalgamated into ‘Kewat’. He has also filed various authentic quotation of books issued by Anthropological and Ecological Servery of India as directed by the Committee. On 29.12.2011, an internal report was submitted by the Vigilance Cell stating that petitioner had illegally got the benefit of Majhi caste. The Vigilance Cell has mainly considered the ‘Kewat’ caste mentioned in the service-book in respect of fore-father and father of the petitioner and the educational documents in respect of the 5 / 11 brother of the petitioner. Based on this report, the Committee, in a mechanical manner has held that the petitioner does not belong to a ‘Majhi’ caste, which is a Schedule Tribe and further held that from the records, it seems that the petitioner belonged to a ‘Kewat’ caste, which is not a Schedule Tribe. 7. Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed several documentary evidence showing origin of his caste with respect to ‘Kewat’ and ‘Majhi’ caste along with valid examples. However, the Committee has not considered the reply along with documents filed by the petitioner and passed the impugned order, which is prima facie is not in accordance with law. He further submits that Hon’ble Supreme Court in many a judgments has laid down the several aspects in respect of considering the caste and categorically held that in deciding the caste of any person, pre-independence documents should have given greater reliance as compared to the post- independence documents. In case of pre-independence documents, the case of the applicants has been established, then some benefit is required to be given to them and by doing so, ample opportunity is required to be given to the person claiming his caste. It has been stated by the petitioner that since he has not taken the benefit of his caste at the time of his appointment as well as further in promotion, the service of the petitioner would not be affected. Even in that case, the authorities would have decided the case of the petitioner, but the petitioner has not given proper 6 / 11 opportunity of hearing. It has been contended that while holding the petitioner to be ‘Kewat’ caste, Committee has failed to consider the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner and only on the basis of some of the mentioning made in the official documents of his father and brother, the petitioner was held to be of a ‘Kewat’ caste, whereas caste certificate which was seized prior to his appointment by the competent authorities goes to show that he belonged to ‘Majhi’ caste. There are very much similarities in Kewat and Majhi caste. In some region, they were called as ‘Kewat’ and in some region, they were called as ‘Majhi’. The basic work of both these castes are fishing and plying boats. There are many anthropological evidence and also there are various books indicating that petitioner belongs to ‘Majhi’ caste. However, the same has not been considered by the Committee while passing the order under challenge. It has been further contended that the petitioner not taken any advantage while obtaining his service. He was appointed on the basis of merit list as he has obtained much more marks than of General Category Candidate. There is no mention on record, which goes to show that the petitioner has obtained his service as a Schedule Tribe Candidate. As such, the writ petition is required to be allowed and the order under challenge is required to be set-aside. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Swajeet Singh Ubeja, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents submits that petitioner has failed to prove his caste as Schedule Tribe. He 7 / 11 further submits that from the evidence, it seems that he belonged to ‘Kewat’ caste on the basis of documentary evidence of his father and brother. It has been contended that the Committee was constituted as per direction passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 and the said Committee has conducted proper enquiry before passing of the order under challenge. It has been further contended that the petitioner was given proper opportunity of hearing but the petitioner has failed to produce any such evidence in his favour in order to prove that he belonged to ‘Majhi’ caste and on the contrary, it was found that father, brother and fore-father of the petitioner belonged to ‘Kewat caste’, which is not a Schedule Tribe, but ‘Other Backward Classes’ category. It has been argued that the vigilance report also goes to show that petitioner as well as his father (who was in Government service) and his brother belonged to ‘Kewat caste’, as such, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner belonged to ‘Majhi’ caste (Schedule Tribe). As such, the order under challenge passed by the Committee is a well merited order, which does not call for any interference. 9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and considered their rival submission made herein and gone through the record thoroughly and extensively. 10. It is well settled law that caste scrutiny of a person is a serious 8 / 11 matter and as such the same is required to be inquired thoroughly so that a person not belonging to Scheduled Tribe may not take advantage of benefits and privilege admissible to the members of Scheduled Tribe. The Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) has formulated scheme for verification of tribal status and held that any application for verification of her tribal status as a scheduled tribe should be carried out by such committee and issued direction for issuance of social caste certificate, their scrutiny. The directions issued are as under:- “13. …..(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. * * * (4) All the State Governments shall 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, 9 / 11 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 Po- lice in overall 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 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 proforma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deities, 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' 10 / 11 or 'doubtful' or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue a show-cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the Vigilance Officer to the candidate by a registered post with acknowledgment due or through the head of the educational institution concerned in which the candidate is studying or employed…….. * * * (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.” 11. Quite recently following the principles laid down in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) in the matter of Collector, Bilaspur v. Ajit P.K. Jogi and others reported in (2011) 10 SCC 357, the Supreme Court has held that the verification of validity of the caste certificate and the determination of the caste status should therefore be done only by scrutiny committee constituted as per direction in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) or in terms of in statute made by appropriate government in that behalf. 12. Reverting back to the factual score of the case; it would appear 11 / 11 that the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee in its impugned order did not consider the matter in its proper prospective. It further reflected from the impugned order that no proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner to lead evidence with regard to his caste status, as such the impugned order passed by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee is hereby set-aside. 13. As a fallout and consequence of aforesaid discussions, the writ petition is allowed. Order impugned dated 08.10.2013 passed by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, Raipur, Chhattisgarh is hereby set-aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent No.2 i.e. High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, Raipur, Chhattisgarh constituted by State Government as per directions in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) for determination of the caste status, with a direction to decide the case afresh in accordance with law, after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh