Page No.# 1/13 GAHC010131552013 2025:GAU-AS:17394 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5344/2013 BARPETA ZILA ANUSUSIT JATI PARISHAD REP. BY THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, SRI SANJIT MEDHI VILL- GANAKKUCHI PATHAR P.O. GANAKKUCHI, P.S. BARPETA, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS THE COMMISSIONER and SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, WELFARE OF PLAINS TRIBES and BACKWARD CLASSES DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR GHY-6. 3:THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT ASSAM LAKHI MANDIR BELTOLA- 28. 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BARPETA DIST BARPETA ASSAM. 5:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER SADAR BARPETA Page No.# 2/13 DIST. BARPETA ASSAM. 6:THE SUB DIVISIONAL WELFARE OFFICER BARPETA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM. 7:SRI PRASENJIT TALUKDAR S/O DHANI RAM TALUKDAR VILL- BISHNUPUR P.O. BHELLA P.S. BARPETA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781309. 8:The Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam Department of Tribal Affairs (P) Assam Secretariat Dispur Guwahati- 781006 9:THE DIRECTOR OF TRIBAL AFFAIRS (P) ASSAM RUKMININAGAR RUKMINI GAON GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN-78100 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.M GOSWAMI, MR.B DEORI,MR.S U AHMED,MR.M SARANIA Advocate for the Respondent : FOR CAVEATOR, MR R DHAR, SC, TRIABALS AFFAIRS (P),MR. C. SARMA, SC, SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT,MR.J AHMED,MR.A M KHAN,MS.B HAZARIKA(R-1 to 6),MR.P A AHMED,GA, ASSAM Page No.# 3/13 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR For the Appellant : Mr. M Sarania For the Respondent : Mr. R M Das Mr. C Sarma Mr. T C Chutia Mr. J Ahmed Date of Hearing : 19.08.2025 Date of Judgment : 11.12.2025 Judgment and Order (CAV) Heard Mr. M Sarania, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R M Das and Mr. C Sarma, learned Standing counsel, Social Justice and Empowerment Department, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3; Mr. T C Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6 and Mr. J Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7. 2. The petitioner Parishad by way of instituting the present proceeding has assailed the Schedule Caste Certificate issued to the petitioner. The Parishad has also assailed the decision of the State Level Scrutiny Committee as contained in the order dated 14.08.2013, upholding the Scheduled Caste status of the respondent No. 7, herein. 3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner Parishad is the District Unit of all Assam Anususit Jati Parishad and has been constituted for the Barpeta District. The Page No.# 4/13 parent Parishad is a Social Welfare Organization consisting of Scheduled Caste Community persons in the State of Assam and is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Government of Assam in the then WPT&BC Department, vide Notification dated 26.08.2011 had constituted the Sub-Divisional Scheduled Caste Development Board, Barpeta and therein, the respondent No. 7 was nominated as its Chairman along with one Vice Chairman, 20 Members and one Ex-Officio Member. There was also a nomination of a person as the Secretary of the Board. The Sub-Divisional Scheduled Caste Development Board, Barpeta, being entrusted with the responsibility to carry out socio-economic development of the Members of the Schedule Caste Community in the area under its jurisdiction, the respondent No. 7, being found to not belong to any of the communities, which are indentified as Schedule Caste communities in terms of the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order 1950, as amended, the Members of the petitioner Parishad enquired into the matter and found that the respondent No. 7 had obtained a Caste Certificate, bearing No. BAMC/71/2008/24 dated 08.02.2010 from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta. The respondent No. 7 in the said certificate was reflected to belong to the ‘Kaibartta Caste, which is recognized as a Scheduled Caste community under the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order 1950. It is on the basis of the said certification of the Schedule Caste status of the respondent No. 7, that he was nominated as the Chairman of the Sub-Divisional Scheduled Caste Development Board, Barpeta. The respondent No. 7 in the estimation of the Parishad, not being a Member of the Scheduled Caste community, representations came to be submitted before the concerned authorities for cancellation of the nomination of the respondent No. 7 as the Chairman of the said Board. The petitioner Parishad has further projected that the respondent No. 7 had Page No.# 5/13 projected himself as a Member of the Scheduled Caste community only after the said certificate dated 08.02.2010 was taken out by him. The complaints as made by the Members of the Parishad came to be referred to the State Level Scrutiny Committee as constituted in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others, reported in 1994 6 SCC 241 and 1997 5 SCC 437. The functioning of the respondent No. 7 as the Chairman of the said Board, being objected to by the Members of the petitioner Parishad, the Government of Assam in the WPT&BC Department vide WT/fax message dated 07.05.2023 informed the respondent No. 5, herein, i.e., Sub-Divisional Officer (Sadar), Barpeta that the respondent No. 7 was barred from recommending issue of Scheduled Caste certificates to the community Members till disposal of the matter by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. It is further projected in the writ petition that the State Level Scrutiny Committee proceeded to verify the caste status of the respondent No. 7. On such scrutiny being made, the State Level Scrutiny Committee not being in a position to come into conclusion, based on the documents submitted before it by the complainants as well as the respondent No. 7, with regard to the Scheduled Caste status of the respondent No. 7, a Sub-Committee was constituted for carrying out a spot verification and to receive evidence from the villagers of the area, wherein, the respondent No. 7’s residence was so situated. Accordingly, it is projected that on 09.07.2013, a group of officers including the Members of the State Level Scrutiny Committee made a spot inspection/verification, followed by a conduct of a public hearing, held at Nagaon Rash Mandir premise at Barpeta on 18.07.2013. It is further projected that in the public hearing held on 18.07.2013, the Page No.# 6/13 Members of the Scheduled Caste community, who were present in the meeting, had raised objection with regard to the issuance of the Scheduled Caste certificate to the respondent No. 7. The committee as constituted by the State Level Scrutiny Committee submitted its report on 05.08.2013. On considering the said report as submitted after the spot verification/public hearing by the Sub-Committee, the State Level Scrutiny Committee, thereafter, considered the matter afresh and vide the impugned order dated 14.08.2013, the State Level Scrutiny Committee proceeded to hold that the respondent No. 7 belongs to the Scheduled Caste (Kaiborta) community. Being aggrieved, the petitioner, herein, has instituted the present proceeding. 4. Mr. M Sarania, learned counsel for the petitioner, after reiterating the facts, noticed hereinabove, has submitted that the respondent No. 7 originally belonged to the ‘Keot’ community, which is recognized as a General category community in the State of Assam. He submitted that census report with regard to the village, wherein, the petitioner resides, i.e., Bara (Bishnupur) village, reveals that there is no person belonging to the Scheduled Caste community residing in the said village. Mr. Sarania, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the materials brought on record would reveal that the respondent No. 7 had projected himself as a Member of the Scheduled Caste community, only after the Scheduled Caste certificate was received by him from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta and thereafter, the petitioner was nominated as the Chairman of the Sub- Divisional Scheduled Caste Development Board, Barpeta. Mr. Sarania, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No. 7 had registered himself as a contractor with the office of the Superintending Engineer, PHE, Nalbari Circle in the year 2007-2008 and therein, had projected himself to belong to the General Community. Mr. Sarania, has further submitted that the constitution of the State Level Page No.# 7/13 Scrutiny Committee, which had examined the Scheduled Caste status of the respondent No. 7 was not so constituted in accordance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). Mr. Sarania, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the State Level Scrutiny Committee, not being in a position to ascertain the caste status of the respondent No. 7 had constituted a Group of Officers, consisting of its Members to carry out a spot inspection at the village of the respondent No. 7. He submits that such inspection was permissible only to be carried out by a Vigilance Cell that was to be constituted in the State Level Scrutiny Committee. He submits that the State Level Scrutiny Committee could not have proceeded to carry out the said investigation on its own. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter submitted that in terms of a Notification dated 15.05.1991, where the surname of the person concerned is not one normally used by Members belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, a verification of the surname of the ancestors of such person would be called upon to be carried out. He submits that the said requirement under the provisions of the Notification dated 15.05.1991 was not complied with by the State Level Scrutiny Committee while carrying out its investigation in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the land documents submitted by the petitioner to establish the fact that his forefathers belonged to the ‘Kaiborta’ community, if perused minutely would reveal that there exists a clear contradiction with regard to the particulars of the land involved in the matter. He submits that the respondent No. 7 had failed to establish a linkage to the person named in the land documents, who was projected by the respondent No. 7 to be his forefathers. He has further submitted that the voters list of 1966 and 1967, as relied upon by the respondent No. 7, also does not establish his linkage with the persons named therein, who were projected to be his forefathers. Page No.# 8/13 The learned counsel for the petitioner has, thereafter, submitted that the reliance placed by the respondent No. 7 on the Census report of 2011 would not advance the case of the respondent No. 7, inasmuch as, the census report of 2001 had clearly brought on record of there being no person belonging to the Scheduled Caste community in ‘Bara village’ and the village to be constituted of persons belonging to the General community. