1 CGHC010105382021 2026:CGHC:39765 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2005 of 2021 Claris Leena Joseph W/o Shri Vijay Kumar Joseph Aged About 48 Years Occupation Government Service , Presently Working As Teacher (Local Body - LB) , Middle School Dhangawa, Block Gourela, District Gourela- Pendra-Marwahi Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Tribe Commission , 61 Jalvihar Colony, Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. RK Gupta, Additional Advocate General SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 10/09/2026 SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.09.21 17:21:28 +0530 2 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is assailing the notice dated 11.2.2021 issued to her by the Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Tribe Commission (in short “the Commission”) {Respondent}). 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs : 10.1) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to issuance of the impugned notice Annexure P- 1, for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2) The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to quash the impugned notice (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent. 10.3) Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.4) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice dated 11.2.2021 was issued by the Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Tribe Commission directing the petitioner to appear with relevant documents in connection with a complaint 3 challenging her caste status on 10.3.2021. He submits that this Court has granted an interim stay on 8.6.2021. He further submits that the Commission lacks adjudicatory jurisdiction to enquire into or determine caste status. He submits that the impugned notice is against the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013. After the commencement of the said Act, the power to conduct an inquiry for verification of a Social Status Certificate is vested in the District Level Certificates Verification Committee under Section 6 and in the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee under Section 7. Therefore, the impugned notice has been issued without jurisdiction and is not in accordance with law. Hence, the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the impugned notice is a mere summons directing appearance, which is well within the statutory powers of the Commission. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog Adhiniyam, 1995 (in short “the Adhiniyam, 1995”) reads as under:- “10. Powers of the Commission.- The Commission shall, while performing its functions under sub-section (1) of Section 9, have all the powers of a Civil Court trying a suit and in particular, in respect of the following matters, namely:- (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any 4 person from any part of the State and examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of any document; (c) receiving evidence on affidavits; (d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any Court or office; (e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses and documents; and (f) any other matter which may be prescribed.” 7. The High Court of Chhattisgarh in the matter of Rajju Lal Dhruw vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Co. Ltd and Another passed in WA No. 512/2017 passed on 02.08.2019, the Hon’ble Court has observed as under:- “11. Coming to the scope of Section 9 of the Act, 1995, particularly Section 9(1)(a), it is only to act as a 'watch- dog' for protection afforded to the members of the Scheduled Tribes under the Constitution and under any other law for the time being in force. It is obviously a general power and if at all there is any instance of encroachment, intrusion or interdiction with regard to constitutional rights, it may be for the Commission to interfere for making or suggesting or recommending appropriate remedial measures. The courses of action to be performed by the Commission is more discernible from the other provisions such as clauses (b), (c), (d) and (e) under Section 9(1) of the Act, 1995. Section 9(1)(b) refers to the functions of the Commission to make recommendations and to take steps to add particular tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. Similarly, 5 Section 9(1)(c) refers to the functions to suggest improvement in the various welfare programmes or to watch the proper and timely implementation programmes meant for the welfare of the Scheduled Tribes to the State Government or such other bodies; Section 9(1)(d) deals with the advisory power vested to the Commission in the given circumstances and Section 9(1)(e) is with regard to such other functions as may be assigned to it by the State Government. The above provisions, in no way, deal with other aspects/disputes; particularly dealing with the service conditions between the employer and the employee, which rather is a forbidden field for the 'Ayog' and it is to be dealt with by such other appropriate authorities.” 8. In the matter of Collector, Bilaspur vs. Ajit P.K. Jogi and others reported in {(2011) 10 SCC 357}, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where the State Government has constituted a Scrutiny Committee for verification of caste certificates, any other authority, including the Commission, lacks jurisdiction to independently undertake such verification and held in paragraphs Nos.5 & 19, which reads as under:- “5. The Commission summoned the Principal Secretary, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Welfare Department to appear on 18-5- 2001 with the records. He responded and made available the instructions issued by the State Government relating to verification of the caste certificates. He submitted that having regard to the provision made by the State Government for verification of caste certificates by a scrutiny committee, the Commission did not have 6 jurisdiction to verify the caste certificate issued to the first respondent xxxx 19. It is true that the Commission had ultimately directed the State Government to conduct the verification of the genuineness of the Scheduled Tribe certificate obtained by the first respondent and to initiate action for cancellation of his Scheduled Tribe certificate and also criminal action as provided in law and submit an action- taken report to the Commission within 30 days. But this is preceded by a very lengthy order which categorically records a finding that the first respondent had secured a false certificate. The order starts with the following caption: "Verification of community certificate of Shri Ajit P.K. Jogi". The order discloses that it had summoned various senior officers of the State Government and the first respondent to produce the documents in regard to his caste status. The order further states that it had held an independent inquiry through its State office to collect evidence to show that the first respondent belonged to Satnami caste and not to Kanwar community.” 9. Coming to the facts of the present case, since the impugned notice is merely a summons issued within the statutory competence of the Commission, this Court finds no ground to entertain the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the 7 petitioner to file a reply to the impugned notice before the authority concerned. In the event such a reply is filed, the authority concerned shall consider the same, afford an opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 11. However, it is made clear that the Ayog possesses only recommendatory powers and lacks adjudicatory powers. Even after receiving and verifying the relevant documents, the Aayog cannot adjudicate upon the merits of the matter and must refer it to the concerned authority having jurisdiction to verify the social status of the petitioner, if required. 12. So far as summoning the petitioner and requisitioning documents for verification is concerned, such actions fall well within the powers conferred under Section 10 (1) (a), (b) and (c) of the Adhiniyam, 1995. Therefore, the impugned notice dated 11.2.2021 is well within the four corners of the Adhiniyam, 1995. Consequently, the challenge to the said notice on the ground that it is beyond the power and authority of the Aayog is not in accordance with law. 13. With the aforesaid directions/observations, the Petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay