1 2026:CGHC:3182 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 174 of 2026 Smt. Shanti Bais (Before Marriage Pradhan) W/o Shri Pradeep Bais Aged About 68 Years Terminated Head Mistress, R/o Ward No. 04, Channu Para, Post And Thana Bacheli And Tahsil- Bade Bacheli, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner. -Versus- 1.State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2.High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee Tribal Research And Training Institute, Raipur, Pt. Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3.The District Collector South Bastar, Dantewada, District- South Bastar, Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 4.The Commissioner Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes Development Department, Pt. Ravi Shanker Shukla University Premises, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5.The Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department, South Bastar, Dantewada, District- South Bastar, Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents. {Cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery} For Petitioner : Ms. Astha Shukla, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Govt. Advocate. Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.01.21 17:26:45 +0530 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 20/01/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:- "(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondent authorities for its kind perusal (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 12.2.2016 (Annexure P/7) passed by respondent No.2/High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, Raipur. (iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to reconsider the claim of the petitioner afresh of being a member of Bhatra community and decide the same by affording her proper opportunity of hearing and of adducing period. (iv) That, this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost fo the litigation." 2. Ms. Astha Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Upper Division Teacher in the Tribes Development Department on 08.02.1990 and she was granted promotion under the Scheduled Tribe category on the post of Head Master and subsequently posted in Government Middle School Nahadi, Development Block Kuakonda, District Dakshin Bastar Dantewada on 3 14.12.2005 (Annexure-P/1). She further submits that a complaint was made against the petitioner that she has secured the job on the basis of false caste certificate, consequent to which, an enquiry was conducted by the Department and by order dated 25.02.2013 (Annexure-P/4) the petitioner was terminated from the service. She submits that the order of termination was challenged by the petitioner before the learned Single Bench of this Court in WPS No.817/20131, which was disposed of on 20.03.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred Writ Appeal No.422/20242 against the order of learned Single Judge which was dismissed by the learned Division Bench on 05.07.2024. Learned counsel further submits that vide impugned order dated 12.02.2016 (Annexure-P/7), the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, Raipur (in brevity the "Committee") has cancelled the caste certificate issued to the petitioner on 27.02.1986 by the District Coordinator, Tribal Welfare Department, Dantewa, District Bastar. She submits that the impugned order has been passed by the Committee without affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Hence, she prays that this petition may be admitted for hearing. 3. Per contra, Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, learned State counsel submits that though the petitioner has challenged her order of dismissal of service in WPS No.817/2013 which was disposed of on 20.03.2024, however, prior to that the Committee has already cancelled the caste certificate of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 12.02.2016. Thereafter, writ appeal bearing WA No.422/2024 preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed on 05.07.2024, but despite that the petitioner has not 1.Smt. Shanti Bais Vs. State of CG and Ors decided on 20.03.2024 2.Smt. Shanti Bais Vs. State of CG and Ors decided on 05.07.2024 4 apprised the Court about the impugned order passed by the Committee. He submits that, even otherwise, the impugned order has been passed by the Committee after providing due opportunities to the petitioner. Therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. Perusal of record would show that earlier the petitioner has challenged her termination order dated 25.02.2013 (Annexure-P/4) by filing WPS No.817/2013, which was disposed of on 20.03.2024. Thereafter, the writ appeal was also filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20.03.2024, which was dismissed by the learned Division Bench of this Court on 05.07.2024. However, it appears that, prior to passing of the aforesaid two orders, the Committee has already passed the impugned order dated 12.02.2016 (Annexure-P/7) cancelling the caste certificate of the petitioner issued by the District Coordinator, Tribal Welfare Department, Dantewada, District Bastar on 27.02.1986 and this fact has been concealed before learned Single Bench as well as before learned Division Bench of this Court. Perusal of impugned order dated 12.2.2016 further reveals that earlier the petitioner was granted three opportunities of hearing by the Committee, despite that she has sought further adjournment on the ground that her petition is pending consideration before the High Court. 6. The aforesaid facts clearly speak that during the litigation before the High Court, the petitioner was well aware about the order passed by the Committee. Therefore, this Court cannot ignore the fact that the petitioner was well aware about the order (Annexure-P/7) of 5 cancellation of her caste certificate before approaching the High Court in earlier litigation. Such conduct of the petitioner cannot be appreciated as she herself remained negligent while pursuing her case, and despite being afforded sufficient opportunities by the Committee, she failed to produce the relevant documents. 7. Given the circumstances discussed above, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed in limine. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay