C.W.P. No. 4215 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 4215 of 2007 Date of decision : 30.4.2008. ... Rampal s/o Banwari Lal ................ Petitioner vs. The State of Haryana and others .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Jagbir Malik, Advocate for the petitioner Sh. Harish Rathee, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondents No. 1 to 4. Sh. S.S. Hira, Advocate for respondent No.5. ... Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that order dated 23.2.2007 (P-8), vide which Scheduled Caste certificate issued to him on 15.7.2003 was cancelled, be quashed. It is necessary to mention here that the petitioner is working as a Constable. He got entry in service by producing caste certificate referred to above, showing him as a Scheduled Caste candidate. Thereafter, it appears that one complaint was made against him that he has got above said certificate wrongly, by showing himself as belonging to 'Sirkiband' caste, whereas he belongs to 'Banjara' caste, which is not a Scheduled Caste. After getting reports from the Tehsildar, his certificate was cancelled. It is grievance of the petitioner that before cancelling the certificate, opportunity of hearing C.W.P. No. 4215 of 2007 -2- has not been granted to him, as such the impugned order is liable to be quashed. To say so, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gulzar Singh Vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate and another 1999 (3) RSJ 704 (S.C.). In response to notice issued by us, reply has been filed by respondents No. 1 to 3. Vide order dated 15.10.2007, one Dharam Pal, the complainant, was ordered to be impleaded as respondent No.5. He has also filed his reply, wherein it has been stated that in fact the petitioner belongs to 'Banjara' caste, and by making misrepresentation, he got a Scheduled Caste certificate issued, in his favour, which has now rightly been cancelled. Counsel for the parties heard. In view of facts on the file, we feel that no benefit of the ratio of judgment in Gulzar Singh's case (supra), can be given to the petitioner. It is apparent from the records and not disputed before us that on receipt of complaint, the petitioner was asked to state his position and accordingly he made a statement before the Tehsildar on 5.5.2006, which reads thus:- “It is stated that I am serving in Haryana Police. I used to reside in village Murthal am resident of Village Murthal and belongs to Sirkiband Caste. The complaint made by Dharmpal, Shri Kundan Lal against me is false, which is made due personal grudge. If any thing is found false in my statement, I would be himself responsible. The complaint has also made complaint in this connection of S.P. Sahib, Sonipat C.W.P. No. 4215 of 2007 -3- which was found false.” In the written statement filed by the respondents, it has specifically been stated that one Sombir, who is uncle of the petitioner contested election for the post of Sarpanch in village Murthal. He has also contested election against the seat reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates, by showing himself as belonging to 'Sirkiband' caste. His election was challenged. It was set aside. He also lost in this Court. Relevant portion of the order passed in CWP No. 9453 of 2006 filed by his uncle, reads thus:- “Whether the petitioner was a person falling in scheduled caste category or not would depend upon whether he was a Banjara or he belonged to some other castes, like Sirkiband. If the petitioner is a Banjara then he is not a scheduled caste whereas being a Sirkiband would make him so. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner very cleverly argued that Sirkiband was a smaller group within the Banjaras, Sirkiband was a scheduled caste, the petitioner was a Sirkiband-Banjara scheduled caste. The logic of this argument may seem to be attractive but in substance the argument is mis-leading. The petitioner's father never claimed that he was a Sirkiband. A gift deed had been executed in favour of the petitioner's father in which he was shown as a Banjara. This was way back in 1977. In the petitioner's school record he has been entered as a Banjara. For the assessment of house-tax, the petitioner's father had been shown as Banjara. Witnesses C.W.P. No. 4215 of 2007 -4- deposed that the petitioner was the son of Goverdhan Dass, Banjara. It seems that the petitioner is trying to masquerade as a Sirkiband in order to claim a status of scheduled caste. The record does not support the petitioner's stand.” Not only this, in the reply filed by respondent No.5, it has specifically been stated that grandfather of the petitioner Sh. Tale s/o Sh. Gelu, got a plot from the Gram Panchayat by showing him as belonging to 'Banjara' caste. To the averments made in reply filed by respondent No.5, replication has not been filed. It has not been denied that Sombir, against whom order was passed by this Court in CWP No. 9453 of 2006 on 23.5.2007, was not uncle of the petitioner and further that Sh. Tale was grandfather of the petitioner. If that is so, facts are very clear on record. We feel that in that event, even if notice was given to the petitioner by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, before cancelling his caste certificate, it would not have made any difference, whatsoever. Before us, the petitioner has failed miserably to show that he belongs to 'Sirkiband' Caste. There is nothing on record to suggest that caste certificate was rightly granted to him. In view of the facts mentioned above, no case for interference is made out. Dismissed. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge ( K.C. Puri ) 30.4.2008. Judge chug C.W.P. No. 4215 of 2007 -5-