1 2026:CGHC:5436 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 316 of 2026 Smt. Alka Rani Lal W/o Shri N.D. Lal Aged About 53 Years Presently Posted As Upper Division Teacher At Govt. Girls Middle School, Jyotipur Gaurela-Pendra- Road, District Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi, R/o Suman Niketan Road, Sarbahra, Pendra Road, District Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi C.G. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Tribal And Scheduled Caste, Block D Ground Floor, Indrawati Bhawan New Raipur Chhattisgarh.- 492015. 2. Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Tribes Commission, Through Its Secretary, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Shankar Nagar Road, District Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh- 492001. ... Respondents. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate. For Res No.1 : Mr. Vivek Verma, Govt. Advocate. For Res No.2 : Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 31/01/2026 With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following reliefs:- Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.02.02 15:06:41 +0530 2 "10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to issuance of the impugned notice dated 21.11.2025 Annexure-P-1, for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned notice dated 21.11.2025 (Annexure-P-1) issued by the respondent. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay further proceeding in respect of the impugned notice dated 21.11.2025 (Annexure-P-1), till final outcome of the present petition. 10.4 Cost of the petitioner may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.5 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice." 2. Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher at Primary School Mahamedpur, Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (earlier Bilaspur) vide appointment order dated 29.06.1993 (Annexure-P/5). Later on, she has been granted several promotions and at present she is posted as Upper Division Teacher at Govt. Girls Middle School Jyotipur. He further submits that the petitioner has obtained the aforesaid service on the basis of caste certificate (Annexure-P/4) issued by the competent Authority as she belongs to 'Gond' tribe which comes under the Scheduled Tribe category. However, respondent No.2, Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog issued a notice to the petitioner on 21.11.2025 (Annexure-P/1) alleging that a complaint has been received against her that she has obtained the job on the basis of false and fabricated caste certificate. Learned counsel submits that the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog is not vested with the power to adjudicate upon the validity of caste certificates under the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit 3 Janjati Ayog Adhiniyam, 1995 (in brevity the "Adhiniyam 1995") inasmuch as it is vested with the District Level Caste Certificate Verification Committee/ High Power Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, which is duly constituted under the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013. He also places reliance in the case law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ku. Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development (1994) 6 SCC 241 and submits that the impugned notice (Annexure-P/1) issued by respondent No.2 is without jurisdiction and respondent No.2 has no authority at all to enquire the issue as it is vested with the statutory Authority as above. Hence, the impugned notice (Annexure-P/1) may be quashed. 3. Per contra, Shri Ravi Kumar Bhagat, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that in the State, the State Scheduled Tribe Commission has been constituted to look-into the welfare of Scheduled Tribes, their constitutional as well as their statutory rights and since on the basis of complaint received by respondent No.2, a notice (Annexure-P/1) has been issued against the petitioner, therefore, respondent No.2 has power to enquire the issue. He has also filed a copy of complaint received through Whatsapp along with a covering memo dated 31.01.2026. He further refers to Section 9(1)(a) of Chapter-III of the Adhiniyam 1995 to submit that the Adhiniyam provides function of Commission to act as watch-dog Commission for the protection afforded to the members of Scheduled Tribe. In view of such submission, he prays to dismiss the petition. 4. Mr. Vivek Verma, learned State counsel submits that this petition may be disposed of in accordance with law. 4 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record. 6. As per contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is working as Teacher since 1993. She obtained the service by producing caste certificate (Annexure-P/2) which has been issued by the Tahsildar Pendraroad, as she belongs to Scheduled Tribe category, being a member of 'Gond' tribe. She is still rendering her services as Upper Division Teacher in the concerned school. 7. The State of Chhattisgarh has enacted the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013 (in brevity "Act 2013") to examine caste certificate of a person who belongs to Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribe and OBC category. Further, Section 6 of the Act 2013 relates to District Level Certificates Verification Committee and its powers and Section 7 relates to High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee. The said Committees have been assigned to verify genuineness of caste certificate of concerned person. Thus, the statute itself provides mechanism to examine the caste certificate of a person concerned. 8. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ku. Madhuri Patil (Supra) issued necessary directions for issuance of Social Status Certificates and also for verification of caste certificates and directed all the States to enact the law and constitute a committee in this regard. Thus, since there is specific Act, law and a designated Authority for the verification of caste certificates, the impugned notice issued by respondent No. 2 cannot be sustained, as it lacks the requisite jurisdiction under the Act 2013. Even in Chapter-III of the Adhiniyam 1995, Section 9(1)(a) does entitle respondent No.2 to examine 5 such issue as said provision only relates to function of Commission " to act as watch-dog Commission for the protection afforded to the members of the Scheduled Tribes under the Constitution and under any other law for the time being in force". Even otherwise, since there is an efficacious statutory remedy to look into such an issue under the Act of 2013, respondent No.2 cannot, under the garb of Section 9(1)(a) of the Adhiniyam 1995, entertain such a complaint, rather if any complaint is received by respondent No.2, then it ought to have communicated the same to the concerned Authorities constituted under the Act of 2013 to examine the issue. 9. Moreover, copy of complaint filed by respondent No.2 dated 20.11.2025 contains name of three persons including present petitioner and same has been sent by one R. N. Dhurw, Prantiya Mahasachiv, CG Godwana Mahasabha New Rajendra Nagar Raipur. However, in the aforesaid copy of complaint, except two lines there is nothing to support the allegation that the petitioner does not belong to the Scheduled Tribe community. Therefore, respondent No.2 ought not to have taken any action in the absence of sufficient information or cogent evidence. 10. In view of the discussion made herein-above, this Court is of the view that the impugned notice dated 21.11.2025 (Annexure-P/1) issued by respondent No.2 against the petitioner is not sustainable and same deserves to be, and is hereby quashed. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. 12. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay