1 2026:CGHC:21363 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2092 of 2022  Smt. Ganeshi Thakur (Aalam) W/o Dinesh Aalam Aged About 42 Years Caste Gond, R/o R.I.C. Mill Parisar, Mahendra Krama Ward - 42, Jagdalpur, Tahsil And District Baster, Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh. 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Tribal Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh. 3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh. 4. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest Aranya Bhawan Sector 19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh. 5. Office Of The Chief Conservator Of Forest Jagdalpur Circle Jagdalpur, Bastar Chhattisgarh. 6. High Level Certification Scrutiny Committee Secretary, Scheduled Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development, Block - 4 D, Ground Floor, Indrawati Bhavan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh. 7. The Collector District Baster, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Love Kumar Ramteke, Advocate For State : Mr. Anil Pandey, G.A. Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.05.08 14:17:17 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 7.5.2026 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the respondents. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly issue an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari and quash/stay the impugned letter Annexure P/1 dated 10/03/2022 issued by the respondents. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly issue an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari and quash/stay the impugned order Annexure P/2 dated 24/09/2021 passed by the respondents. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to direct the respondents No. 1 to 7, should be stopped for further action. 10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief or pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice. The petitioner may also kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner. 2) Facts of present case are that petitioner is currently working on the post of Forester in O/o Divisional Forest Officer, Jagdalpur, District Bastar. Petitioner’s caste certificate has been invalidated by the High Level Certification Scrutiny Committee vide order dated 24.9.2021 on the ground that petitioner failed to produce any document relating to her descendants to prove her caste. Subsequently, Chief Conservator of Forests, Jagdalpur Circle issued a letter on 10.3.2022 to the petitioner and provided her the last opportunity to defend herself. 3 3) Mr. Love Kumar Ramteke, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that High Power Certificate Scrutiny Committee will get the jurisdiction to conduct inquiry into social status certificate of a government servant only if it is referred by District Level Certificate Verification Committee under Section 7(1) of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Rules, 2013 [hereinafter to be referred as ‘Rules of 2013’]. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate Bench in the matter of Dr. Rajkumar Gadpayle Versus State of Chhattisgarh and Others1. He further submits that petitioner was not afforded opportunity of hearing and observations have been made contrary to the documents available with the High Level Certification Scrutiny Committee, therefore order impugned is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 4) On the other hand, Mr. Anil Pandey, learned State counsel submits that matter was referred by Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Tribes Commission to the High Level Certification Scrutiny Committee vide letter dated 31.7.2018 on the basis of complaint made by one V.P. Shori with regard to social status certificate of the petitioner. He further submits that respondent No. 6 took cognizance and inquired into the matter strictly in accordance with provisions contained under Section 7(1) of Act of 2013. He 1. 2026 Supreme(Chh) 35 4 contends that petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing but she failed to participate in the proceeding. He further contends that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6) Section 7 of the Act of 2013 reads as under :- "7. High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee.-(1) The State Government shall constitute, by or notification in the Official Gazette, one or more High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee Committees, for conducting enquiry into Social Status Certificate(s) referred to it by District Level Certificates Verification Committee under Section 6 or by the State Government, and it shall be the duty of the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee to examine the report of the District Level Certificates Verification Committee and to proceed in this matter as prescribed under Chapter IV of this Act. (2) The High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed : Provided that where the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee decides to arrive at an adverse finding, it shall not do so unless a reasonable opportunity of being heard is given to the person whose Social Status Certificate is disputed." From perusal of the provisions contained under Section 7 of Act of 2013, it is explicit that High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee can scrutinize the validity of a social status certificate, if the matter is referred by District Level Certificate Verification Committee or by the State Government. 7) In the present case, matter was referred to the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee by Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Tribes Commission which is a state instrumentality. Although it is 5 true that complaint was made by a private person but after receipt of such complaint, Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Tribes Commission referred the matter to High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee, which inquired into the social status certificate of the petitioner, therefore contention made by Mr. Ramteke with regard to Committee’s lack of jurisdiction is hereby rejected. 8) With regard to plea of violation of principles of natural justice, perusal of the Committee’s order dated 24.9.2021 demonstrates that the petitioner was duly served with notice. As the petitioner voluntarily abstained from appearing despite such service, the plea of violation of the principles of natural justice is devoid of merit and unavailable to the petitioner. Furthermore, it is apparent from the order impugned that petitioner failed to submit relevant documents before the Committee to substantiate that she belongs to an aboriginal tribe. 9) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, the instant writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). 10) Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k ya