1 2026:CGHC:2364 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6664 of 2025 K. Rama Yashwant S/o K. Narsingh Aged About 49 Years O/o Principal, Government Higher Secondary School Arrabor - Sukma, District - Sukma, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Tribal Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Director Tribal Research And Training Institute, Sector 24, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Collector Bijapur District - Bijapur Chhattisgarh 5. Collector/ President District Level Certificate Verification Committee Sukma, District - Sukma Chhattisgarh 6. Tribal And Scheduled Caste Development Department Through, Collector - Bijapur, District - Bijapur Chhattisgarh 7. Tribal And Scheduled Caste Development Department Through Collector - Sukma, District - Sukma, Chhattisgarh 8. Assistant Commissioner Cum Member/ Secretary District Level Certificate Verification Committee, District - Bijapur Chhattisgarh 9. Office Of The Research Officer Tribal Research And Training Institute, Regional Unit, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh 10. Salvam Rajrao Village - Phandiguda, Post - Injaram, Tehsil - Konta, District - Sukma, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2026.01.15 17:46:49 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lav Kumar Ramteke, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 15/01/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby a complaint was lodged against him wherein a proceedings was started against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner who is working as Principal, Government Higher Secondary School Arrabor, Sukma, District Sukma wherein a complaint was lodged against him. In pursuance of that complainant, District Caste Scrutiny Committee, Sukma as well as District Caste Scrutiny Committee, Bijapur has started proceedings. 3. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that two proceedings for the same caste certificates are not permissible as one of the proceedings at District Bijapur is already going on and would pray for quashing of proceedings conducted at District Sukma. 4. On 12.01.2026 this Court directed the State to seek instruction. In pursuance of direction, learned counsel for the State would submit that the proceedings conducted at Bijapur may be allowed to continue and the proceedings with regard to District Sukma may be quashed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. Considering the submission that since two parallel proceedings for the same caste certificate is not permissible, as such the statement made by counsel for the State, proceedings conducted at District Sukma deserves to be quashed and it is quashed. Further considering the fact that it is directed that the proceedings conducted at District Bijapur will continue without any hindrance. 3 Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. It is also directed that the petitioner shall cooperate with the proceedings conducted at District Bijapur. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge santosh