1 2025:CGHC:48248 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5003 of 2025 Santosh Kumar S/o Lalaram Kori Aged About 32 Years R/o Geetanjali, Nagar, Phase Ii, Khamtarai, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 3 - High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee Through Its President Cum Member Secretary, Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribe Development Department Tribal Research And Training Institute Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar, Sector 4, Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Sdo/sdm Bemetara District - Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners : Mr. PR Patankar, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Anurag Tripathi, PL. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 19.09.2025 2 1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition with following reliefs: “10. RELIEF(S) SOUGHT: 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records relating to rejection of petitioner's application for issuance of social status certificate to him. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to accept the application of the petitioner for grant of social status certificate of caste Kori without insisting upon the submission of land records prior to 1950. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant social status certificate to the petitioner in accordance with the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court and Supreme Court and circulars in that regard. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case including cost of the petition.” 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is aggrieved by inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not accepting the online application form of the petitioner for grant of Social Status Certificate for the reason that the petitioner is unable to provide the land records prior to 1950, though petitioner's father first posting and joining was in the State of Chhattisgarh at Pratappur District Durg on 23.06.1986 and during his entire service career he had worked in the State of 3 Chhattisgarh and on 31.12.2021 he retired as Rural Agriculture Extension Officer from Block -Bilha after attaining the age of superannuation of 62 years. The petitioner was born at District Bemetara earlier Durg on 15.08.1993 and he completed his entire education in the State of Chhattisgarh, further caste Kori is recognized as Scheduled Caste in State of Chhattisgarh as well as in State of Madhya Pradesh but when the petitioner applied for permanent caste certificate his application has been rejected on the ground of non-submission of land records prior to 1950, which is against the circulars issued by the State itself and law laid down by this Court in various Judgments. Hence, it is prayed that this writ petition may be disposed of in terms and condition of the order dated 02.07.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No.7013/2011. 3. Learned State Counsel contended that he is having no objection to the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner with regard to dispose of this writ petition in terms and condition of the order dated 02.07.2024 passed in WPS No.7013/2011. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition including dated 02.07.2024 passed in WPS No.7013/2011. 5. Circular dated 27.06.2007 defines bonafide residents of Chhattisgarh and includes:- 4 (i) Persons belonging to the central services posted at Chhattisgarh, their spouses or children; (ii) All the employees of the State of Chhattisgarh, their spouses or children; (iii) Persons appointed on Constitutional or Statutory posts by the President of India, their spouses or children; and (iv) Corporations, Agencies, Commissions, Boards, Officials/ Officers/employees, their spouses or children. Circular issued on 17.06.2003 defines permanent residents. According to the Circular, such a person would be treated as a permanent resident of Chhattisgarh, if he fulfills any of the 04 conditions:- 1. If he was born in the State of Chhattisgarh. 2. He and his or her parents are staying in the State of Chhattisgarh at least for 15 years. 3. His or her parents are government servants of the State or servants of the Central Government in the State of Chhattisgarh. 4. He himself or his parents are pursuing any business, or immovable property in the territory of the State of Chhattisgarh. 6. In the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr versus Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the procedure for verification of social status certificates, relevant 5 paragraphs are reproduced herein below:- “13. The admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of false social status certificate necessarily has the effect of depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined in the Constitution of the benefits conferred on them by the Constitution. The genuine candidates are also denied admission to educational institutions or appointments to office or posts under a State for want of social status certificate. The ineligible or spurious persons who falsely gained entry resort to dilatory tactics and create hurdles in completion of the inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee. It is true that the applications for admission to educational institutions are generally made by a parent, since on the that date many a time the student may be a minor. It is the parent or the guardian who may play fraud claiming false status certificate. It is, therefore, necessary that the certificates issued are scrutinised at the earliest and with utmost expedition and promptitude. For that purpose, it is necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval, which may be the following: 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 certificate shall be issued by such officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level. 2. The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn and attested by a competent gazetted officer or non-gazetted officer with particulars of castes and sub-castes, tribe, tribal community, parts or groups of tribes or tribal communities, the place from which he originally hails from and other particulars as may be prescribed by the Directorate concerned. 3. Application for verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at least six months in advance before seeking admission into educational institution or an appointment to a post. 6 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, 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 Police in over-all 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 pro forma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and enthnological traits, deity, 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” or 'doubtful' or spurious of falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue show-cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post with acknowledgment due or 7 through the head of the educational institution concerned in which the candidate is studying or employed. The notice should indicate that the representation or reply, if any, would be made within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice and in no case on request not more than 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. In case, the candidate seeks for an opportunity of hearing and claims an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the Director on receipt of such representation/reply shall convene the committee and the Joint/Additional Secretary as Chairperson who shall give reasonable opportunity to the candidate/parent/guardian to adduce all evidence in support of their claim. A public notice by beat of drum or any other convenient mode may be published in the village or locality and if any person or association opposes such a claim, an opportunity to adduce evidence may be given to him/it. After giving such opportunity either in person or through counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-a-vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof. 7. In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the procedure according to which the application for the grant of the social status certificate has to be made to the Revenue Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner describing particulars of castes and sub-castes, tribe, tribal community, parts or groups along with an affidavit. Application for verification 8 should be made at least six months in advance before seeking admission into an educational institution or an appointment to a post. The State government has to constitute/frame a Committee of three Officers, namely- (I) Additional or Joint Secretary; (II) The Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare and (III) Officer who has intimate knowledge of the verification and issuance of the social status certificates concerning Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes. The Directorate has to constitute a vigilance cell consisting of a Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police who will submit a report after examining various aspects like peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies and such officer shall also record the statements of such persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate. If the Director after receipt of the report finds the social status to be “not genuine”, he should issue a show-cause notice along with the report and if it is found genuine and true, no further action need be taken. 7. In the decisions/orders passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Writ Petition (C) No. 5070 of 2007 (Narendra Dehariya vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) & Writ Petition (C) No. 5314 of 2007 (Ku. Bharti Banpuriya vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court while dealing 9 with the issue with regard to the social status of students who were denied the certificates whereas they were born and brought up in the State of Chhattisgarh considered the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate General appearing for the State that the State Government has issued the order dated 27.06.2007 wherein the definition of bonafide residents of Chhattisgarh has been defined and explained, and observed thus:- “Learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents / State informs that the judgment of the learned Single Judge was wrongly interpreted and in compliance of the judgment in Writ Petition No. 2510/2004 dated 04-02-2005, the Government by an order dated 02.02.2006 had kept its notification dated 08.07.2004 in abeyance. Thereafter the Government has issued another order dated 27-06-2007 wherein definition of bonafide residents of Chhattisgarh has been defined and explained which includes (i) persons belonging to the central services posted at Chhattisgarh, their spouses or children; (ii) all the employees of State of Chhattisgarh, their spouses or children; (iii) Persons appointed on Constitutional or Statutory posts by President of India, their spouses or children; (iv) Corporation, Agencies, Commissions, Board's, Officials/Officers/employees, their spouses or children. This Government order is to benefit the petitioners-students with respect to bonafide residents of Chhattisgarh.” The above-cited judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court makes it amply clear that all the employees of the State of Chhattisgarh, their spouses or children fall within the 10 definition of bonafide residents of the State of Chhattisgarh and they would be entitled to get the benefit of social status if their caste is included in Presidential Order. 8. In the matter of Grace Marry Minj versus State of MP & Ors passed in Writ Petition No.2215/2008, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh while dealing with a similar issue held that the parents of the petitioner migrated to the State of Madhya Pradesh at Bhopal prior to the birth of the petitioner in the year 1985, they are from Scheduled Tribes Community, her caste is declared as Schedule Caste in both the States and she had her entire education and career in the State of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, she cannot be denied benefit of caste certificate. The relevant part of the said judgment is reproduced herein below:- “That apart, in the case of Kamal Kishore Barapatre (Supra), this Court had considered the question of migration of Medical Students from the State of Maharashtra to the State of Madhya Pradesh and the matter has been decided after taking note of the judgments rendered by this Court in W.P. No. 1160/2003- Neetu Singh Vs. State of M.P., decided on 16.9.2003 and W.P. No. 5143/2005-Dr. Yamini Khapre Vs. State of M.P. & Ors., wherein the matter has been dealt with in the following manner : “16. However, in the present case, the facts are entirely different. Petitioner is born in the State of Madhya Pradesh. She had her entire education and career in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Her father migrated in Madhya Pradesh before her birth i.e. more than 20-25 years back. The caste “Halba” is declared as Scheduled Caste in both the 11 States and the Tehsildar, Jabalpur had issued caste-certificate in her favour in the year 1999 Annexure-P/1. Thus, the petitioner in the present case is a bonafide resident of Madhya Pradesh and as has been held by this Court in the case of Neetu Singh (supra) she has acquired the status of permanent domicile in the State of Madhya Pradesh as she fulfills the following condition viz- (i) She is born in the State of Madhya Pradesh and had her entire education right from the beginning to MBBS in the State of Madhya Pradesh; and (ii)her parents are continuously residing in the State of Madhya Pradesh for more than fifteen years. 17. As the petitioner had complied with the conditions for acquiring the status of a permanent domicile and, the caste to which she belongs is declared as Scheduled Tribe in the State of Madhya Pradesh, there is no reason to deny her the benefits of caste certificate. ” Keeping in view the aforesaid legal principles and the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly the fact that the petitioner's parents are permanently residing at Bhopal, even prior to the birth of the petitioner in the year 1985, when Jashpur was part of un-divided State of Madhya Pradesh and the fact that the respondents do not deny that status of the petitioner and the fact that her parents are from Schedule Tribe Community, the insistence upon producing a caste certificate from the State of Chhattisgarh and proposing to cancel the admission on such consideration is nothing but an arbitrary and illegal action.” 9. In the matter of Ajeeta Khedle (Smt.) vs State of MP & Anr, 2010 (1) MPHT. 177 (DB), the High Court of Madhya Pradesh 12 held that the mere fact that the petitioners’ father was not a resident of Sehore in 1950 when the Presidential Order came into existence could not be a ground to hold that the petitioners are not residents of Sehore. The relevant paras – 10, 11, 13 and 14 are reproduced herein below:- “10. In Beniprasad (supra), the respondents had contested the election from Gotegaon as Scheduled Caste. The election was challenged on the ground that his forefather belonged to district Shahdol and was Kumhar by caste and, therefore, he could not have contested election as Scheduled Caste. This Court, while dealing with the election petition, held as follows :- “Since residence is only the criteria for deemed to be a Scheduled Caste of that area then in that respect, the respondent shall be deemed to be a Scheduled Caste of that area as he got his residence change to localities specified in that order.” 11. The matter travelled to the Apex Court and Their Lordships expressed the view as follows :- “2. It appears from the discussion in Para 19 of the impugned judgment that the question regarding the status of the respondent. In Shahdol District was considered on facts by the High Court and the High Court referred to the evidence which was recorded in this behalf earlier in point of time and after considering the evidence, the High Court reached the conclusion that the respondent had succeeded in proving that he was an ordinary resident of Shahdol District and also satisfied the test for being recognised as a “Kumhar” in Shahdol District and was, therefore, eligible to contest the election on that basis. The High Court came to the conclusion that the earlier enquiry 13 undertaken for enrollment of his name in the voters’ list for the constituency in question had become final and could not be questioned in the election petition and that when the dispute was raised earlier in point of time evidence was recorded and on the basis of that evidence a decision was taken that the respondent was a “Kumhar” in Shahdol District. The learned Counsel for the respondent also took us through the salient aspect of the oral evidence led in this behalf to satisfy us that the stand taken by the respondent was well founded. R.W. 1, A.D. Srivastava was examined as a witness in the High Court and he stated that he was an Assistant Registration Officer, Nagar Palika, Shahdol and that he had brought the record pertaining to objections filed against the respondent. He has further stated that after making the necessary enquiry he rejected the objection on the strength of the evidence of the witnesses who deposed before him and that the Panchnama was