1 2026:CGHC:25558 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 841 of 2020 1. Smt. Savita Bhaskar W/o Shri Indrapal Bhaskar, D/o- Shri Sundar Lal Maraskole Aged About 46 Years Occupation- Service- Assistant Teacher (Lb) Primary School Ghotwani, Saja District- Bemetara (Chhattisgarh), R/o- Village And Post- Badgaon, Tehsil- Daundilohara, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes Development Department, Naya Raipur, Mantralaya, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Naya Raipur, Mantralaya, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee Through Its Member Secretary-Cum-Director, Tribal And Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes Development, Office At Block- 4d, Ground Floor, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Collector Bemetara, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 22.06.2026 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 25.1.2020 passed by the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee, Raipur by which the Scheduled Caste Certificate dated 15-3-2007, issued in favour of petitioner herein, has been cancelled. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that petitioner belongs to Mahar caste, which is included in Scheduled Caste category, and a caste certificate in this regard was issued to her on 15.3.2007. Petitioner has been appointed as a Assistant Teacher (LB) on 29.6.2007 as against a seat reserved for Scheduled Caste category. A complaint was made to the effect that petitioner and 17 others have obtained appointment on the strength of false caste certificate and therefore, caste certificate issued to petitioner, certifying that she belongs to Mahar caste was referred to respondent No.3- Committee for verification. Respondent No.3 referred the matter to Vigilance Cell as well as Research Assistant to conduct an inquiry with respect to social status of petitioner and submit report. After conducting inquiry, the Vigilance Inspector submitted report to the Additional Superintendent of 3 Police (Vigilance Cell) Raipur on 22.7.2017, opining that petitioner does not belong to 'Mahar' community, a scheduled caste, and her caste is found to be 'Baya-Mahra', which does not fall within the category of Scheduled Caste. The Research Assistant also conducted a detailed enquiry. In the course of inquiry, the Research Assistant examined the villagers of petitioner’s village who have knowledge about social status of petitioner and also verified knowledge of petitioner about deities of the community, customs, rituals, mode of marriage, death ceremonies etc. in respect of Mahar community, and reported that customs and rituals followed by petitioner and her family members are identical to that of ‘Mahar’ caste. On 22.7.2017 the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance Cell) submitted report to the Committee. The Research Assistant, TRI, Raipur submitted the report before the Director-cum-Member of respondent No.3-Committee on 01.03.2019. Respondent No.2 accepting the report of Vigilance Cell, vide order dated 25.1.2020 cancelled the caste certificate of petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee is ex facie illegal and arbitrary. The Scrutiny Committee has committed a grave error in completely overlooking the settled principles governing verification of caste status, particularly 4 the requirement of conducting an affinity test. It is well settled that determination of caste status cannot be based solely on documentary evidence but must also take into account anthropological and ethnological traits, customs, traditions, and social acceptance of the individual. In the present case, the Investigation Assistant had conducted a detailed enquiry and categorically recorded a finding that the petitioner shares identical social status, customs and traits with other members of the “Mahar” community. However, the said crucial report has been completely ignored by the Scrutiny Committee without assigning any reason, thereby vitiating the impugned order. 4. He submits that when respondent No.3-Committee has sought report regarding social status of petitioner from the Vigilance Cell as also Research Assistant, it was under obligation to consider and evaluate both the reports. However, from the order impugned it is clear that respondent Committee has only referred and relied upon the report of Vigilance Cell ignoring the findings and observation of the Investigation Assistant in its report to the effect that customs and rituals adopted by petitioner and her family members are identical to that of ‘Mahar’ caste. Respondent No.3- Committee could not have relied solely upon the report of Vigilance Cell, particularly when reports from Vigilance Cell 5 and Research Assistant were obtained for the singular purpose i.e. verification of petitioner’s social status. No reason whatsoever has been assigned in the impugned order for discarding the report of Research Assistant, which renders the impugned order arbitrary and not sustainable. 5. He further submits that the Vigilance Cell itself has not recorded any finding that the documents produced by the petitioner are forged or fabricated. Rather, the entire adverse inference is based on speculative observations regarding alleged corrections in certain entries. Shockingly, the Vigilance Cell has proceeded to invent a non-existent caste category, namely “Baya Mahara”, which finds no mention in any statutory notification or in any of the documents on record. Such a conclusion is perverse and demonstrates complete non-application of mind. 6. He lastly contended that caste certificate issued in favour of petitioner’s husband was also cancelled by respondent No.3- Committee vide order dated 25.1.2020, which was put to challenge by filing WPS No.840/2020 (Indrapal Bhaskar vs State of CG & ors) and the same was allowed vide order dated 17.4.2026, quashing the order of respondent No.3- Committee and declaring the caste certificate issued in favour of petitioner’s husband valid and subsisting in the eyes of law. 6 7. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State opposes submissions of learned counsel for petitioner and submits that due enquiry was conducted by respondent No.3, as reports were called from the Vigilance Cell as also Research Assistant with regard to caste of petitioner. In the revenue record of the year 1943-44, caste of forefathers of petitioner is mentioned as “Mahra’; in the school admission register of the uncle of petitioner, his caste is shown as ‘Bayan’. From the report submitted by the Vigilance Cell and the documents appended therewith, it is apparent that petitioner belongs to Baya-Mahara caste and therefore, respondent No.3-Committee is justified in passing the order impugned cancelling caste certificate of the petitioner. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available in record of writ petition. 9. It is undisputed fact that petitioner secured government job on the basis of caste certificate dated 15.3.2007, obtained by petitioner from the authority concerned showing her caste to be ‘Mahar’ falling under the Scheduled Caste. During course of her service, a complaint was made that she has secured job on the basis of forged caste certificate and therefore, to inquire the truth regarding actual caste of the petitioner, the case was referred to respondent No.3-Committee constituted in compliance of the directions of the decision of the Apex 7 Court in the matter Kumari Madhuri Patil vs Additional Commissioner Tribal Development and another, 1994 (6) SCC 241. Respondent No.3 forwarded the matter to the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee as also Research Assistant, Tribal Research and Training Institute, Raipur for holding an inquiry to verify social status of petitioner, giving her a fair and reasonable opportunity. 10. The Vigilance Inspector conducted an enquiry, examined the documents submitted by petitioner and submitted report to the effect that petitioner does not belong to ‘Mahar’ caste and she is found to be of ‘Baya-Mahra’ caste which does not fall in Scheduled Caste Category. It is mentioned in the report of Vigilance Inspector that caste of forefathers of petitioner in revenue document of the year 1943-44 is shown as ‘Mahra’. Statements of villagers were recorded in which they have stated the caste of forefathers of petitioner as ‘Mahra’. 11. The Research Assistant also conducted enquiry and after collecting information from all sources, submitted report on 1.3.2019 before respondent No.3 opining that customary activities, traditional business, rituals etc. followed by petitioner are identical to members of ‘Mahar’ caste. In the course of inquiry, Research Assistant examined independent villagers of the village of petitioner, who clearly stated that caste of forefathers of petitioner was ‘Mahar’; their traditional 8 profession is weaving cloth; in the revenue document of the year 1940-41 caste of forefather of petitioner is mentioned as ‘Mahar’. 12. Perusal of the order passed by the respondent No.3- Committee reveals that the Committee has considered the report submitted by Vigilance Cell only whereas no weightage was given to the affinity report submitted by the Research Assistant and there is no whisper concerning the report submitted by the Investigation Assistant. The Investigation Assistant submitted its report based on the affinity test. He collected material based on peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deities, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, methods of burial of dead bodies etc., thus, the report submitted by the Research Assistant ought not to have been ignored by respondent No.3 while cancelling the caste certificate of the petitioner. 13. In case of Maharashtra Adivasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti vs State of Maharashtra, reported in (2023) 4 SCC 335, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus:- "20. It is not possible to exhaustively lay down in which cases the Scrutiny Committee must refer the case to Vigilance Cell. One of the tests is as laid down in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil1. It lays down that the documents of the pre-Constitution period showing the caste of the applicant and their ancestors have got the 9 highest probative value. For example, if an applicant is able to produce authentic and genuine documents of the preConstitution period showing that he belongs to a tribal community, there is no reason to discard his claim as prior to 1950, there were no reservations provided to the Tribes included in the ST order. In such a case, a reference to Vigilance Cell is not warranted at all. 25. Now, we come to the controversy regarding the affinity test. In clause (5) of Paragraph 13 of the decision in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil1 it is held that in the case of Scheduled Tribes, the Vigilance Cell will submit a report as regards peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deities, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, methods of burial of dead bodies etc. in respect of the particular caste or tribe. Such particulars ascertained by the Vigilance Cell in respect of a particular Scheduled Tribe are very relevant for the conduct of the affinity test. The Vigilance Cell, while conducting an affinity test, verifies the knowledge of the applicant about deities of the community, customs, rituals, mode of marriage, death ceremonies etc. in respect of that particular Scheduled Tribe. By its very nature, such an affinity test can never be conclusive. If the applicant has stayed in bigger urban areas along with his family for decades or if his family has stayed in such urban areas for decades, the applicant may not have knowledge of the aforesaid facts. It is true that the Vigilance Cell can also question the parents of the applicant. But in a given case, even the parents may be unaware for the reason that for several years they have been staying in bigger urban areas. On the other hand, a person may not belong to 10 the particular tribe, but he may have a good knowledge about the aforesaid aspects. Therefore, Shri Shekhar Naphade, the learned senior counsel, is right when he submitted that the affinity test cannot be applied as a litmus test. We may again note here that question of conduct of the affinity test arises only in those cases where the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the material produced by the applicant.” 14. Considering the above facts of the case and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarkshan Samiti (supra), in the opinion of this Court, respondent No. 3-Committee has committed an error of law in not applying the affinity test considering report of the Research Assistant, therefore, the order impugned passed by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 25.01.2020 is liable to set aside. 15. That apart, caste certificate issued in favour of petitioner’s husband certifying that he belongs to ‘Mahar’ caste, was declared invalid by respondent No.3 vide order dated 25.1.2020. The Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.4.2026 in WPS No.840/2020 quashed the order dated 25.1.2020 passed by respondent No.3 declaring the caste certificate of petitioner’s husband invalid. Relevant portion of the said order is extracted below:- “29. Reverting to the facts of the present case in the light of the aforesaid judicial precedent, it is quite vivid 11 that the impugned action of the Scrutiny Committee cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. The petitioner has produced consistent and credible pre-ndependence documentary evidence reflecting his lineage from “Mahara/Mahar” caste, which, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, carries the highest probative value. The said evidence is further corroborated by the statements of independent villagers as well as the affinity test indicating social acceptance of the petitioner as a member of the “Mahar” community. In contrast, the conclusion drawn by the Scrutiny Committee is primarily founded upon stray and inconclusive entries such as “Baya” and an artificially coined expression “Baya Mahara”, which finds no recognition either in statutory notifications or in the documentary record. The approach adopted by the Committee, in discarding reliable ancestral records and ignoring material evidence favourable to the petitioner, is clearly contrary to the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and reflects perversity and non-application of mind. Further, in absence of any cogent finding of fraud or misrepresentation, the drastic action of cancellation of caste certificate and initiation of penal consequences is wholly arbitrary and disproportionate. 30. This Court is also persuaded by the fact that the petitioner has been in continuous service since the year 2007 and has discharged his duties as an Assistant Teacher for a considerable length of time without any blemish or adverse remark. The long and uninterrupted service rendered by the petitioner cannot be lightly disregarded, particularly when his 12 initial appointment was made after due verification of his eligibility and caste status by the competent authorities. The impugned action, if sustained, would not only result in loss of employment but would also visit the petitioner with serious civil and pecuniary consequences, thereby affecting his livelihood and dignity. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that where an employee has served for a long duration, the consequences of cancellation of caste certificate must be examined with greater caution, especially in absence of any finding of fraud. 31. It is further to be noted that the doctrine of proportionality, which is now well entrenched in administrative law, mandates that the action taken by the authorities must be commensurate with the gravity of the alleged misconduct. In the present case, there is no finding that the petitioner has indulged in any deliberate misrepresentation or fraud. The entire case rests upon doubtful and inconsistent entries, which by themselves are insufficient to dislodge the strong presumption arising from reliable ancestral records. Therefore, the extreme consequence of cancellation of caste certificate and initiation of penal action is clearly disproportionate and arbitrary.” 16. For the foregoing reason and discussion, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 25.1.2020 (Annexure P-1) is quashed. The matter is remanded back to respondent No.3- Committee to consider and decide the case of petitioner afresh and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law taking into consideration all the material available before it 13 including the report submitted by the Research Assistant, Tribal Research and Training Institute, Raipur. The Committee shall finalize its proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. No order as to the costs. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-