IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JUDGMENT Devi Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & others. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) NO.466/1997) D. B. Civil Special Appeal under Ordinance 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance,1949 against the judgment dated 14-3-1997 of learned Single Judge in SB Civil Writ Petition No.5819/1992. Date of Judgment: May 13, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIV KUMAR SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. V.L. Mathur, for the appellant. Mr. Ankur Rastogi, for the respondents. BY THE COURT:(PER HON'BLE Shiv Kumar Sharma,J.) The appellant was appointed on the post of Veterinary Assistant, which was reserved for the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste. Vigilance Committee recommended for removal of the appellant from the service on the ground that the appellant had obtained appointment on the basis of fake caste certificate. The said report dated August 1, 1992 of the Vigilance Committee was challenged by the appellant before learned Single Judge and after unsuccessful writ petition the appellant has preferred the instant appeal. 2. The question that emerges for our consideration is whether the appellant is a person belonging to Scheduled Caste and he could be selected against a post reserved for the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste? 3. Contextual facts depict that the appellant belonged to Kalbelia Caste, which is Scheduled Caste as has been enumerated at Item No.31 in Gazette of India Extraordinary (Part II Dated September 20, 1976. The appellant obtained Caste Certificate on June 14, 1974 from Munsif & Judicial Magistrate I Class Rajgarh, Alwar. The appellant having qualified the examination for the post of Veterinary Assistant in the year 1974-75, was appointed to the post of Veterinary Assistant vide order dated June 25, 1975. The appellant thereafter got promotion to the post of Senior Compounder vide order dated January 30, 1985. 4. In the year 1992 the President of Dr. Bheemrao Ambedkar Vichar Vikas Samiti Alwar lodged a complaint against the appellant with the Public Grievance and Vigilance Committee. The said Committee held a meeting under the Chairmanship of Collector Alwar on July 29, 1992 and considered as many 37 complaints, out of which the complaint regarding appellant was at Item No.23. The committee without issuing any notice to the appellant straightway recommended removal of appellant from service on the ground that caste certificate filed by the appellant was fake. 5. Being aggrieved by the recommendation of the Committee dated August 1, 1992 the appellant preferred the writ petition and contended that the appellant belonged to Kalbelia caste, which came in the category of Scheduled Caste and the Caste Certificate dated June 14, 1974 was issued after holding due inquiry by the competent authority. 6. In reply to writ petition, the respondents contended that appellant belonged to Jogi caste, which was not a Scheduled Caste. According to the respondents the caste certificate filed by the appellant was a fake document. 7. We have heard rival submissions. 8. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that during relevant days in June,1974 the Judicial Magistrate was empowered to issue caste certificate. The caste certificate was issued by the learned Magistrate after holding the inquiry. It is further urged that the State Government vide order dated July 20, 1976 described at Item No.31, `Kalbelia caste' as Scheduled Caste. 9. It is next canvassed that the certificate issued by competent authority had to be taken by employer as sufficient proof and the employer could not sit in judgment over caste certificate. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant placed for our perusal a book titled MARWAR CENSUS REPORT 1891 published by Jagdishsingh Gehlot Sodh Sansthan Jaipur to prove that the Kalbelia caste has been notified as scheduled caste. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents however supported the impugned judgment and urged that since certificate produced by appellant was a fake document he was rightly removed from service. 12. At the outset we deem it appropriate to scan the certificate issued by the Judicial Magistrate on June 14, 1974 which reads thus:- "जाितूमाण-पऽ सरपंचमामपंचायत, बडौदामेववूधानसरपंच, पंचायतसिमत, गोǒवÛ दगढ़ कȧ संलÊ नतः दȣककेआधारपरूमाǔणतǑकयाजाताहैǑकौीदेवीरामपुऽौीअजु[न राम, िनवास- माम-बड़ौदा मेव, तहसील-लआ मणगढ़ ǔजला-अलवर राजः थान कालबेिलयाजाितकाहै, जोǑकअनुसूिचतजाितकेअंतग[तआतीहै। ह0/- मǔजः शेट 14-6-1974" 13. A look at the above certificate shows that it was issued by learned Magistrate after verification by the Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Badoda Mev and Pradhan Sarpanch Panchayat Samiti Govindgarh. 14. At this juncture it will not be out of place to refer to the census report dealing with Kalbelia caste, which reads as under: "मारवाड़मɅ जोगी 30213 हɇ मद[ 16427 औरत 13786 जोगकȧ शुǾआतठेटमɅ महादेवजीसेहईु हैऔरजोगकाइã मभीउनसेहȣ िनकलाहैǔजसकेसाधनेसेजोिगयɉ कोबड़ȣ 2 करामातɅ हािसलहोजातीथींजैसे आकाशमɅ उड़नापानीपरितरनाकायापलटलेनावगैरा, औरजोिगयɉ मɅ ऐसी करामातɅ होनेकापता, अबसे 600 वरसपǑहलेतकतोमुसलमानɉ कȧ Ǒकताबɉ मɅ सेभीलगताहैइºबतोताजोआृȧकासेसुã तानमोहà मदतुगलककेराजमɅ यहांआयाथाअपनेसफरनामेमɅ जोिगयाकȧ ऐसीबहतु सीकरामातɅ आखɉ देखी िलखताहैपǑहलेजोगीभीवहȣ कहलाताथाजोजोगसाधताथामगरअबतोजो लोगगेरवेकपड़ेपǑहनेǑफरतेहɇ औरकानɉ मɅ मुंदरेरखतेहɇ वेजोगीकहलातेहɇ औरइनकȧ वहȣ मसलहैǑकजोगीजुगतजानेनहȣंकपड़ेरंगेतोÈ याहआ ु अबजोिगयɉ काभी 1 पंथहोगयाहैजोअपनीपरमपरागुǾ गोरखनाथजीसे िमलातेहɇ औरबǔã कइसपंथकोभीउÛ हȣंकाचलायाहआ ु मानतेहɇ गोरखनाथ मछंदरनाथकेचेलेथेऔर 1 गुरमाईउनकेजलंधरनाथजीथेजोगीइनकȧ बड़ȣ कथाकहतेहɇ ǔजसमɅ सेकुछनीचेिलखीजातीहै...... ......जोगीमहादेवजीकोपूजतेहɇ भसमीकाितलकलगातेहɇ दाǾ मांसभीखाते पीतेहɇ भीखमांगतेहɇ कोई 2 अपनेगुǾओंकȧ िसƨाईसेगांवज़मीनऔरबेरेभी खातेहɇ इनके मंǑदरमठकहलातेहɇ औरआसनभी, ǔजनमɅ ǒवशेषकरके महादेवजीकȧ मूरतɅ होतीहɇ बाज़ेजोगीधूनीभीतापतेहɇ मारवाड़मɅ इनकȧ इतनीǑकसमɅ हɇ 1नाथजोकनफड़ेभीकहलातेहɇ 2मसािनयेजोगी 3कालबेिलये 4ओघड़जोकाननहȣंफड़ातेहɇ या 1 फड़ातेहɇ 5अघोरȣ जोबजारɉ मɅ पैसेमांगतेǑफरतेहɇ 6रावल" (Emphasis supplied) 15. In item No. 31, Part XV – Rajasthan enforced with effect from July 20, 1977 of Gazette Extraordinary (Part II dated September 20, 1976, “Kalbelia, Sapera” has been defined as a Scheduled caste. 16. Merely because the appellant used his surname as Jogi it cannot be said that the appellant does not belong to a Scheduled Caste. In Yatish Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan [1988(1) RLR 42] the Division Bench of this Court indicated thus:- (Para 10) “... On the basis of the aforesaid report (Annexure-3) dated 31st December, 1982 by the Naib Tehsildar as well as the inquiry report dated 24th May,1983 submitted by the Tehsildar, there can be no doubt that the petitioner is Garura by caste and merely because Garuras claim that they are Brahmins, it cannot be said that the petitioner does not belong to a Scheduled Caste. As pointed out earlier, all Garuras trace their origin from Brahmins and, therefore, merely because the petitioner and the members of the family are regarded as Garura Brahmins, does not mean that they do not belong to a Scheduled Caste. The mere fact that the petitioner used the surname `Kaushik' cannot disentitle him for claiming himself to be Scheduled Caste if it is found that he is Garura by caste and the said caste has been notified as a Scheduled Caste in the Presidential Order issued under clause (1) of Article 341 of the Constitution.” (Emphasis Supplied) 17. The Vigilance Committee proceeded to recommend the removal of appellant from service, without affording opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Even the relevant documents were not considered. Thus we find that the Vigilance Committee acted arbitrarily. 18. It must therefore be held that the appellant belongs to a scheduled caste and he was entitled to be selected against the post reserved for scheduled caste. The recommendation of Vigilance Committee dated August 1, 1992 as well as impugned order of learned Single Bench cannot be sustained and must be set aside. 19. For these reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated March 14, 1997 of the learned Single Judge. We also set aside the recommendation dated August 1, 1992 (Annexure-12 appended to the writ petition). It is declared that the appellant belongs to Scheduled Castes. The appellant shall be paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- by way of compensation within a period of one month from today. The appellant shall also be entitled to cost. The costs are assessed to Rs.2,000/- (Rs. Two thousand only). (Mahesh Bhagwati),J.(Shiv Kumar Sharma)J. arn/