1 2026:CGHC:23679 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Order Reserved on : 15.04.2026 Order Delivered on : 15.06.2026 WPC No. 4732 of 2021 Smt. Jamna Mehra W/o Shri Mohan Lal Mehra, Aged About 53 Years R/o. Wireless Police Line, Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh, Agriculture Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Chairman, High Level Certification Scrutiny Committee, Department Of Commissioner, Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Development, Block-4 D, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Commissioner And Member Secretary, Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribes Development Department (Caste Certificate High Level Scrutiny Committee), Deendayal Upadhya Nagar, Sector-4, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - President, Adim Jati Anusandhan Evam Prashikshan Sansthan, Deendayal Upadhya Nagar, Sector-4, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.06.15 18:43:38 +0530 2 6 - Vigilance Inspector, High Level Scrutiny Committee, Adim Jati Anusandhan Evam Prashikshan Sansthan, Deendayal Upadhya Nagar, Sector-4, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 7 - Director, Agriculture, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 8 - Deputy Director, Agriculture, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 9 - Joint Director, Agriculture, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 10 - Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Vigilance Department, Caste Certificate High Power Scrutiny Committee, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge CAV Order 1. Heard Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 24.07.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the High Level Scrutiny Committee, as well as the Enquiry Report (Annexure P-2) prepared by the Vigilance Inspector (Respondent No. 6), primarily on the ground that the same have been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner prior 3 to taking an adverse decision culminating in the cancellation of the petitioner’s caste certificate. The petitioner has sought for following relief(s) :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 24-07-2021 (Annexure P-1) and Enquiry Report (Annexure P-2). 10.2 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner, with cost of the petition.” 3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that the petitioner was born and brought up in the State of Madhya Pradesh and belongs to the Scheduled Caste community “Mehra” by virtue of her father’s caste. A caste certificate dated 14.09.1993 was duly issued in her favour by the Tahsildar, Ambikapur, District Surguja (now in the State of Chhattisgarh), certifying her caste as “Mehra”. The petitioner got married in the year 1985 to Shri Mohan Lal Mehra, who also belongs to the same Scheduled Caste community. She has been residing in the State of Chhattisgarh since the year 1982 and was appointed in the Agriculture Department in the year 1999 on the post of Rural Agriculture Development Officer against a post reserved for Scheduled Caste category. Presently, she is working as Senior Agriculture Extension Officer at Sargaon. 4. Subsequently, a complaint was made disputing the caste status of the petitioner, pursuant to which the Chhattisgarh State 4 Commission forwarded a list of employees, including the petitioner, for enquiry. The matter was then referred to the Vigilance Inspector, High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, and after considerable delay, an enquiry report dated 05.04.2018 was submitted. As per the impugned proceedings, a show cause notice dated 25.04.2018 is said to have been issued to the petitioner; however, the same was never served upon her, thereby depriving her of any meaningful opportunity to defend her case. 5. In the vigilance enquiry report, reliance was placed upon certain entries in the Dakhil Kharij Registers of the year 1972 and school records pertaining to the petitioner’s father. While one document reflected the caste as “Mehra”, another document was alleged to show the caste as “Mahra”. On this basis, the Vigilance Inspector arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner had manipulated the records by inserting certain letters so as to change the caste entry from “Mahra” to “Mehra” and thereby obtained the caste certificate. Notably, such adverse findings were recorded without proper verification of original records, without examining the issuing authorities, and without conducting a fair and complete enquiry. 6. The enquiry report was thereafter forwarded to the High Level Scrutiny Committee, which, vide order dated 24.07.2021 (Annexure P-1), cancelled the petitioner’s caste certificate. Consequentially, the said decision was communicated to the concerned departmental authorities vide letter dated 13.10.2021 5 (Annexure P-8) for initiating further action. It is pertinent to mention that under the Third Schedule of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 (for short, ‘Act of 2000’), the castes “Mahar”, “Mehra” and “Mehar” are all recognized as Scheduled Castes in the State of Chhattisgarh. 7. Thus, on the basis of the impugned order and the enquiry report allegedly conducted in violation of principles of natural justice and without affording due opportunity of hearing, the petitioner’s caste certificate has been cancelled, leading to serious civil and service consequences. 8. Being aggrieved by the said arbitrary and unsustainable action, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 9. Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the entire enquiry culminating in the impugned order stands vitiated at the very threshold, being in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. It is contended that the enquiry was conducted completely behind the back of the petitioner and no show cause notice was ever served upon her, despite the respondents asserting otherwise. The impugned action has resulted in serious civil consequences, including cancellation of caste certificate and adverse impact on the petitioner’s service career. It is thus submitted that denial of a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing renders the entire proceedings arbitrary, perverse and unsustainable in the eyes of law. 6 10. Ms. Siddiqui further submits that the procedure adopted by the respondents is in the teeth of the binding guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). Placing specific reliance on paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said judgment, it is contended that it is mandatory for the competent authority to furnish a copy of the vigilance report to the candidate and to issue a show cause notice, granting adequate time to submit a reply. It is further mandated that, upon request, an opportunity of personal hearing and full-fledged enquiry must be afforded, including permitting the candidate to adduce evidence in support of her claim. In the present case, none of these procedural safeguards were followed, thereby rendering the entire decision- making process legally untenable. 11. Ms. Siddiqui also places strong reliance on the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in MAH. Adivasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2023) 4 SCC 335, to contend that even where the vigilance report is adverse, the caste claim cannot be rejected solely on the basis of such report without furnishing the same to the affected person and granting an opportunity to rebut the findings therein. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has unequivocally held that the Scrutiny Committee is required to consider the explanation of the candidate before arriving at any conclusion. In the present case, the petitioner was neither supplied with the vigilance report nor granted any opportunity to respond to the same, which vitiates the 7 entire proceedings. 12. It is contended by Ms. Siddiqui that the vigilance enquiry itself suffers from serious procedural irregularities and is wholly unreliable. Drawing attention to Annexure P-4, learned counsel submits that the Dakhil Kharij Register of the year 1972 clearly records the caste of the petitioner’s father as “Mehra”. However, without conducting any proper verification of the said document from the competent authorities at the place of its origin, i.e., Itarsi District Hoshangabad (Madhya Pradesh), the Vigilance Inspector proceeded to record adverse findings. It is argued that as per the law laid down in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), the enquiry must necessarily be conducted at the place where the candidate or her family originally resided, which has not been done in the present case. 13. Ms. Siddiqui emphasizes that the entire enquiry appears to have been conducted in a perfunctory and mechanical manner within the office, without any field investigation either in the State of Chhattisgarh or in the State of Madhya Pradesh. No effort was made to verify the original school records, nor were the concerned authorities or issuing officers examined. The conclusion regarding alleged interpolation or fabrication has thus been arrived at without any substantive evidence, rendering the findings speculative. 14. In view of the aforesaid submissions, Ms. Siddiqui contends that the impugned order and the enquiry report are liable to be set 8 aside as being contrary to settled principles of law, violative of natural justice, and passed in complete disregard of the binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is, therefore, prayed that this Court be quashed the impugned proceedings and grant appropriate relief to the petitioner. 15. On the other hand, Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that all the allegations levelled by the petitioner against the answering respondents are wholly misconceived, incorrect and are emphatically denied. It is contended that the present writ petition is devoid of any merit and does not disclose any infringement of a legally enforceable right warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, it is urged, has failed to make out any case for exercise of extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction of this Court. He further submits that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and has deliberately suppressed material facts. It is contended that the petitioner has not placed complete and relevant documents on record and has attempted to mislead the Court by presenting an incomplete and distorted version of facts. On this ground alone, it is argued, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed in limine. 16. Mr. Minj further submitted that the entire process of enquiry was 9 conducted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh SC, ST and OBC (Regulation of Certification of Social Status) Act, 2013 (for short, ‘Act of 2013’) and the Chhattisgarh SC, ST and OBC (Regulation of Certification of Social Status) Rules, 2013 (for short, ‘Rules of 2013’). The matter, upon receipt of complaint, was duly referred for vigilance enquiry and after a detailed investigation, the Vigilance Cell submitted its report dated 05.04.2018, wherein it was categorically found that the caste of the petitioner’s father was recorded as “Mahara” and not “Mehra”. Based on such findings, the Scrutiny Committee proceeded in accordance with law. He further submits that a show cause notice dated 25.04.2018 was duly issued to the petitioner calling upon her to submit her explanation along with supporting documents. It is contended that despite issuance of notices and affording multiple opportunities, the petitioner neither cooperated with the enquiry proceedings nor produced any cogent documentary evidence to substantiate her claim of belonging to “Mehra” caste. It is further urged that even during the proceedings, the petitioner failed to adduce any reliable material and instead submitted an affidavit stating that she did not possess relevant documents to support her claim. 17. It is contended by Mr. Minj that the Vigilance enquiry was conducted after due verification of records and material available, and the conclusion regarding interpolation in the caste entry was arrived at on the basis of original certified records. The Scrutiny 10 Committee, after considering the vigilance report, material on record and the conduct of the petitioner, rightly concluded that the petitioner failed to establish her claimed social status. Consequently, the caste certificate issued in her favour was cancelled by the impugned order dated 24.07.2021, which is a well-reasoned order passed within jurisdiction and in accordance with law. He lastly submits that the reliance placed by the petitioner on subsequent amendments to the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order is misconceived, as the same cannot be applied retrospectively to validate a caste certificate obtained earlier on allegedly incorrect or manipulated records. It is thus argued that the petitioner, having failed to prove her caste status before the competent authority, is not entitled to any relief. In view of the above submissions, it is prayed that the present writ petition, being vague, baseless and devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 18. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents at length and have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. I have also carefully perused the pleadings, documents and material placed on record, including the reports submitted by the Vigilance Cell, the findings recorded by the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee, as well as the documents relied upon by the petitioner in support of his claim. 11 19. Upon such consideration, this Court finds that the controversy involved in the present case lies within a narrow compass, namely, the correctness, legality and propriety of the impugned order dated 24.07.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, whereby the caste certificate of the petitioner dated 14.09.1993 has been cancelled, along with the consequential actions initiated pursuant thereto, including communication dated 13.10.2021 (Annexure P-8) affecting the petitioner’s service. The Court is, therefore, required to examine as to whether the said order has been passed in accordance with law, upon due and proper appreciation of the material available on record, and in adherence to the settled principles governing determination of caste status, particularly compliance with the principles of natural justice and the procedural safeguards mandated in such enquiries. 20. From a careful and holistic perusal of the impugned order dated 24.07.2021 (Annexure P-1), it transpires that the proceedings against the petitioner were initiated on the basis of a complaint received through the Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Tribe Commission vide communication dated 02.03.2006, wherein the name of the petitioner was included amongst a list of employees whose caste certificates were referred for verification. Pursuant thereto, the matter was successively forwarded for enquiry, initially to the Superintendent of Police, District Surguja, and thereafter to the Vigilance Cell of the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, 12 culminating in submission of an enquiry report dated 05.04.2018. The said report, upon examination of certain school records, revenue documents and entries pertaining to the petitioner’s ancestors, arrived at a conclusion that the caste of the petitioner’s father was recorded as “Mahara” and not “Mehra,” thereby casting doubt upon the genuineness of the caste certificate obtained by the petitioner. 21. It further emerges from the impugned order that, on the basis of the vigilance report, a show cause notice dated 25.04.2018 was issued to the petitioner seeking her explanation. The petitioner, instead of filing a detailed reply, is stated to have submitted certain documents including school records and service-related documents; however, no conclusive material was placed to substantiate her claim of belonging to the Scheduled Caste “Mehra.” Thereafter, the Scrutiny Committee proceeded to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner on 19.02.2021, wherein the petitioner admitted that her ancestors were originally residents of District Narsinghpur in the State of Madhya Pradesh and that she had obtained the caste certificate in the year 1993 from Ambikapur, allegedly on the basis of her husband’s caste, while also expressing her inability to produce any further documentary evidence in support of her claim. 22. The impugned order further reveals that the Committee placed substantial reliance upon pre-constitutional and contemporaneous 13 records, including school admission registers of the year 1947, khasra entries of 1925–26 and other revenue documents, to conclude that the petitioner’s forefathers were residents of village Kumharakheda, District Narsinghpur (Madhya Pradesh), and that they did not belong to the geographical limits of the present State of Chhattisgarh as on the cut-off date prescribed under the Presidential Notification relating to Scheduled Castes. On such basis, and by applying the settled legal position that a person is entitled to claim Scheduled Caste status only in the State of origin as on the date of the Presidential Notification, the Committee held that the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner by the Tehsildar, Ambikapur in the year 1993 was without jurisdiction and contrary to law. 23. It is also evident that the Scrutiny Committee invoked the provisions of the Act of 2013 and the Rules framed thereunder, particularly Rule 22 and Rule 23, and, upon consideration of the vigilance report, documents on record and the statement of the petitioner, recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner had failed to discharge the burden of proving her claimed social status. Consequently, exercising powers under Section 8(1) of the Act of 2013 read with Rule 23(2) of the Rules of 2013, the Committee proceeded to cancel the caste certificate dated 14.09.1993 issued in favour of the petitioner. 