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Laveti Giri and Another, reported in 1995 4 SCC 32, Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claims, reported in 2012 1 SCC 113 and V.V. Giri Vs. D. Suri Dora and Others, reported in 1959 0 AIR (SC) 1318. 5. Per contra, Mr. R M Das, learned Standing counsel, Social Justice and Empowerment Department, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 has submitted that the complaint having been received by the Government with regard to the caste status of the respondent No. 7 pursuant to his nomination as the Chairman of the Sub-Divisional Scheduled Caste Development Board, Barpeta, the matter was referred to the State Level Scrutiny Committee in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). He has further submitted that the reports coming on record, including the reports submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta reveals that the respondent No. 7, herein, belongs to the Scheduled Caste (Kaiborta) community. In this connection, he refers to the enquiry report submitted in the matter by the then Sub-Divisional Officer (Sadar), Barpeta. He submits that the State Level Scrutiny Committee after perusing the documents relied upon by the parties before it, including the members of the petitioner Parishad and the respondent No. 7, had for the purpose of ascertaining the caste status of the respondent No. 7 constituted a Page No.# 9/13 Group of Officers to make a spot verification at the village of the respondent No. 7 to ascertain the views of the Members of the Scheduled Caste community with regard to the caste status of the respondent No. 7. He submits that the said committee after making the said spot verification had also held a public hearing and thereafter, submitted its report, wherein, the respondent No. 7 was held to be a Member of the Scheduled Caste community of Barpeta district. He submits that it is on the basis of the materials coming on record, including the report submitted by the Group of Officers, so constituted in the matter that the State Level Scrutiny Committee had passed the order dated 14.08.2013, holding the respondent No. 7 to belong to the Scheduled Caste ‘Kaiborta’ community. He submits that the said decision of the State Level Scrutiny Committee having been so taken after a due enquiry being made in the matter, the same would not call for any interference from this Court. 6. Mr. J Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 has adopted the submissions made by Mr. R M Das, learned Standing counsel, Social Justice and Empowerment Department. He submits that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Sadar), Barpeta had issued to the respondent No. 7 a caste certificate on 08.02.2010 after taking into consideration all relevant factors. He submits that the said certificate was so issued basing on a certificate issued by the Secretary, Barpeta Zilla Anususit Jati Parishad on 18.08.2008, certifying the respondent No. 7 to belong to the Scheduled Caste (Kaiborta) community. He further submits that there are certificates available on record which certifies that the father of the respondent No. 7, Dhani Ram Talukdar (now deceased) was the son of Late Hara Kaiborta, who admittedly belonged to the Scheduled Caste community. He submits that the State Level Scrutiny Committee upon taking into account all the relevant materials placed before it, including the report of the group of officers, had proceeded to issue the order dated 14.08.2013 and the same would not mandate any interference. 7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the Page No.# 10/13 materials available on record. 8. The facts, as noticed hereinabove, are not in dispute and accordingly, the same has not been reiterated herein. 9. A complaint having been received with regard to the caste status of the respondent No. 7, herein, and it being disputed that he did not belong to the Scheduled Caste (Kaiborta) community, the matter was referred to the State Level Scrutiny Committee constituted in the matter. The State Level Scrutiny Committee on receipt of the said complaint proceeded to verify the caste status of the petitioner, herein. 10. Before the State Level Committee, it is found that the Members of the petitioner Parishad as well as the respondent No. 7, herein, had brought on record their respective contentions/documents in support of their claims. The State Level Scrutiny Committee on perusal of the said materials brought on record had arrived at a conclusion that the materials, so adduced, were not sufficient for arriving at a decision with regard to the caste status of the respondent No. 7. Accordingly, a Group of Officers was constituted by the State Level Scrutiny Committee for the purpose of making a spot verification, with regard to the caste status of the respondent No. 7 at his village, i.e. Bara. The said committee is found to have made the spot verification on 18.07.2013 and interacted with the villagers. Thereafter, a public hearing was held at the premises of the Nagaon Rash Mandir, Barpeta on 18.07.2013. After carrying out the spot verification and also basing on the views expressed by the persons, assembled in the public hearing conducted by the group of officers, a report was submitted before the State Level Scrutiny Committee by the said group of officers on 05.08.2013. The records of the matter was produced before this Court by the learned Standing counsel, Social Welfare and Empowerment Department. 