prepared by him. The learned Judge in the High Court, as stated earlier, had made a brief reference to the evidence in this behalf in Paras 19 and 20 of the impugned order and had come to the conclusion that the name of the respondent having been entered in the voters’ list pursuant to an enquiry on the premises that he was an ordinary resident of Shahdol District, that part of the proceedings had terminated and could not be reopened. We also found that in the earlier proceedings after an elaborate enquiry by R.W. 1 it had been found that his family had been ordinarily residing in Shahdol District till 1952 when he shifted to the neighbouring Narsinghpur area where the respondent was born and thereafter the respondent had shifted to Shahdol District in 1969 and his name had been entered in the voters’ list in 1985 and he had been residing there since then and had also 14 contested elections earlier in point of time all of which went to show that he was an ordinary resident of that district. The fact that he was a “Kumhar” was not in question and as stated earlier that question was concluded in favour of the respondent. If he was a “Kumhar” in the Narsinghpur area the only question was whether he could get the benefit of belonging to the “Kumhar” community in Shahdol area also. It was not contended that he did not specify the requirements of being recognised as a “Kumhar” in the Shahdol District but what was contended was that he should have been a “Kumhar” in Shahdol District in 1950 when the Presidential Notification was issued. That contention does not appear to be correct because in that case those who are born after the Presidential Notification would be rendered ineligible for being considered as belonging to the Scheduled Castes.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. In the case at hand, the father of the appellants shifted in the year 1961 to Sehore. The appellants were born and got educated at Sehore. Therefore, there can be no scintilla of doubt that they are residents of Sehore. Hence, they are to be treated as ordinarily residing in District Sehore. The Presidential Order in Entry 22 includes ‘dhobi’ as Scheduled Caste in the districts of Bhopal, Raisen and Sehore. That apart, it is interesting to note that the evidence that has been brought on record shows that the grandparents and great-grandparents of the appellants belonged to Sehore. Their father was born at Betul and later on came and stayed at Sehore. The said aspect has borne out on record and has gone uncontroverted. Thus, they are to be treated as residents of District Sehore from both the angles. In Beniprasad (supra), Their Lordships have held that the contention to the effect that the respondent should have been a ‘kumhar’ in Shahdol District in 1950 when the Presidential Notification was issued was not 15 correct because in that case those who are born after the Presidential Notification would be rendered ineligible for being considered as belonging to Scheduled Caste. The ratio which has been reproduced by the learned Single Judge in Paragraph 12 is not correctly applied and, therefore, the error has crept in as the father of the petitioners was not ordinary resident of Sehore in 1950 when the Presidential Order came into existence and hence, the petitioners shall not be entitled to caste certificate. 14. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the appellants are entitled to caste certificate as their ancestors were ‘dhobi’ in the district of Sehore. They were born at Sehore and got educated and, therefore, they become residents of Sehore in view of the factum that they do not lose their caste because of shifting of their father for some years.” 10. In the matter of Vandana Dhakad versus State of MP & Anr, 2014(3)MPLJ.79, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that as the petitioner was born in the State of Madhya Pradesh, she had her entire education and career in the State of Madhya Pradesh, her father migrated in Madhya Pradesh before her birth, the caste ‘Dhanuk’ is declared Scheduled Caste in both the States and the competent authority had issued certificate in her favour and thus, the petitioner is bonafide resident of the State of Madhya Pradesh. The relevant para- 8 is reproduced herein below:- “8. Petitioner is born in the State of Madhya Pradesh. She had her entire education and career in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Her father migrated in Madhya Pradesh before her birth i.e. more than 20-25 years back. The caste “Dhanuk” is declared as 16 Scheduled Caste in both the States and the competent authority had issued caste certificate in her favour in the year 1989 and on 17-5-2002 by SDO Gwalior. Thus, the petitioner in the present case is a bona fide resident of Madhya Pradesh and as has been held by this Court in the case of Neetu Singh (supra), she has acquired the status of permanent domicile in the State of Madhya Pradesh as she fulfills the following conditions viz -- (i) she has born in the State of Madhya Pradesh and had her entire education right from the beginning to M.B.B.S. in the State of Madhya Pradesh; and (ii)her parents are continuously residing in the State of Madhya Pradesh for more than 25 years.” 11. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts and law discussed above, in the considered opinion of this Court, order dated 20.09.2011 passed by respondent No.4 is not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, the same is hereby quashed. Matter is remitted back to respondent No.4/SDO to decide the matter afresh in light of the facts, circulars and law discussed above after affording a due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 12. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 13. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arind Kumar Verma) Judge J.