1 2025:CGHC:32207 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP(C) No. 3564 of 2025 1 - Menka Devi D/o Late (Raja) Naresh Chandra Singh Aged About 73 Years Caste- Gond, R/o Girivilas Palace Sarangarh, Tahsil - Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.). 2 - Kulisha Mishra D/o Menka Devi Aged About 39 Years Caste- Gond, R/o Girivilas Palace Sarangarh, Tahsil - Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Sarangarh District- Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.) 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (R) Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) 4 - The Tehsildar Sarangarh District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Vivek Tankha, Sr. Advocate (appeared through video conferencing) along with Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate For State-Respondents : Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 11/07/2025 1. The petitioner has been filed this writ petition on the following relief(s) : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 23.09.2024 (ANNEXURE P/1) and order dated 01.02.2024 (ANNEXURE P/2) and further be pleased to direct the respondents to issue tribal caste certificate in favor of petitioner no. 2, in the interest of justice. 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. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Respondents have rejected the claim of tribal caste certificate in favor of petitioner no. 2 on the ground that according to circular dated 01.08.1996 issued by the erstwhile State of M.P. a person not born as schedule caste or schedule tribe cannot become entitled or eligible for SC/ST certificate on the basis of inter caste marriage with SC /ST category member; and on the ground that the caste of any child is decided on the basis of his paternal hierarchy and not on the basis of his maternal hierarchy. The circular dated 01.08.1996 is not at all applicable in the instant case because petitioner no. 2 is not married till date and with regard to 3 issuance of paternal hierarchy issue is concerned the same is decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Ramesh Bhai Vs State of Gujarat cited in (2012) 3 SCC 400 and held that caste certificate to the child born out of wedlock of inter caste marriage will be decided on the basis of the fact & circumstances under which child is brought up. Apart from above rest of the facts circumstances, documents and evidences are in favor of the petitioners despite that she is being deprived of a tribal caste certificate. Hence this petition. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State/respondents opposes the relief(s) sought by the petitioners. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length, perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the facts of the case and submission made by learned counsel for the parties, further considering the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika Vs. State of Gujarat & Others, (2012) 3 SCC 400, in Para – 54, 55 & 56 are held as under : “54. In view of the analysis of the earlier decisions and the discussion made above, the legal position that seems to emerge is that in an inter-caste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a non- tribal the determination of the caste of the offspring 4 is essentially a question of fact to be decided on the basis of the facts adduced in each case. The determination of caste of a person born of an inter- caste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal cannot be determined in complete disregard of attending facts of the case. 55. In an inter-caste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal there may be a presumption that the child has the caste of the father. This presumption may be stronger in the case where in the inter-caste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal the husband belongs to a forward caste. But by no means the presumption is conclusive or irrebuttable and it is open to the child of such marriage to lead evidence to show that he/she was brought up by the mother who belonged to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, By virtue of being the son of a forward caste father he did not have any advantageous start in life but on the contrary suffered the deprivations, indignities, humiliates and handicaps like any other member of the community to which his/her mother belonged. Additionally, that he was always treated as a 5 member of the community to which her mother belonged not only by that community but by the people outside the community as well. 56. In the case in hand the tribal certificate has been taken away from the appellant without adverting to any evidence and on the sole ground that he was the son of a Kshatriya father. The orders passed by the High Court and the Scrutiny Committee, therefore, cannot be sustained. The orders passed by the High Court and the Scrutiny Committee are, accordingly, set aside and the case is remitted to the Scrutiny Committee to take a fresh decision on the basis of the evidence that might be led by the two sides. It is made absolutely clear that this Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case of the appellant or the private contesting respondent.” 6. In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held the legal position that in an inter-caste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a non- tribal, the determination of the caste of the offspring is essentially a question of fact to be decided on the basis of the facts adduced in each case. 6 7. On bare perusal of the impugned order dated 01.02.2024 (Annexure P- 2) passed by the Tahsildar, Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.), it is stated in the second last paragraph of the said order that :- “vkosnd }kjk dqN U;k; n`”Vkar Hkh izLrqr dh xbZ ftlesa ekrk i{k dks Hkh fopkj fd;k tkus dk ckr dgh xbZ gS&Ramesh bhai Danhai Naila V. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2012) 3 SCC 400 mDr izdj.k 2012 dk gS tcfd N-x- fu;e ,oa vf/kfu;e ,oa fu;e 2013 dk gS vkSj lkFk gh ;g N-x- mPp U;k;ky; dk Hkh ugha gSA blds vykok mDr izdj.k esa Hkh dksVZ ls tkfr ij fu.kZ; ugha fn;k gSA vr% mDr vkns’k bl izdj.k esa ykxw ugha gksrk gSa vkosfndk esudk nsoh ds iq=h dqfy’kk vk- ifjos’k feJk fuoklh fxfjfoykl iSysl lkjax<+ dks tkfr xksM+ v-t-tk- oxZ ds vUrxZr lkekftd izkfLFkfr izek.k i= iznku fd;k tkuk mfpr ughaA” 8. On bare perusal of the impugned order dated 23.09.2024 (Annexure P- 1) passed by the Collector, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) and by the said order, the Collector-respondent No.2 has affirmed/maintained the order order dated 01.02.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Tahsildar-respondent No.4 stating/mentioning that :- “(6) esjs }kjk izdj.k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA vihykFkhZ }kjk izLrqr vihy vkosnu rFkk izLrqr rdZ ij fopkj fd;k x;k blds vykok fuEu U;k;ky; ds jktLo 7 izdj.k dzekad 202402320300001@ch&121@2023&2024 rFkk mlesa yxs nLrkostksa dk Hkh ijh{k.k fd;k x;kA vkosfndk Jherh esudk nsoh firk LoŒ jktk ujs’kpUnz flag fuoklh fxfjfoykl iSysl lkjax<+ }kjk iq=h dqfy’kk nsoh ds fy, vuqlwfpr tutkfr izek.k i= tkjh djus gsrq vkosnu i= is’k fd;k x;kA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds }kjk mDr laca/k esa bZ’rgkj izdk’ku djk;k x;k rFkk gYdk iVokjh ls tkap izfrosnu eaxk;k x;kA rFkk izdj.k esa ‘kiFk iwoZd dFku ntZ fd;k tkdj fnukad 1&2&2024 dks vkns’k ikfjr fd;k x;k fd tkfr dk fu.kZ; firk i{k ls gkrk gS u fd ekrk i{k ls ftlds dkj.k vkosfndk esudk nsoh ds iq=h dqfy’kk vk- ifjos’k feJk fuoklh fxfjfoykl iSysl lkjax<+ dks tkfr xksaM+ oxZ v-t-tk- ds vUrxZr lkekftd izkfLFkfr izek.k i= iznku ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA N-x- dh vuqlwfpr tkfr;ka] tutkfr;ksa ,oa vU; fiNM+k oxZ dh tkfr;ka rFkk lkekftd izkfLFkfr izek.k i= tkjh djus laca/kh fu;e&funs’k dk ifjf’k”V&25 e/; izns’k ‘kklu lkekU; iz’kklu foHkkx ¼vkj{k.k izdks”B½ i= dzekad ,Q&1@l-iz-fo-@vk-iz-@Hkksiky fnukad 1&8&1996 esa mYysf[kr funsZ’k ^^vUrj tkfr fookg^^ & vU; tkfr dk vuq- tkfr vFkok vuq- 12¼1½ ;fn dksbZ O;fDr tUe ls gh vuqlwfpr tkfr ;k tutkfr dk lnL; ugha gS rks mldk fookg vuqlwfpr tkfr vFkok vuqlwfpr tutkfr ds lnL; ls gksrk gS rks mls tkfr izek.k i= izkIr djus dh ik=rk ugha gksxkA pwafd vkosfndk vkfnoklh oxZ ls vkrh gS vkSj mldk ifr lkekU; oxZ ls vkrs gSaA ftlls mRiUu larku dh tkfr dk fu.kZ; firk i{k ls gksrk gSA vr% rglhynkj] 8 lkjax< }kjk ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 1&2&2024 fof/k lEer gS izko/kku ,oa fu;e ds vuq:i gSA mDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij eaS fo}ku fuEu U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkyksP; vkns’k esa gLr{ksi vFkok QsjQkj djus dk dksbZ Ik;kZIr vk/kkj EkkStwn ugha gSA vr% izdj.k ds lEiw.kZ rF;ksa ij fopkjksijkar vihykFkhZ }kjk izLrqr ;g vihy vkosnu ,rn }kjk [kfjt fd;k tkrk gSA rFkk fuEu U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkykP; vkns’k fnukad 1&2&2024 fLFkj j[kk tkrk gSA” 9. On perusal of the order passed by respondent No.4-Tahsildar (Annexure P-2), the tenor of the said order that the case relied on by the petitioners in the case of Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika Vs. State of Gujarat & Others, (2012) 3 SCC 400 (supra) is of the year 2012 and it is not passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, the said finding recorded by respondent No.4 appears to be without application of mind as the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds the field and the State Government is bound to follow the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its true spirit. In the case in hand, the application of the petitioners has been rejected by the Tahsildar by vide Annexure P-2 without averting any evidence and only on the sole ground that the father of petitioner No.2 belongs to other caste. 10.Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders dated 01.02.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed in Revenue 9 Case No.202402320300001/B-121/2023-2024 by the Tahsildar, Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) and 23.09.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed in Revenue Case No. 202402321300014/B- 121/2023-2024 by the Collector, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) are hereby set-aside and the matter is remitted back to Respondent No.4-Tahsildar, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh – Bilaigarh (C.G.) and respondent No.4 shall pass a fresh order after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and thereafter shall pass a fresh order in the light of Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika Vs. State of Gujarat & Others (supra). 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant petition is disposed of accordingly. 12. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the concerned Tahsildar has right to decide the present case on its own merits, in accordance with rules, regulations, law and facts of the present case. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant