ORDER : 1. The short question involved in this petition as to whether the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee can directly entertain the request/application for enquiry into social status certificate without being referred by the District Level Certificates Verification Committee under Section 6 or by the State Government in view of the provisions contained in Section 7 of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Casts, Scheduled Tribes & Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social States Certification) Act, 2013 (for short “the Act of 2013”). 2. The aforesaid question of law arises in the following factual backdrop :- (i) The petitioner was issued a caste certificate of caste “Mahar” by the Sub Divisional Officer (Certification) Durg on 30.01.2004 and thereafter on 10.01.2006, he joined government service in the Agriculture (Animal Husbandry) Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh as Veterinary Doctor/ Assistant Surgeon/ Veterinary Expansion Officer. (ii) The petitioner is working in the Chhattisgarh Kamdhenu University, Durg and on a complaint being received, the Registrar of the Chhattisgarh Kamdhenu University informed the matter to the Director, Tribal Research & Training Institute, Raipur to verify and enquire about the caste status of the petitioner and thereafter the High Power Caste Certification Scrutiny Committee entertained the complaint and by order dated 29.06.2019, revoked the caste certificate of the petitioner, which was issued on 30.01.2004, resulting into filing of this writ petition. 3. Mr. Love Kumar Ramteke, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee has no power and jurisdiction to entertain the complaint directly, it has power and jurisdiction to verify the social status certificate(s) only when reference is made by District Level Certificates Verification Committee under Section 6 or by the State Government; therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar & Mr. A.S.Kachhawaha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, would support the impugned order and submits that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to reproduce Sections 6 & 7 of the Act of 2013. Section 6 reads as under:- “ 6 . 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to reproduce Sections 6 & 7 of the Act of 2013. Section 6 reads as under:- “ 6 . District Level Certificates Verification Committee and its powers : (1) There shall be a District Level Certificates Verification Committee with such composition as may be prescribed for verification of Social Status Certificate issued by the Competent Authority under Section 4, as may be notified by the State Government having jurisdiction over one or more districts. (2) A district Level Certificates Verification Committee shall on its own motion or on receipt of any information or reference made to it, in regard to Social Status Certificate(s) issued by the competent Authority, verify such Certificate(s) in the manner as may be prescribed : Provided that the reference made to the District Level Certificates Verification Committee by an employer, an Educational Institution, a Local Authority, the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, for verification of Social Status Certificate(s), shall be in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, and it shall be the duty of the District Certificates Verification Committee or report its findings to the employer, the Educational Institution, the Local Authority, the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the reference. (3) Where there is prima-facie reason to believe that the Social Status Certificate(s) have been wrongfully or fraudulently obtained, the District Level Certificates Verification Committee shall refer all information and relevant documents along with record of its findings to the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee : Provided that where the District Level Certificates Verification Committee arrives at an adverse finding, it shall not refer the case to High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee unless a reasonable opportunity of being heard is given to the person, whose Social Status Certificate is disputed. (4) The District Level Certificates Verification Committee shall follow such procedure for verification of Social Status Certificate and adhere to such time limit for reference to the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee under sub-section (3) of this Section, as may be prescribed.” 7. (4) The District Level Certificates Verification Committee shall follow such procedure for verification of Social Status Certificate and adhere to such time limit for reference to the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee under sub-section (3) of this Section, as may be prescribed.” 7. A careful perusal of Section 6 would show that there shall be a District Level Certificates Verification Committee, which is empowered to verify the certificate and by virtue of sub-section (3), where there is prima facie reason to believe that the social status certificate has been obtained wrongfully or fraudulently, the District Level Certificates Verification Committee shall refer all information and relevant documents along with record of its findings to the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee. 8. Similarly, Section 7 of the Act of 2013 reads as under:- “ 7. High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee : (1) The State Government shall constitute, by notification in the Official Gazette, one or more High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee or 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.” 9. From perusal of the provisions contained under Section 7(1) of the Act of 2013, it is explicit that the State Government shall constitute one or more High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee or 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. As such, the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee has power and jurisdiction to verify the social status certificate(s) only when reference is made either by the District Level Certificates Verification Committee under Section 6 or by the State Government as defined by Section 2(p) of the Act of 2013. 10. As such, the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee has power and jurisdiction to verify the social status certificate(s) only when reference is made either by the District Level Certificates Verification Committee under Section 6 or by the State Government as defined by Section 2(p) of the Act of 2013. 10. The Supreme Court in the matter of Cherukuri Mani v. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh & Others, (2015) 13 SCC 722 observed that where the law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner following a particular procedure, it shall be done in the same manner following provisions of law and held as under : “ 14. Where the law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner following a particular procedure, it shall be done in the same manner following the provisions of law, without deviating from the prescribed procedure. When the provisions of Section 3 of the Act clearly mandated the authorities to pass an order of detention at one time for a period not exceeding three months only, the government order in the present case, directing detention of the husband of the appellant for a period of twelve months at a stretch is clear violation of the prescribed manner and contrary to the provisions of law. The Government cannot direct or extend the period of detention up to the maximum period of twelve months in one stroke, ignoring the cautious legislative intention that even the order of extension of detention must not exceed three months at any one time. One should not ignore the underlying principles while passing orders of detention or extending the detention period from time to time.” 11. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India & Others v. Mahendra Singh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 909 held that if a statue provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner and observed in para 15, 16 & 17 as under : “ 15. A three Judge Bench of this Court in a judgment Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad , (1999) 8 SCC 266 , held as under: “17……….It is a well-settled salutary principle that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. [See with advantage : Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, (1935-36) 63 IA 372 : AIR 1936 PC 253 (2), Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of V.P. AIR 1954 SC 322 : 1954 SCR 1098 , State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh, AIR 1964 SC 358 : (1964) 1 SCWR 57] An election petition under the rules could only have been presented in the open court up to 16-5-1995 till 4.15 p.m. (working hours of the Court) in the manner prescribed by Rule 6 (supra) either to the Judge or the Bench as the case may be to save the period of limitation. That, however, was not done…….” 16. The said principle has been followed by this Court in Cherukuri Mani v. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh (supra) wherein this Court held as under: “14. Where the law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner following a particular procedure, it shall be done in the same manner following the provisions of law, without deviating from the prescribed procedure………” 17. Similarly, this Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) v. Abhilash Lal, (2020) 13 SCC 234 and OPTO Circuit India Limited v. Axis Bank, (2021) 6 SCC 707 has followed the said principle. Since the advertisement contemplated the manner of filling up of the application form and also the attempting of the answer sheets, it has to be done in the manner so prescribed. Therefore, the reasoning given by the Division Bench of the High Court that on account of lapse of time, the writ petitioner might have attempted the answer sheet in a different language is not justified as the use of different language itself disentitles the writ petitioner from any indulgence in exercise of the power of judicial review. 12. Therefore, the reasoning given by the Division Bench of the High Court that on account of lapse of time, the writ petitioner might have attempted the answer sheet in a different language is not justified as the use of different language itself disentitles the writ petitioner from any indulgence in exercise of the power of judicial review. 12. In the instant case, admittedly neither the reference has been made to the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee by the District Level Certificates Verification Committee under Section 6 nor by the State Government under Section 7 of the Act of 2013; therefore, the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint directly from the Registrar, Chhattisgarh Kamdhenu University, as the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee will get the jurisdiction to conduct enquiry into social status certificate of a government servant only if it is referred by District Level Certificates Verification Committee under Section 6 or by the State Government in the manner indicated under Section 7(1) of the Act of 2013. As such, the order dated 26.09.2019 is without jurisdiction and without authority of law, hence it is quashed. However, Chhattisgarh Kamdhenu University i.e. Respondent No.6 is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. 13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. No costs.