1 2025:CGHC:11541-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 144 of 2025 1 - Atul Anurag Arthur S/o Shri Nirmal Arthur Aged About 51 Years R/o- Suman Niketan Pendra Road District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) (Petitioner) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Secretary Tribal Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - District Organiser Tribal Welfare Department Bilaspur (C.G) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 2 07/03/2025 Per Ramesh Sinha, C. J. The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.S No. 2617 of 2012 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant herein. 2. Facts of the case in brief as per the pleadings made by the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge are that : a. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher vide order dated 05.08.1993. In the said appointment order of the petitioner, there was a condition that prior to joining, the employee had to submit the original certificates before the concerned authorities and in case of any discrepancy found in the certificate, the appointment of the petitioner would be deemed to be cancelled. The petitioner belong to Schedule Tribe Community and he has obtained the social status certificate by the Tahsildar, Pendra Road on 12.08.1985 wherein his caste is mentioned as Gond which belong to the scheduled tribe community. After verification by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pendra Road, vide its order dated 30.04.1992, the petitioner was given joining on the post of Assistant Teacher. b. A complaint was made against the petitioner that he obtained the employment on the basis of false social status certificate and then the Commissioner, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Development Department, Raipur had directed the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur vide its letter dated 21.07.2006 to inquire the matter and submit the report. After detailed enquiry the petitioner was asked to submit the verification form of the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee which 3 was submitted on 20.08.2006 before the Station House Officer, PS Sc/ST, Bilaspur. Again on 22.05.2007, the High Power Scrutiny Committee, Raipur directed the petitioner to appear and produce the requisite documents and to satisfy the committee about his social status. During the proceedings, the petitioner had also informed that his forefathers did not have any land in the year 1929-30 and he did not produce the Misal records of his forefathers. He had also informed that his grandmother belongs to ST and the ancestors of his grandmother were also ST and the Misal records were annexed. It is also submitted by the petitioner that his grandfather also belonged to Gond Caste. c. Thereafter, the Station House officer of the police station SC/ST, Bilaspur acting as a Vigilance Officer, submitted the inquiry report holding that the petitioner belongs to Gond caste and the report was sent to the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee through the SP, Bilaspur. The petitioner was served with an order dated 13.06.2012 stating that he was removed from service with immediate effect. 3. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent opposing the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner submits that after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee has come to the conclusion that the social status certificate which was issued in his favour is false and therefore cancelled it vide order dated 26.11.2007 and the removal of the petitioner from service is in accordance with law and there no interference is called for. 4. It has been further submitted that from perusal of the procedure prescribed under the notification dated 08.09.1997, it reveals that the Scrutiny Committee shall inquire the matter through the police authorities and the inquiry officer shall submit its detailed inquiry report 4 after visiting the place. In clause (2) of the said procedure, it has been provided that if the scrutiny committee on the basis of the report of the Vigilance Officer found that the claim of the applicant is not genuine or doubtful or he raised a false claim, then the scrutiny committee shall issue show cause notice along with the report of the Vigilance Officer through the registered AD post and asked for his reply. The caste scrutiny committee has issued the notice to the petitioner to submit the relevant documents with respect to his caste/social status and to submit the verification form before the committee. The said notice was issued by the scrutiny committee on 22.05.2007 to which the petitioner has submitted the Misal records of his maternal grandparents and could not satisfy the scrutiny committee that his forefathers also belonged to Scheduled Tribe Community. There is no satisfactory documentary evidence with respect to the caste of the petitioner that he belongs to Gond caste. Therefore, after considering the report submitted by the authorities, a show cause notice was issued to submit the requisite documents of his caste which the petitioner failed to submit and thus it was found that the petitioner does not belong to Gond cate and the social status certificate is liable to be cancelled. Considering the recommendation of the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, the Collector, Bilaspur had passed the order to remove the petitioner from service with immediate effect. 5. The learned Single judge by the impugned order has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant herein stating that : “The petitioner cannot be benefited by the order dated 26.06.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 14147 of 2011 by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High court at Jabalpur in the matter of Smt. Yogita Somawar (Thawait) Vs. 5 State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (Annexure P- 13) for the reason that in para 10 of its judgment, Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High court has considered the non-compliance of the procedure laid down for inquiry by the scrutiny committee as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case (supra) and that apart the vigilance report was in favour fo the employee, but in the present case,the inquiry report submitted by the Station House Officer of Police Station, SC/ST, Bilaspur in which the scrutiny committee does not reply and under the exercise of its discretion given vide notification dated 08.09.1997, they issued the show cause notice to the petitioner to submit his reply/explanation and when the petitioner fails to satisfy the scrutiny committee about his social status by producing the relevant document and evidence, the impugned order dated 26.11.2007 has been passed by the scrutiny committee, which in the opinion of this Court cannot be said to be erroneous or illegal. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed.” Thus, by way of the said order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition. 6. It has been submitted by the counsel for the appellant herein that the learned Single Bench has not properly considered the order passed in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others (1994)6 SCC 241, wherein the Apex Court has directed to all the State governments to constitute a High Power Caste Scrutiny committee and further directed to constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in charge and such number of police inspectors to investigate 6 into the social status claims, who would go to the local place of residence from which the candidate hails and after personally verifying the facts of the social status claimed by him/her, as the case may be, examine the school records, birth registration if any, submit a report to the Directorate with all the particulars as envisaged in the proforma, relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, death, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the castes or tribal communities concerned etc. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in compliance of the direction of the Apex Court, the concerned inspector had submitted the report that the appellant belongs to the Gond Caste but in the enquiry report there was no evidence or proof collected by the inspector that the appellant belongs to some other case or tribe other than the Gond tribe. He submits that the report of the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee has not been communicated to the appellant and all of a sudden his removal from service has been served upon him and then only he came to know about the same. He submits that it is not a case that the appellant has fraudulently obtained the social status certificate and in absence of any such finding or evidence the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee cannot come to the conclusion that the applicant does not belong to Gond Caste. 8. Learned counsel for the State submits that a complaint against the appellant with regard to his caste was received by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee and taking cognizance of the said complaint, the said Committee being the competent authority to check and verify the caste certificate/social status, initiated the proceedings and referred the matter of the vigilance cell and the notice was issued to the 7 appellant herein. It is submitted that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the social status report before the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee and therefore, the caste certificate has been cancelled and the petitioner is removed from service. He therefore submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the case, has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned and material available on record. 10. From perusal of the order, it reflects that after taking cognizance of the complaint received against the appellant in respect of his caste certificate, notice was issued asking him to produce records that he belongs to the Gond caste. Appellant was asked to submit the verification form of the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee which was submitted on 20.08.2006 before the Station House Officer, PS Sc/ST, Bilaspur. Again on 22.05.2007, the High Power Scrutiny Committee, Raipur directed the appellant to appear and produce the requisite documents and to satisfy the committee about his social status. Thereafter, the vigilance cell submitted its report to the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, who in turn held that the petitioner belongs to Gond caste and the report was sent to the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee through the SP, Bilaspur. The Caste Scrutiny Committee has come to the conclusion that the social status certificate which was issued in his favour is false and therefore cancelled it vide order dated 13.06.2012 by the Collector, Bilaspur and the petitioner was removed from service. The Committee had taken cognizance of the complaint, proceeded and on perusal of the Misal records, the claim of the petitioner that Akalu Gond was the grandfather of the maternal 8 grandmother (Naani) of the petitioner and therefore he cannot claim any benefit of the caste of the maternal forefathers. The appellant has not produced any records before the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee to the effect that his forefathers belong to Scheduled Tribe community. In fact, in the mark sheet of 5th Class of the petitioner, the case is shown as Christianity and the religion of the petitioner is shown as Christian. Thus, considering the pleadings made in the writ appeal, the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge had not committed any illegality or irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in the order dated 28.08.2024. 11. In the light of the foregoing reasons, the Writ Appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.03.07 17:59:59 +0530