11. This Court has perused the said records and has found that the committee had Page No.# 11/13 carried out the exercise as entrusted to it by carrying out a spot verification and also holding a public hearing, as noticed hereinabove. The report of the said group of officers is found to have opined, that the respondent No. 7 to be found to be a Member of the Scheduled Caste community of Barpeta District, basing on the findings of the local enquiry and also the interaction with the Members of the public during the course of such enquiry. Thereafter, the State Level Scrutiny Committee vide its order dated 14.08.2013, upon considering the land documents and other documents submitted by the petitioner and also considering the Census report coming on record proceeded to hold that basing on the views of the various social organizations, individuals and the reports submitted by the group of officers, the respondent No. 7 was found to belong to the Scheduled Caste (Kaiborta) community. A dispute with regard to the caste status of the petitioner having been raised with regard to the caste status of the respondent No. 7, in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Kumari Madhuri Patil, the same was permissible only to be determined by the State Level Scrutiny Committee as constituted. The State Level Scrutiny Committee having undertaken the exercise for ascertainment of the caste status of the petitioner and by making a due enquiry in the matter having concluded that the respondent No. 7 belonged to the Scheduled Caste (Kaiborta) community, such determination being based on materials adduced before it and also collected by it through the group of officers constituted in the matter to carry out a spot verification and hold a public hearing, this Court would not be in a position in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to discard such materials considered by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. 12. This Court finds that the decision of the State Level Scrutiny Committee to be based on materials relevant for the purpose and the same having demonstrated that the respondent No. 7 belongs to the Kaiborto community, which is recognized as a Scheduled Caste community in the State of Assam, this Court is not in a position to accept the contention raised by the petitioner Parishad, contrary to the said position Page No.# 12/13 only on the basis of the doubts being tried to be created with regard to the materials considered by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. 13. With regard to the contention raised by the petitioner Parishad that the petitioner having used a surname ‘Talukdar’ and the said surname not being usually used by the Members of the Scheduled Caste community of the State, a verification of the surname used by his forefathers was mandatory in terms of the Government Notification dated 15.05.1991. The Notification dated 15.05.1991 was issued towards notifying the provisions of the Assam Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts) Amendment Rules, 1991. In terms of the amendment effected in the provisions of Sub Rule 1(a) of Rule 3 (1)(a), it was provided that where the surname of the person is not same or as usually used by the Scheduled Caste community, verification of the surname of the ancestors would be necessary. 14. A perusal of the provisions of the said amendment Rules of 1991 would go to reveal that mere use of a surname, not normally used by the Members of the Scheduled Caste community would not by itself lead to a conclusion that the person concerned did not belong to the Scheduled Caste community. It only required that in such a situation the surname used by the forefathers of such person would be required to be verified. This Court finds that the State Level Scrutiny Committee had carried out the said exercise by examining the land records relied upon by the respondent No. 7 before it of the year 1923-1928 of a plot of land situated at Village- Bara in the name of Haro Kaiborta, who was projected to be the grandfather of the respondent No. 7. The said land documents is also found to have been verified by the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta and the Caste Certificate was projected to have been issued to the respondent No. 7 on 08.02.2010, after verification of all such relevant particulars. Accordingly, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the non-compliance of the provisions of the Assam Scheduled Caste Page No.# 13/13 and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts) Amendment Rules, 1991 would not mandate an acceptance. Consequently, the caste certificate issued to the petitioner on 08.02.2010 from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta would also not call for any interference. 15. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the decision of the State Level Scrutiny Committee as contained in the order dated 14.08.2013, would not mandate any interference. Having drawn the above conclusions and upheld the order dated 14.08.2013 passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, the other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not mandate a further consideration. Further, this Court on perusal of the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of the considered view that the same would not advance the case of the petitioner, herein. Accordingly, a discussion, thereon, is not carried out in the present order. 16. For the reasons stated, hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant