y ^ • Z^zf^ IN THE HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. WRIT PETITION (C) NO.S^3^ OF 2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENT ^ .^€: A^>^ y ^'><...-/ <y 1. Ankur Pendro S/o Dinesh pendro, aged about 21 years, 2. Ku. Naincy Pendra D/o Dinesh Pendro, aged about 19 years Both are resident ofvillage and post Marawhi, District Bilaspur C.G. VERSUS 1. State of C.G. through the Secretary Tribal Welfare Department, DKS Bhawan Raipur C.G. 2.^ The Member and Joint Director, High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee Raipur, Panndit Deendayal Upadhyaya Nagar, Sector -4, Raipur C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA T XI-HC—78 ^S*ICTI Sti*<l«^ ~5^ ^WW^, yTl1^41<o, [sldl-iH^ »_..M:.!3..fc)..^..:3i.l.rZLl ^...^..4..'..^....'.^..-...-..^..I..7..^^Q ^i^y '!?^r (^i'8'^) 3Ti^T ^T f^rNr ^T^I^H^T ^^ ^^TWRficl 3?I^1T SB : Hon'bie Shri Manindra IViohani 21^7^011 <=r>i<<{<n<D»i ^i*i<A'^ fs^l <pii^i< ^3?fim3TT^T hnvastava^J. Shri Rakesh Pandey, counsei fc|r the petitioners 4 3cate Generai aiona with Shri Rakesh Jha, ?he petitioners on account of iong pendency Shri V.V.S.Murthy, Deputy Advj: Deputy Government Advocate. This petition has been filed by fi ofthe case ofcaste scrutiny before res|3ondent No.2. Learned counsel for the petitsoners submits that the petitioners have submitted representation before the paste Scrutiny Committee on 8/6/2010 for verification of the certificate and the| petitioners were calied for submission of relevant documents vjde memo dated 29/11 /10, but on 29/11 /10, the case deveiopment has been informed to th< decided. He submits that the petiti Pathari tribe and on account of deiay finding it difficuit to claim benefit of 27/10/10 (Annexure P/9) for appearance on was adjourned and thereafter, no further petitioners nor the matter has been finaliy mers belong to the Reserve Category of in verification of their caste status, they are reservation in the matter of admission in educationai institutions. Taking into consideration that <he matter is stil! pending before the Caste Scrutiny Committee on the appiicati^n of the petitioner, it would be proper to dispose orfthe matter with appropriate|directions. Accordingly, this petition is final(ydisposed offwith a direction to respondent No.2 to take final decision on petitione|r!s ciaim after making necessary verification of caste status as eariy as possible. ponsidering the nature of exercise which is required to be undertaken as per th^ guidelines laid down in the case of KIL Madhuri Patil and another v. Additionai Commjssioner. Tribai DevelODment ^, XI-HC—78 ^~5E[ -qj^ii<riq, ^Tll^^i^ [^<y11<"l^< ^rwii ^*ii®b .£..©..'..-9..^^ ^n^r Tra^ (i?^^) 3?T^T ^T ^Jcb '^Tl 3'TT^T $?i*li^ Deepti ^^fTW ^TI 3T?t^T and others. AIR 19S5 Suoreme Coi^rt 94 and that vigilance report is required to beobtajned, instead of fixing any pe|' that the Caste Scrutiny Committee st case of the petitioners at the eariiestl. reasonabie time, the petitioner woul^ avaiiable to him under the iaw. cbl^id^l^ ^HdT'^* fS^ <f^i^i< '§(7 3?fiW 3?T^T iod for compietion of exercise, it is ordered laii take all expeditious steps to decide the However, if no decision is taken within a be at Jiberty to take recourse to remedy Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge