-1- 2025:CGHC:17340 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3638 of 2017 Vishnu Kumar Nag S/o Aged About 42 Years Posted As Agriulture Extension Offocer, R/o Village Nlasnar, Tahsil Bhairamgarh, District Bijapur, Chhattisgah. , Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahnanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh. , District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Sub- Divisional Officer, Revenue Bhairamgarh, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh. , District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with WPS No. 3198 of 2017 Ramadhar Baghel S/o S/o Mahadev Baghel, Aged About 49 Years Posted As Headmaster, R/o Village Nelasnar, Tahsil Bhairamgarh, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Manangement Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer Rev. Bhairamgarh, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Ms. Pranoti Das, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15.04.2025 1) The petitioners have filed these petitions seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/ order, thereby setting aside/quashing the impugned- notices dated 30.06.2017 & 21.06.2017 (Annexure P/1) and the entire proceedings initiated by the respondent no. 3 for verification of caste status of the petitioner. 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2) In WPS No. 3198/2017, the sole petitioner, namely Ramadhar Baghel, passed away during the pendency of the writ petition. His death certificate has been filed as Annexure R/3. However, the counsel for the petitioner failed to take steps to bring the legal representatives -3- of the petitioner on the record. 3) Accordingly, WPS No. 3198/2017 is dismissed as abated. 4) Now coming to WPS No. 3638 of 2017. 5) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Petitioner – Vishnu Kumar Nag (WPS No.3638 of 2017) was appointed to the post of Rural Agriculture Extension Officer in the year 1999. She further submits that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bhairamgarh, District Bijapur issued a show cause notice (Annexure P/1) to the petitioner on the basis of an anonymous complaint (Annexure R/1) regarding his social status and validity of his caste certificate. The SDO(R) without having jurisdiction sought an explanation from the petitioner. She contends that according to provisions of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Rules, 2013, only the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee is empowered to inquire into the matters relating to the social status or validity of the caste certificate. The SDO(R) not being the competent authority under the 2013 Rules, has no authority to issue the impugned show cause notice. Hence, the proceedings initiated by the SDO(R)are liable to be quashed. -4- 6) On the other hand, Mr. Shubham Bajpai, learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the submissions made by Ms. Pranoti Das. He submits that certain complaints were received against the petitioner and to verify those allegations, the SDO(R) issued a show cause notice and sought an explanation from the petitioner. He further submits that no penal action has been taken so far and the petitioner was merely directed to file a reply to the preliminary show cause. 7) With regard to the jurisdiction of the SDO(R), learned Panel Lawyer submits that only a preliminary inquiry has been initiated and any final decision regarding the validity of the caste status would be taken by the competent authority in accordance with the law. 8) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 9) As per Rule 19 of the Chhattisgarh SC/ST/OBC (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Rules, 2013, only the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee is empowered to inquire into the validity of the caste certificate and determine the social status of an individual. In the present case, the SDO(R) Bhairamgarh has acted beyond its jurisdiction while issuing the show cause notice and initiating proceedings on the basis of an anonymous complaint. -5- 10) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241, held that only the Scrutiny Committee has the authority to examine the validity of the caste certificate. This view has been reaffirmed in a recent judgment i.e. Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India & Ors. v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira & Ors.,(2017) 8 SCC 670. 11)In view of the above, the impugned show cause notice (Annexure P/1) issued by the SDO(R), as well as the consequential proceedings initiated therefrom, are hereby quashed. 12) However, the liberty is reserved with the State authorities to approach the competent District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee for appropriate action, if so advised. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge NADIM