IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17028 of 2008 SHWETA RANI SINGH d/o Sri Uma Shanakar Singh, Arfabad Colony, Nala Ke Par,Post Gulzarbagh, P.S. Alamganj, District- Patna. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Special Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2.The District Magistrate, Bhabua, Kaimur. 3. The Sub-divisional Officer, Bhabua, Kaimur. 4. The District Welfare Officer, Bhabua, Kaimur. 5. The Block Development Officer, Bhabua, Kaimur. 6. The General Manager(H.R.),Bank of India, Star House, C-5, “ G” Block, Bandra, Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 4000051. 7. The Chief manager (H.R.D.),Bank of India, Head Office, Recruitment & Promotion Divn.- Human Resources Department, Star House, Plot C-5,”G” Block, Bandra- Kurla, Bandra (East),Mumbai- 400051. 8. The Zonal Manager, Zonal Office,Patna Zone, Chanakya Place,Bank of India, B.C.P. Marg,Patna-800001. with CWJC No.8339 of 2008 ABHISHEK KUMAR SINGH s/o Sri Uma Shanakar Singh, , residcnt of Chaman Lal Talab, Ward no. 17, P.O. & P.S. Bhabhua, District- Kaimur at present resident of Arfabad Colony, Nala Ke Par, P.O. Gulzarbagh, P.S. Alamganj, Patna-7. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Special Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2.The District Magistrate, Bhabua, Kaimur. 3. The Sub-divisional Officer, Bhabua, Kaimur. 4. The District Welfare Officer, Bhabua, Kaimur. 5. The Block Development Officer, Bhabua, Kaimur. 6. Mr. Masood Hasan at present Director, Social Welfare Department, Sichai Bhawan, Patna s/o not known, the then District Magistrate, Bhabua, Kaimur. 7.The State Information Commission, 4th Floor, Information Building, Bailey Rod, Patna. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Madhusudan Kumar For the Bank : Mr. Shivaji Pandey 2 12.3.2010 The dispute in both the writ petitions is common. Petitioners in both the writ petitions are brother and sister. They want 2 from State authority, namely, District Magistrate- cum- Collector, Kaimur at Bhabhua, to issue them caste certificates showing that they are Kharwar. They said that their applications were pending for several years and no decision was being taken. They were losing employment opportunity. After the writ petition has been filed, a counter affidavit has been filed and the Collector has woken up and taken a decision in the matter. The Collector has decided that the petitioners are Kahar and not Kharwar, as claimed. Primarily two facts have been noticed Firstly in 1942, there was an FIR against the grand father of the petitioners in which the informant had named the petitioners’ grand father and shown his caste as Kahar. Secondly is in the Rent Assessment Register of the State, the caste is shown as Kahar.He relies on the report of the Anchal Adhikari and Welfare Officer, who had conducted spot enquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioners draws my attention to statutory order passed under the Bihar Tenancy Act, whereby the entry Kahar as against the name of his grand father was statutorily corrected to Kharwar in a proceeding under the Bihar Tenancy Act as far back as in 1980 i.e. three decades back. He also points out that the said very grand father was granted certificate by the District Authority as Kharwar. The father of the petitioners is also granted certificate by the authority as Kharwa. Uncle has also been granted certificate and that too pursuant to a proceeding before this Court. He then relies on various sale deeds executed and proceedings and other evidences, which have not been taken at all into account. Learned 3 counsel for the petitioners states that what a third party calls the petitioners or their ancestors is not important. What ancestor is, is important that has to be decided on proper evidence and not evidence of a third party recorded without notice. Be that as it may , I direct the petitioners to make a detailed representation with all records available with them to the Collctor, Kaimur at Bhabua, who shall get the matter enquired and take a decision within forty five days from the date of filing of such a representation and pass a speaking order referring to all the materials available on record and coming to a decision in this regard. The order passed earlier by the Collector is vacated, who would be required to pass a fresh order , as indicated above. The anxiety of the petitioner is to get this matter resolved. Petitioner , in first writ petition, has been selected for the post of clerk in Bank of India but for want of the requisite certificate she may not be appointed. Neither Mr. Shivaji Pandy, learned counsel for the Bank nor learned counsel for the petitioners are in a position to point out whether the vacancies have been filled up or not . Be that as it may , in case vacancies have not been filled up as yet, one post for the petitioner would be reserved, who has otherwise been selected. The final decision in the matter would be taken after the Collector passes an order. With the aforesaid observations and directions the writ petitions stand disposed of. Singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)