109+273 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-221-2025 in/and CWP-PIL-80-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.08.2025 YASHPAL PARJAPATI AND OTHERS ...PETITIONERS Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present: Mr. Mukesh Rao, Advocate and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G. Haryana; Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur Manchanda, Advocate and Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, Advocate for respondent-State. * * * * SHEEL NAGU, C.J. (Oral) The present petition in the shape of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been preferred for the following relief: - (i) Issue writ of declaration that Backward Class Certificates for Backward Class Block-A of Haryana (Annex P-6 & P-8) issued to respondent no. 8 & 9 are not only in violation of the provisions of the Haryana Backward Classes (Reservation in Services and Admission in Educational Institutions) Act, 2016 (Herein after referred as Act, 2016) but also based on fraud, misrepresentation, concealment of facts by giving forged/false declaration of their Castes and obtained by illegal means and thus are illegal, null and void. (ii) Issue appropriate writ or direction to official respondents to take immediate and prompt action for cancellation of alleged Backward Class Certificates (Annexure P-6 & P-8) and take KANIKA 2025.08.26 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 109+273 CM-221-2025 in/and CWP-PIL-80-2025 (O&M) -2- lawful action against all culprits by considering the representations dated 06.03.2025 & 10.03.2025 of the petitioners (Annexure P-10 to P-15). (iii) Issue of writ of prohibition or appropriate direction to prohibit respondents to not to avail or allow to take any benefit of any kind in any manner on the basis of alleged unlawful Backward Class Certificates (Annexure P-6 & P-8). (iv) Issue appropriate direction or order to respondent State or concerned authorities to take immediate and prompt action, for recovery of damages/re-election expenses if re-election happens due to cancellation of Backward Class Block-A certificates (Annexure P-6 & P-8). (v) It is further prayed that during the pendency of the present petition, the official respondents be directed to not to allow or give any benefit of any kind in any manner to respondents No.8 and 9 on the basis of illegal/null and void Backward certificate (Annexure P-6 and P-8). vi) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 2. Main grievance of the petitioner, who claims himself to be a public spirited person, is that private respondents No. 8, 9, 10 and 11, are taking undue advantage of the Certificates of Backward Class issued by incompetent authority situated in the District of Gurugram. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the issue pertaining to legality and validity of Caste Certificate was taken up for the first time by the Apex Court in the Case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, (Civil Appeal No. 5854-1994), 1995 AIR (Supreme Court) 94, wherein the Apex Court, inter alia, directed the respective Government(s) KANIKA 2025.08.26 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 109+273 CM-221-2025 in/and CWP-PIL-80-2025 (O&M) -3- to constitute Scrutiny Committees comprising of various officials to examine the legality and validity of Caste Certificates. Pursuant to the aforesaid decision of Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another (supra), State of Haryana vide its notification dated 11.10.2004 has constituted a District Level Scrutiny Committee presided over by the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District along with its Members being the Superintendent of Police; District Welfare Officer; District Level Officer of the concerned Departments/PSU and City Magistrate as Member Secretary. The said notification also constitutes a State Level Scrutiny Committee before which appeal(s) can be filed by persons aggrieved of the decision of District Level Scrutiny Committee. The said notification dated 11.10.2004 is taken on record and marked as Annexure ‘A’. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, confirms that the District Level Scrutiny Committee situated at Gurugram as well as Hisar are functional. 5. The petitioner has already made a representation dated 06.03.2025 (Annexure P-10) to respondent No.6-Deputy Commissioner, Gurugram, which is directed to be decided on its own merits within a period of 30 days after affording due and sufficient opportunity to the other side. 6. Thereafter, if the petitioner is aggrieved, he is free to prefer an appeal before the State Level Scrutiny Committee. KANIKA 2025.08.26 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 109+273 CM-221-2025 in/and CWP-PIL-80-2025 (O&M) -4- 7. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of. 8. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SHEEL NAGU) CHIEF JUSTICE 25.08.2025 (SANJIV BERRY) kanika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No KANIKA 2025.08.26 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document