24. The impugned order further discloses that consequential directions 14 have also been issued to the competent departmental authorities for initiating action against the petitioner in terms of Rule 23(3) and Rule 24(1) of the Rules of 2013, including confiscation of the caste certificate through the Vigilance Cell. Thus, the order, in its entirety, is founded upon the vigilance enquiry, historical records pertaining to the petitioner’s lineage, and the legal position governing determination of caste status with reference to the State of origin, ultimately leading to cancellation of the petitioner’s caste certificate and initiation of consequential proceedings. 25. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it emerges that the impugned order dated 24.07.2021 is primarily founded upon the vigilance enquiry report dated 05.04.2018 and certain historical records, including school admission registers of the year 1947 and revenue entries such as P-1 Khasra of the year 1925–26. These documents have been relied upon by the Scrutiny Committee to conclude that the caste of the petitioner’s father/ancestors was recorded as “Mahara” and that they were original residents of village Kumharakheda, Tehsil Gotegaon, District Narsinghpur (Madhya Pradesh). The Committee has treated these entries as determinative in nature, holding that the petitioner failed to establish her claim of belonging to “Mehra” Scheduled Caste. However, it is significant to note that the petitioner has consistently relied upon her caste certificate dated 14.09.1993 issued by the competent authority, along with 15 service records and school documents reflecting her caste as “Mehra.” The approach of the Committee in discarding these documents, without adequately reconciling the apparent variation between “Mahara” and “Mehra,” and without undertaking a deeper examination of their social and contextual equivalence, raises serious concerns regarding proper appreciation of evidence. 26. This Court further finds that the Scrutiny Committee has proceeded on the premise that the petitioner’s ancestors were not residents within the territorial limits of the present State of Chhattisgarh as on the cut-off date of the Presidential Notification, and on that basis alone, has held the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner to be without jurisdiction. While placing reliance upon the settled proposition that caste status is State- specific, the Committee has concluded that migration from Madhya Pradesh disentitles the petitioner from claiming Scheduled Caste status in Chhattisgarh. 27. However, such conclusion appears to have been arrived at without a comprehensive examination of all relevant aspects, including the petitioner’s long residence since 1982, issuance of caste certificate by a competent authority in the year 1993, and her continuous service in a post reserved for Scheduled Caste category since 1999. The material on record suggests that these relevant factors, which required due consideration in light of the governing legal principles, have not been adequately dealt with, 16 thereby rendering the findings susceptible to challenge. 28. It is also evident from the record that, although the respondents have asserted that opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner by issuance of show cause notice dated 25.04.2018 and by fixing a date of personal hearing on 19.02.2021, the petitioner has specifically alleged violation of principles of natural justice on the ground that the vigilance enquiry report and material relied upon were not effectively supplied to her, nor was she afforded a meaningful opportunity to rebut the same. The impugned order reflects that the Committee proceeded to decide the matter substantially on the basis of the vigilance report and documentary material collected during investigation, despite the petitioner expressing her inability to produce further documents and asserting that she had already submitted all available records. In such circumstances, the manner in which the enquiry was conducted and the conclusions were drawn, without ensuring effective participation and adequate opportunity to the petitioner, casts a shadow on the fairness of the decision-making process and indicates non-compliance with the procedural safeguards mandated in caste verification proceedings. 29. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, including Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241, has laid down the procedure and safeguards to be followed in caste verification proceedings, 17 emphasizing that such determinations must be based on a holistic consideration of documentary evidence, affinity test and social acceptance, by observing as under :- “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 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- 18 Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the 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 place from which he originally hails from and other particulars as may groups of tribes or tribal communities, the 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. 4. All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely, (1) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer high-er 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 19 commu-nities, 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 of 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 ethnological 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" 20 or 'doubtful' or spurious or 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 acknowledgement due or 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-à-vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof. 21 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. 8. Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the parents/guardian also in case candidate is minor to appear before the Committee with all evidence in his or their support of the claim for the social status certificates. 9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day- to-day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. If after inquiry, the Caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or spurious, they should pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and confiscate the same. It should communicate within one month from the date of the conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the parent/guardian and the applicant. 