^ BEFORE THE H.P. STATE ADMINISTBATIVE TRIBUNAL BENOSl RAIPUK (M.P.) O.A. N0. ••) /2000^ APPLICANT RESPONDENTS •^^Lto(OJ- Ganeshram Bharia Aged 39 years S/o Bhaiyaram Bharia R/o Village Kendaikhar Tahsil Katghora Distt. Bilaspur (M.P.) VERSUS Stat of M.P. Through The Secretary, Scheduled Tribed and Scheduled Castes Developraent Department, Vallabh Bhavan, Bhopal (M.P.) The Gollector, Tribal Welfare and Development, Bilaspur (M.P.) Block Education Officer, Pondi-Uprora, Distt. Bilaspur (H.P.) Assistant Commissioner, Tribal vielfare and Development Bilaspur (n.P^l ORIGINAL APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 19 of the M.P. STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT, 1985. V*. ^, 1 ^ fl "fl 9^r b< HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH ATBILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice PrBinker Dhwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 3240 of 2005 PET1T1QNJER Ganeshram Bharia VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Madhya Pradesh and othere Shri S. R. J. Jaiswal, counsel forthe petitioner. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, PL forthe State/r^pondents. WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE ^oNStmjfiau OF iNraA ~~ ORDER (29.09.2010) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 07.04.1999 (Annexure A-5) passed by the Cotlector, Tribal Wetftire and Development, Bilaspur terminating the services of the pettttoner and other similariy placed 18 Assistant teaehers. 2. Grievance of the petNioner is that vlde-order cteted 22.3.1988 (Annexure A-1) he was appointed as Assistant Teacher by Distrid Co-ordinator, Tribai Welfare, for Collector, Bila^ur. The petitioner was selected on the basis ofhis betonging to "Bharia" Tribe. According to the petitioner, he belongs to "Bharia" Tribe and to this effeet a certjficate was issued by the Naib Tahsildar, Katghora on 26.07.1986 (Annexure A-20). From the record it appears that on 15.02.1999 a shcw-cause notice (Annexure R-4) was issued to the petltioner by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur asking the petitioner to show-cause as to why his services be not terminated, as upon enquiry, it was found that the petitioner procured government employment on the basis of fahse certificate of his belonging to "Bharia" tribe whereas, the petitioner's caste is "Bhoria" a sub caste of caste "Koshta" mainty engaged In the vocation of weaving. tt has further been stated In the sald show-cause that the petitioner is liable to be punished under Madhya Pradesh CMI Services (Classification.. Control & AooeaR Rules; 1966: in addition to fcfc :v^/ ^.^f -2.- criminal action. In response to this the petitioner submttted various documents before the competent authority to establlsh the fact that he belongs to "Bharia" tribe. Thepetitioner has placed his reliance on the documents (Annexure A-6 to A-23) in order to demonstrate that a valid and proper caste certificate was issued in his favour by the competent authortty. 3. By the impugned order dated 7.4.1999 the services of the petitioner atong with 18 Assistant teachere have been terminated by holdlng that the explanation of the petitioner was not found satisfactory and It was found that the petitioner Talsely claimed himselT as a "Bharia" tribe whereas he does not belongto the sald tribe. By the same order, the Collector ordered to register criminal case against the petitloner. Accordlng to the petitioner, against the terminatlon order, he preferred a representation dat«l18.4.1999 (Annecure A-24) however, no action was taken by the competent author'rty on his repneentation. 4. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the entire proceedings being undertaken without due consideration of material placed on record by the petitioner are illegal, wlthout. jurisdictton and in utter viotation of principtes of natural justice. It is also argued that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ku. Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional Commissloner, Tribal Development and others, AIR 1995 S.C. 94, the Collector or his sub-ordtnates had no guthority to hold and enquiry into the caste status of the petitloner as the State Level Caste Scrutiny Comrtiittee alone had jurisdiclion and competenceto hold such an enquiryand givea declaration r^arding the actual status of the petitioner. In his submission, if at all, there was any such complaint, the matter ought to have been referred to the Stete Level Caste ScNtiny Commlttee for enquirywhich has not been! done. 5. On the other hand, counsel for the r^pondents submite that the petittoner procured appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher which was reserved for Scheduled Trlbe candidate, though the betltloner did not belona to "Bharia" tribe. It is submitted that ttie -3- govemment issued an order on 29.05.1998 (Annexure R-3) to the Collector, Bilaspur to take action against those who are falsely claiming status of "Bharia" tribe in Katghora area of the District. By the said order, theCollector was directed to take action for cancellation of caste certificate issued in fevour of those persons who belonged to "Bhoria", sub-caste of caste "Koshta" but obtained false certificates declaring them as belonging to "Bharia" tribe. Thereafter, the Sub Divislonat Officer (Revenue), Katghora submitted a report on 29.10.1998 (Annexure R-1) to the Commtssioner whereln it was stated that 19 cases of such fatee claim were found. A list of 19 persons whom the S.D.O has found not belonging to ''Bharla1' tribe, was annexed along with the said enqutry report dated 29-10-1998 (Annexure R-1). This included the name of the petitioner also. Thereafter, the Commlssioner, Bilaspur directed the Collector vide his memo dated 30- 01-1999 (Annexure R-2) to take actlon agalnst those 19 Assistant Teachers by terminating their servlces, who falsely olrtained the caste certificate. tt is submttted that a show rause notlce was glven to the petitioner and after giving him proper opportunity of hearlng and coming to the conciuslon that the petitioner did not belong to the "Bharia" tribe, his services were terminated. 6. I have considered rivat submlsstons made by e counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. It Is no longer res integra, in view of the settled t^al posltion that the jurisdictfon to determine caste status vests only with the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted under the dlrections of the Supreme Court in the case of Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra). If there was any doubt or complaint with regard to caste status of the petttioner, It was obligatory on the part of the respondent-Collector to refer the case of the petitioner to the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee for consideration and not to usurp jurisdlGtlon to decide the issue, for which, he had no competence. ^ -4- 8. Consequently, 1 am unable to uphold the Impugned order of termination dated 7.4.1999 (Annexure A-5) passed by the Collector, Bitaspur and the same is declared illegal and is hereby set aslde. The respondent-Collector is directed to refer the case of the petitloner to the State Level Caste Scrutiny Gommittee for determination of petitioner's caste status. The Collector shatl make such refepence to the State Level Caste Scrutiny Commlttee at the eariiest and not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If it is ultlmately found that the petitioner betongs to "Bharia" tribe, respondents shall reinstate the petltioner in service with all consequential benefits pay, perks and seniority. As the petitloner is out of employment since 7.4.1999, it is dirwted that the State Level Caste Scrutiny Commlttee shall conclude Its enquiry in the case of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and all endeavour shall be made to complete the same within a period of sw months subject te co- operation by the petitioner, 9. In view of foregoing, the petttlon is atlowed to the exterrt indicated above. Sd/- I Pritinker Diwakar Judge