1 CGHC010357892019 2026:CGHC:35920 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8761 of 2019 Dr. Ulhas Gonnade, S/o. Shri Ramchandra Gonnade, Aged About 50 Years, Occupation Service, Working As Director (In-Charge) Chhattisgarh State Medico-Legal Institute And Also Working As Associate Professor (In-Charge), Department Of Forensic Medicine And Toxicology, Chhattisgarh Institute Of Medical Science, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs, Department Of Personnel And Training, Government Of India, North Block, New Delhi, 110001. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492002. 3 – Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492002. ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.08.14 10:30:32 +0530 2 4 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Near Bhagat Singh Square, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee, Through Its Member Secretary Cum-Director, Office Of Commissioner, Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribe Development, Block 4D Ground Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. R.S.Marhas, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shruti Bariar, Advocate For Respondent Nos.2, 3 & 5 : Mr. Amit Buxy, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.1 & 4 : None appeared, despite service of notice. (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 13.08.2026 1. This writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 14.02.2019 (Annexure P-2) by which the caste certificate issued to the petitioner on 21.12.1978 has been annulled. Consequently, the services of the petitioner has also been terminated by order dated 30.09.2019 (Annexure P-1). 2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop :- 3 (i) The Chhattisgarh Adivasi Vikas Parishad, Raipur, by letter dated 04.12.2008 referred the case of the petitioner to the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee constituted as per the directions issued by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil v. State of Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development1, for verification of petitioner’s social status certificate dated 21.12.1978 in Scheduled Tribe category. (ii) While the verification of caste scrutiny remained pending with the above-stated Committee, the Act of 2013 came into force with effect from 29/04/2013 wherein it has been provided that the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee constituted under Section 7 of the Act of 2013 will have the jurisdiction for conducting enquiry into social status certificate of a person only in two cases, firstly when it is referred by the District Level Certificates Verification Committee constituted under Section 6 of the Act of 2013 and secondly, by the State Government. However, the Act of 2013 as well as Section 7 of the Act is silent with regard to pending complaints with the erstwhile committee constituted as per the directions of the Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). (iii) The High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee, as constituted under Section 7 of the Act of 2013, took cognizance of 1 (1994) 6 SCC 241 4 the above-stated complaint, even though it was neither referred by the District Level Certificates Verification Committee nor by the State Government, presumably on the premises that it was pending on the date of constitution of the Committee under Section 7 of the Act of 2013 and passed the impugned order dated 14/02/2019 (Annexure P/2) by rejecting the petitioner’s social status certificate issued on 21.12.1978. Consequently, the petitioner was terminated from his service by order dated 30.09.2019 (Annexure P-1), against which this writ petition has been preferred. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that after coming into force of the Act of 2013, the direction contained in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) has come to an end, therefore, cognizance taken by the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee as on 14/02/2019 (Annexure P/2) on the petitioner’s complaint i.e. way after coming into force of the Act of 2013 w.e.f. 29/04/2013, and thereby, annulling the social status certificate of the petitioner is totally unsustainable and bad in law as after coming into force of the Act of 2013. The High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee constituted under Section 7 of the Act of 2013 can only take cognizance for verification of social status certificate in two cases, either if it is referred by the District Level Certificates Verification Committee or if it is referred by the State Government and in no other case apart from these, therefore, the impugned order (Annexure P/2) is liable to be set aside. 5 4. Return has been filed by the respondents in support of the impugned order dated 14.09.2019 (Annexure P/2) and order dated 30.09.2019 (Annexure P-1). 5. Mr. R.S. Marhas, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that a complaint was made against the petitioner and the Chhattisgarh Adivasi Vikas Parishad referred the case of the petitioner to the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee, constituted as per the direction issued by the Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patel (supra), way back on 04/12/2008 but after coming into force of the Act of 2013 with effect from 29/04/2013, the said Committee did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the said complaint rather ceased to have jurisdiction to further investigate the matter, as it was neither referred by the District Level Certificates Verification Committee constituted under Section 6 of the Act of 2013 nor it was referred by the State Government as contained under Section 7 of the Act of 2013, therefore, the impugned order (Annexure P/2) is in violation of Section 7 of the Act of 2013 and it is thus liable to be set aside. He further submits that the directions issued by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), in exercise of power under Articles 142 and 32 of the Constitution of India, were made to fill vacuum in absence of any legislation, to ensure that only genuine Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates 6 secured benefits of reservation and the bogus candidates were kept out. After coming into force of the Act of 2013 with effect from 29/04/2013, the proceedings are governed by the Act and the rules made thereunder. He would rely upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matters of Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham & Ors.2 (paragraphs 22 and 36) and Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.3 (paragraph 13) and further submit that after coming into force of the Act of 2013, the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee, constituted under Section 7 of the Act of 2013, could not have entertained the complaint referred to it directly by the competent authority as it was neither referred by the District Level Certificates Verification Committee constituted under Section 6 of the Act of 2013 nor it was referred by the State Government, therefore, the impugned order (Annexure P/1) is in teeth of Section 7 of the Act of 2013 and it is therefore, liable to be set aside. 6. Mr. Amit Buxy, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents No. 2, 3 & 5/State would support the impugned orders and submit that the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions made herein-above and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 2 (2012) 1 SCC 333 3 (2023) 16 SCC 415 7 8. In Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court issued directions No. 1 to 15 and laid down a detailed procedure, as contained in paragraph 13 of the judgment, regarding issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval as at that time, there was no duly enacted legislation dealing with the issue. 9. In the matter of Dayaram (supra), one of the issues raised before the Supreme Court was, “whether the directions 1 to 15 issued in Kumari Madhuri Patel (supra) are impermissible, being legislative in nature ?”. The said issue was considered by a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Dayaram (supra) and it was held by their Lordships in paragraph 22 of the judgment that the directions 1 to 15 issued in exercise of power under Article 142 and 32 of the Constitution of India are valid and laudable, as they were made to fill the vacuum in the absence of any legislation, to ensure that only genuine Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates secured the benefits of reservation and the bogus candidates were kept out. In paragraph 35 of the judgment, their Lordships further held that the Scrutiny Committee is not an adjudicating authority like a court or tribunal, but an administrative body which verifies the facts, investigates into a specific claim (of caste status) and ascertains whether the caste/tribal status claimed is correct or not. It was also held that the entire scheme in Kumari Madhuri Patil 8 (supra) will only continue till the legislature concerned makes an appropriate legislation. Paragraphs 22 and 35 of the report state as under :- “22. Therefore, we are of the view that Directions 1 to 15 issued in exercise of power under Articles 142 and 32 of the Constitution, are valid and laudable, as they were made to fill the vacuum in the absence of any legislation, to ensure that only genuine Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates secured the benefits of reservation and the bogus candidates were kept out. By issuing such directions, this Court was not taking over the functions of the legislature but merely filling up the vacuum till legislature chose to make an appropriate law.” “35. The Scrutiny Committee is not an adjudicating authority like a Court or Tribunal, but an administrative body which verifies the facts, investigates into a specific claim (of caste status) and ascertains whether the caste/tribal status claimed is correct or not. Like any other decisions of administrative authorities, the orders of the scrutiny committee are also open to challenge in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Permitting civil suits with provisions for appeals and further appeals would defeat the very scheme and will encourage the very evils which this court wanted to eradicate. As this Court found that a large number of seats or posts reserved for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes were being taken away by bogus candidates claiming to belong to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, this Court directed constitution of such scrutiny committees, to provide an expeditious, effective and efficacious remedy, in the absence of any statute or a legal framework for proper verification of false claims regarding SCs/STs status. This entire scheme in Madhuri Patil will only continue till the concerned legislature makes appropriate legislation in regard to verification of claims for caste status as SC/ST and issue of caste certificates, or in regard to verification of caste certificates already obtained by candidates who seek the benefit of reservation, relying upon such caste certificates. ” 9 10. Thereafter, in the matter of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra), again a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court noticed the decision rendered in the matter of Dayaram (supra) and held in paragraph 13 of the judgment that the directions were issued in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) as there was no statute governing the field of verification of caste claims of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Nomadic Tribes and Other Backward Classes. Therefore, the directions issued in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) would apply only until appropriate legislation is enacted and after coming into force of the appropriate legislation, only the provisions of the said enactment will prevail. Paragraph 13 of the judgment states as under :- “13. We have already made a reference in detail to the directions issued by this Court in Madhuri Patil. A coordinate Bench in Dayaram, in para 35 of its decision, held that the directions issued by this Court in para 13 of Madhuri Patil case were issued as there was no statute governing the field of verification of caste claims of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Nomadic Tribes and Other Backward Classes. Therefore, it was held that the directions issued in Madhuri Patil would apply only until appropriate legislation is enacted. Hence, after the 2000 Act came into force, only the provisions of the said enactment will prevail.” 11. Coming to the facts of the present case in light of the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matters of Dayaram (supra) and Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra), it is evidently clear that complaint with regard to the verification of social status certificate 10 of the petitioner was made by the Chhattisgarh Adivasi Vikas Parishad to the High Power Certification Caste Scrutiny Committee, constituted as per the direction issued by the Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), as back as on 04.12.2008, and it remained pending before the said High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee and in the meanwhile, the Act of 2013 came into force with effect from 29/04/2013 and consequently, the said High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee, earlier constituted as per the direction of the Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), ceased to exist upon coming into force of the Act of 2013 w.e.f. 29/04/2013 dealing with the issue. 12. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the provision contained under Section 7 of the Act of 2013, which provides for constitution of the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee and its jurisdiction and states 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: 11 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.” 13. As noticed above, by virtue of Section 7 of the Act of 2013, the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee, now constituted as per the Act of 2013, will only have the jurisdiction to take cognizance of complaints in two cases. Firstly, if it is referred by the District Level Certificates Verification Committee under Section 6 of the Act of 2013 and secondly, if it is referred by the State Government. 14. In the matter of Dayaram (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that the directions in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) were made to fill the vacuum in the absence of any legislation, to ensure that only genuine Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates secured the benefits of reservation and the bogus candidates were kept out. Furthermore, in the matter of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra), their Lordships have held that the directions issued in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) would apply only until appropriate legislation is enacted and after coming into force of the appropriate legislation, only the provisions of the said enactment will prevail. 15. In the instant case, undisputedly, the Act of 2013 had already come into force with effect from 29/04/2013 and therefore, the erstwhile 12 High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee, constituted as per the direction issued by the Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), had ceased to exist upon coming into force of the Act of 2013 and thereafter, the investigation into social status can be made only in accordance with the Act of 2013, and the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee, now constituted under Section 7 of the Act of the Act of 2013, has the jurisdiction to take cognizance of complaints referred to it either by the District Level Certificates Verification Committee or by the State Government under Section 7 of the Act of 2013. Admittedly, the complaint against the petitioner was referred to the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee neither by the District Level Certificates Verification Committee nor by the State Government, as such, the said Committee could not have adjudicated the complaint made with regard to verification of petitioner’s social status certificate and in no case, it could have been decided on merits. At the best, it could have referred the matter to the District Level Certificates Verification Committee to deal with the same as it is the competent authority primarily to deal with the subject as per Section 6 of the Act of 2013, which was not done and it was entertained by the Committee which is without jurisdiction and without authority of law. 13 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis, the impugned order dated 14.02.2019 (Annexure P-2) passed by the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee taking cognizance of the complaint referred to it by the Chhattisgarh Adivasi Vikas Parishad with regard to verification of petitioner’s social status certificate is in teeth of the provision contained under Section 7 of the Act of 2013 and thus, it is hereby quashed. Consequently, the order dated 30.09.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Department of Medical Education, Govt. of Chhattisgarh is also hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents to take appropriate steps, in accordance with law. 17. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Ashok Judge