10. In case of any delay in finalising the proceedings, and in the meanwhile the last date for admission into an educational institution or appointment to an officer post, is getting expired, the candidate be admitted by the Principal or such other authority 22 competent in that behalf or appointed on the basis of the social status certificate already issued or an affidavit duly sworn by the parent/guardian/candidate before the competent officer or non-official and such admission or appointment should be only provisional, subject to the result of the inquiry by the Scrutiny Committee. 11. The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 12. No suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie. 13. The High Court would dispose of these cases as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months. In case, as per its procedure, the writ petition/miscellaneous petition/matter is disposed of by a Single Judge, then no further appeal would lie against that order to the Division Bench but subject to special leave under Article 136. 14. In case, the certificate obtained or social status claimed is found to be false, the parent/guardian/the candidate should be prosecuted for making false claim. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude, disqualification for elective posts or offices under the State or the Union or elections to 23 any local body, legislature or Parliament. 15. As soon as the finding is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the certificate obtained was false, on its cancellation and confiscation simultaneously, it should be communicated to the educational institution concerned or the appointing authority by registered post with acknowledgement due with a request to cancel the admission or the appointment. The Principal etc. of the educational institution responsible for making the admission or the appointing authority, should cancel the admission/appointment without any further notice to the candidate and debar the candidate from further study or continue in office in a post.” 30. In Kavita Solunke v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2012) 8 SCC 430, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that invalidating a caste claim in absence of fraud would not automatically justify punitive consequences, thereby underscoring the requirement of a strict standard of proof, by observing as follows :- “14. A careful reading of the above would show that both the High Court as also this Court were conscious of the developments that had taken place on the subject whether ‘Halba-Koshti’ are ‘Halbas' within the meaning of the Presidential Order. The position emerging from the said circulars, resolutions and orders issued by the 24 competent authority from time to time notwithstanding, this Court on an abstract principle of law held that an inquiry into the question whether ‘Halba-Koshti’ were Halbas within the meaning of the Presidential order was not legally permissible. 15. The appellant before us relies upon the above passage extracted above to argue that her appointment had attained finality long before the judgment of this Court was delivered in Milind’s case and even when she was found to be a ‘Koshti’ and not a ‘Halba’ by the Verification Committee, she was entitled to protection against ouster. 16. We find merit in that contention. If ‘Halba- Koshti’ has been treated as ‘Halba’ even before the appellant joined service as a Teacher and if the only reason for her ouster is the law declared by this Court in Milind’s case, there is no reason why the protection against ouster given by this Court to appointees whose applications had become final should not be extended to the appellant also. The Constitution Bench had in Milind’s case noticed the background in which the confusion had prevailed for many years and the fact that appointments and admissions were made for a long time treating ‘Koshti’ as a Scheduled Tribe and directed that such admissions and appointments wherever the same had attained finality will not be affected by the decision taken by this Court. 25 17. After the pronouncement of judgment in Milind’s case, a batch of cases was directed to be listed for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench eventually decided those cases by an order dated 12th December 2000 (State of Maharashtra v. Om Raj (2007) 14 SCC 488) granting benefit of protection against ouster to some of the respondents on the authority of the view taken by this Court in Milind’s case. One of these cases, namely, Civil Appeal No.7375 of 2002 arising out of SLP No.6524 of 1988 related to the appointment of a ‘Koshti’ as an Assistant Engineer against a vacancy reserved for a ‘Halba/Scheduled Tribe candidate. This court extended the benefit of protection against ouster to the said candidate also by a short order passed in the following words: “4. Leave granted. 5. The appellant having belonged to Koshti caste claimed to be included in the Scheduled Tribe of Halba and obtained an appointment as Assistant Engineer. When his appointment was sought to be terminated on the basis that he did not belong to Scheduled Tribe by the Government a writ petition was filed before the High Court challenging that order which was allowed. That order is questioned in this appeal. The questions arising in this case are covered by the decision in State of aharashtra v. Milind1and were got to be allowed, however, the benefits 26 derived till now shall be available to the appellant to the effect that his appointment as Assistant Engineer shall stand protected but no further. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.” 18. Reference may also be made to Punjab National Bank v. Vilas (2008) 14 SCC 545. That too was a case of appointment based on a certificate which was later cancelled on the ground that ‘Halba Koshti’ was not the same as ‘Halba’ Scheduled Tribe. The High Court had set aside the termination of the service of the affected candidates relying upon a Government resolution dated 15th June 1995 as applicable to Punjab National Bank. While upholding the said order, H.K. Sema, J. held the candidate to be protected against ouster on the basis of the resolution. V.S. Sirpurkar, J., however, took a slightly different view and held that the appointment made by the Bank having become final the same was protected against ouster in terms of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Milind’s case (supra). The question whether the Government resolution protected the candidates against ouster from service was for that reason left open by His Lordship. Reliance in support of that view was placed upon the decision of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 7375 of 2000 (wrongly mentioned in the report as Civil appeal No. 3375 of 2000) mentioned above. The Court observed: “The situation is no different in case of the 27 present respondent. He also came to be appointed and/or promoted way back in the year 1989 on the basis of his caste certificate which declared him to be Scheduled Tribe. Ultimately, it was found that since a “Koshti” does not get the status of a Scheduled Tribe, the Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidated the said certificate holding that the respondent was a Koshti and not a Halba. I must hasten to add that there is no finding in the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner lacked in bona fides in getting the certificate. I say this to overcome the observations in para 21 in Sanjay K. Nimje case. But it is not a case where the respondent pleaded and proved bona fides. Under such circumstances the High Court was fully justified in relying on the observations made in Milind case. The High Court has not referred to the judgment and order in Civil Appeal No. 3375 of 2000 decided on 12-12-2000 to which a reference has been made above. However, it is clear that the High Court was right in holding that the observations in Milind case apply to the case of the present respondent and he stands protected thereby”. 19. Our attention was drawn by counsel for the respondents to the decision of this Court in Addnl. General Manager/Human Resource BHEL v. Suresh Ramkrishna Burde (2007) 5 SCC 336 in which the protection against ouster granted by the decision in Milind’s case was not 28 extended to the respondent therein. A bare reading of the said decision, however, shows that there is a significant difference in the factual matrix in which the said case arose for consideration. In Burde’s case, the Scrutiny Committee had found that the caste certificate was false and, therefore, invalid. That was not the position either in Milind’s case nor is that the position in the case at hand. In Milind’s case, the Scrutiny Committee had never alleged any fraud or any fabrication or any misrepresentation that could possibly disentitle the candidate to get relief from the Court. In the case at hand also there is no such accusation against the appellant that the certificate was false, fabricated or manipulated by concealment or otherwise. Refusal of a benefit flowing from the decision of this Court in Milind’s case may, therefore, have been justified in Burde’s case but may not be justified in the case at hand where the appellant has not been accused of any act or omission or commission of the act like the one mentioned above to disentitle her to the relief prayed for. The reliance upon Burde’s case (supra), therefore, if of no assistance to the respondent. 20. The decision of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay K. Nimje (2007) 14 SCC 481 relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents was distinguished even by V.S. Sirpurkar, J. in Vilas’s case. The distinction is primarily in terms whether the candidate seeking appointment or admission is found 29 guilty of a conduct that would disentitle him/her from claiming any relief under the extraordinary powers of the Court. This Court found that if a person secures appointment or admission on the basis of false certificate he cannot retain the said benefit obtained by him/her. The Courts will refuse to exercise their discretionary jurisdiction depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 21. The following passage from decision in the Nimje’s case is apposite: “In a situation of this nature, whether the Court will refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. This aspect of the matter has been considered recently by this Court in Sandeep Subhash Parate v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 7 SCC 501.” 22. Applying the above to the case at hand we do not see any reason to hold that the appellant had fabricated or falsified the particulars of being a Scheduled Tribe only with a view to obtain an undeserved benefit in the matter of appointment as a Teacher. There is, therefore, no reason why the benefit of protection against ouster should not be extended to her subject to the usual condition that the appellant shall not be ousted from service and shall be re-instated if already ousted, but she would not be entitled to any 30 further benefit on the basis of the certificate which she has obtained and which was 10 years after its issue cancelled by the Scrutiny committee.” 31. Again in MAH. Adivasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra), while dealing with the similar issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “24....... If the report of the Vigilance Cell is against the applicant, his caste claim cannot be rejected only on the basis of the report of the Vigilance Cell without providing a copy of the report to the applicant and without giving him an opportunity of being heard on the report. After giving an opportunity to the applicant to make submissions on the report, the Scrutiny Committee may reject the caste claim. In a given case, the Scrutiny Committee can also record a finding that the caste claim is genuine. It all depends on the facts of each case.” 32. Recently, in Yogesh Madhav Makalwad v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1679, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus :- “7. At the outset, it would be apposite to refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claims. It would be relevant to refer paragraph 22 of the said judgment which reads thus: “22. It is manifest from the afore-extracted 31 paragraph that the genuineness of a caste claim has to be considered not only on a thorough examination of the documents submitted in support of the claim but also on the affinity test, which would include the anthropological and ethnological traits, etc., of the applicant. However, it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down an absolute rule, which could be applied mechanically to examine a caste claim. Nevertheless, we feel that the following broad parameters could be kept in view while dealing with a caste claim: (i) While dealing with documentary evidence, greater reliance may be placed on pre- Independence documents because they furnish a higher degree of probative value to the declaration of status of a caste, as compared to post-Independence documents. In case the applicant is the first generation ever to attend school, the availability of any documentary evidence becomes difficult, but that ipso facto does not call for the rejection of his claim. In fact, the mere fact that he is the first generation ever to attend school, some benefit of doubt in favour of the applicant may be given. Needless to add that in the event of a doubt on the credibility of a document, its veracity has to be tested on the basis of oral evidence, for which an opportunity has to be afforded to the applicant; (ii) While applying the affinity test, which focuses on the ethnological connections with 32 the Scheduled Tribe, a cautious approach has to be adopted. A few decades ago, when the tribes were somewhat immune to the cultural development happening around them, the affinity test could serve as a determinative factor. However, with the migrations, modernisation and contact with other communities, these communities tend to develop and adopt new traits which may not essentially match with the traditional characteristics of the tribe. Hence, the affinity test may not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant with a Scheduled Tribe. Nevertheless, the claim by an applicant that he is a part of a Scheduled Tribe and is entitled to the benefit extended to that tribe, cannot per se be disregarded on the ground that his present traits do not match his tribe's peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies, etc. Thus, the affinity test may be used to corroborate the documentary evidence and should not be the sole criteria to reject a claim.” [emphasis supplied] 8. It can, thus, be seen that this Court held that while dealing with documentary evidence, greater reliance may be placed on pre- Independence documents because they furnish a higher degree of probative value to the declaration of status of a caste, as 33 compared to post-Independence documents. Insofar as the applicability of the affinity test is concerned, the Court observed that a cautious approach has to be adopted. It has been observed that a few decades ago, when the tribes were somewhat immune to the cultural development happening around them, the affinity test could serve as a determinative factor. However, with the migrations, modernisation and contact with other communities, these communities tend to develop and adopt new traits which may not essentially match with the traditional characteristics of the tribe. It is, therefore, held that the affinity test may not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant with a Scheduled Tribe. It has been held that merely because the applicant does not match the tribe's peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc., it cannot be solely taken into consideration for rejecting the claim of belonging to the Scheduled Tribe. 9. In the present case, the appellant has placed on record the School Admission and Leaving Extract in respect of his grandfather namely, Jalba Malba Makalwad, recorded on 10th October, 1943 which indicates his caste as Koli Mahadev. Though the report of the handwriting expert is inconclusive as to whether there is interpolation or not, we have examined the said document with a magnifying 34 glass. *** 12. In view of the pre-Independence document which certifies that the appellant's grandfather, Jalba Malba Makalwad, to be belonging to Koli Mahadev Tribe, we are of the considered opinion that a greater probative value ought to have been given to the said document. However, on the basis of presumptions and assumptions, the said document has been disbelieved. *** 14. We may also gainfully refer to a recent judgment of this Court rendered by the three learned Judges in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra4 which reiterated the position that the affinity test cannot be conclusive either way. It has been held that when the affinity test is conducted by the Vigilance Cell, the result of the test along with all other material on record having probative value will have to be taken into consideration by the Scrutiny Committee for deciding the caste validity claim. It has been reiterated that the affinity test is not a litmus test to decide the caste claim and is not an essential part in the process of determination of correctness of a caste or tribe claim in every case.” 33. Before adverting to the merits of the controversy, it is pertinent to note that this Court, vide order dated 24.11.2021, while taking 35 cognizance of the challenge made to the impugned order dated 24.07.2021 (Annexure P-1), had granted interim protection in favour of the petitioner. This Court had recorded that the petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, whereby the caste certificate of the petitioner was cancelled allegedly without affording proper opportunity of hearing. It was further noticed that the petitioner, belonging to “Mehra” caste (Scheduled Caste), was appointed as Rural Agriculture Development Officer in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh and continued in service even after allocation to the State of Chhattisgarh. Taking into consideration the submissions advanced and the nature of allegations, this Court had directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner till the next date of hearing, while granting time to the State to file its reply. The said interim protection, thus, enured to the benefit of the petitioner during pendency of the present proceedings. 34. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the settled legal position, this Court finds that the impugned action of the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The entire foundation of the impugned order dated 24.07.2021 rests upon the vigilance enquiry report dated 05.04.2018, which admittedly formed the basis for arriving at adverse findings against the petitioner. However, it is evident from the record that the said enquiry was conducted in a manner not 36 consistent with the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the petitioner was not afforded an effective and meaningful opportunity to rebut the material collected during the course of such enquiry. The procedural safeguards mandated by law, particularly the requirement of furnishing the vigilance report and granting adequate opportunity of hearing before recording adverse findings having serious civil consequences, have not been duly complied with. In absence of strict adherence to such mandatory requirements, the findings recorded by the Scrutiny Committee stand vitiated. 35. This Court further notes that the petitioner was issued a caste certificate dated 14.09.1993 by the competent authority, on the basis of which she secured appointment in the year 1999 and has continued in service for a considerable length of time. The impugned order, which results in cancellation of such certificate and entails serious civil consequences including termination from service, has been passed without ensuring due compliance of the procedure laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the governing statutory framework. The long and uninterrupted service rendered by the petitioner cannot be lightly brushed aside, particularly when there is no categorical finding of fraud or deliberate misrepresentation on her part. The drastic action taken against the petitioner is wholly unsustainable. 36. It is also apparent that the Scrutiny Committee has proceeded to 37 decide the matter primarily on the basis of certain entries indicating the caste of the petitioner’s ancestors as “Mahara,” without undertaking a proper and reasoned examination of the petitioner’s consistent claim of belonging to “Mehra/Mahar” Scheduled Caste, as reflected in her caste certificate, service records and other documents. The failure to reconcile such variations, coupled with non-consideration of relevant material placed on record by the petitioner, clearly reflects non-application of mind. Moreover, the enquiry having been conducted without affording adequate opportunity to the petitioner to effectively contest the same, the conclusions drawn therein cannot be said to be legally sustainable. 37. This Court is of the considered view that the doctrine of fairness in administrative action, which is an integral facet of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, stands violated in the present case. The action of cancellation of caste certificate, which carries severe civil and pecuniary consequences, ought to have been preceded by strict compliance of the principles of natural justice. The failure on the part of the respondents to adhere to such fundamental requirements renders the entire proceedings arbitrary and unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned order suffers from manifest illegality and is liable to be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 38. In view of the aforesaid discussion, and upon a careful and holistic 38 consideration of the facts, circumstances, and material placed on record, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned order dated 24.07.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee suffers from patent illegality, arbitrariness, and non-application of mind. The said order, having been rendered in disregard of the settled principles governing verification of caste status and in violation of the principles of natural justice, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is, accordingly, quashed and set aside. 39. As a necessary corollary, all consequential actions emanating from the said impugned order are also rendered unsustainable. It is hereby declared that the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner on 14.09.1993 shall be treated as valid, subsisting, and operative for all intents and purposes, and the petitioner shall be entitled to all benefits flowing therefrom without any impediment. 40. As an inevitable consequence of the aforesaid determination, all actions taken pursuant to the impugned order, including but not limited to the communication dated 13.10.2021 (Annexure P-8) and the resultant termination order dated 17.05.2022, are also quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to forthwith take necessary steps for reinstatement/restoration of the petitioner to her service, ensuring continuity in service without any break, and to extend all consequential benefits, including arrears of salary, seniority, and other service-related entitlements, strictly in 39 accordance with law. 41. It is further directed that the aforesaid exercise shall be carried out expeditiously and, in any case, within a reasonable period, preferably within 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Till such time, and even thereafter, no coercive or adverse action shall be taken against the petitioner on the basis of the impugned proceedings, which now stand nullified. The respondents are expected to act in letter and spirit of this order and ensure full and effective compliance, failing which the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek appropriate remedies available under law. 42. With the aforesaid observations and findings, the instant writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 24.07.2021 (Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed and set aside, along with all consequential actions arising therefrom. The respondents are directed to act in terms of the directions issued hereinabove 43. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 15.04.2026 15.06.2026 ------ 15.06.2026