HIGH COUKT OF JUDICATURE GHHAniSGARH: BU.ASPUR -K-9 SINGI-EBeNCH: HON'BLESHRIS.R. NAYAK.CJ. PETITIONER Writ Petition No. 2562 of 2006 Ku. toushilya Mannawar, D/o. Shri Laxmj Prasad lUlannewar, Aged about 20 Years, R/6. Bhairav Nagar.Mathepurena Raipur, C.G. Vs. RESTONreNTS 1. StatoofGtihatBsgarti, ThrouOhthaSecretary, Department of Adh'n Jafi Thatha Anusuchit Jati Vltas, D.K.S. Bhawan Rajpur (C.G.) Member, Secrstary and Commissloner, Jati Praman f'Sltia Uchha Estari^ Chhanbin SamiU, Pt. Ravishanker Vishwavidalaya Parlsar, Ralpur, G.G. Dean, Chhattisgarh Ayurvig^in Dlstrict Bilaspur, C.G. Sansthan, Presenfc ShriSatyendraSahu.leafnedcounselforthepetitioner. ShriSanjayS.^irawa|,leamedG.A.forrespQndentNo.1. Shri AshishShrivastava, (eamedcounsel fcr respondent No. 3.' .: . . . ORALORD6R (Passed on 11mSsptember, 2006) On an earlier occasionthe peSttoner had instituted wrtt peUCon No.5836 of 2005 complainingthattheCasteScrutinyCommittoewiUiout giving him opportunlty cancelled the caste cerfflcate cerUtylng that the petitioner belongs to Mannewar Tribe which tribe isScheduled Tribe. The Court finding merit in the sakl contention by its orderdated 31.03.2006 disposed of the writ peUUon set aside Bie order of the Caste Scrutiny Committoedated 23.09.2005. tt appearethat on the basis of theorder of the Caste Scrutiny eommittee dated 23.09.2005, the third respondent -^- ^- y. herein had [Missed an order on 24.09.20M>, marked as Annexure-P/4 in this wrtt petitfon, canceling the admission gralnted to the petitionerlo ttie First Year MBBS couree. tn fact, in W.P. No.5836 of 2005 thatorderot the thlrd responderit was also challenged, but, teamed counsel for the petitioner did not press that prayer at thetime offinal hearing. Itappears that after the above order was passed by this Courton 31.03.2006 In W.P. No.5836 of 2005, the thirdrespondent did not recall his order dated 24.09.20(ffi cancelingtheadmisslori of the petBtoner to the First Year MBBS Coufse. When the malter r^ted at that stage,8ie present writ petiUon is fited iniUally for a direetion to the ttiird respondent to give provisionaladmission to the peUtioner. On an earlier occaslon, when it was pointed out to'the learned counsel forthe petMoner that he did not challenge the order of the third respondent dated 24.09.2005, he ffled an application (I.A. No.8160 of 2006)to amend ttie writ peBUon so as to seek quashing of the order of the third respondent datsd 24.09.2005. That applicaUon was allowed bythisCourt by its order dated 29.08.2006. (2) Having heard leamed counselfor the parties, 1 do notthinkthatthe Court would be justified in direcUng the third respondent to give provisional admission to the petitloner during the present academic session. It is because, this Court did n<A decide the issue relaBng to tte castestatus of the petitioneron ment. Whettierthe petltioner belongsto Scheduled Tribe or not should be flrst decided by the High Power Gaste VerificaUoh Committeeafterglvingreasonableopportunitytothepetitionertohavehis sayinthematterandaflersuchtnvestlgationandenqulry.Unlessitisheld that the petifioner belongs to the scheduted tribe, direcUng the third respondentto provtde admlssion to the First Year MBB8 Course would notarise. -3- \- (3) In the resultand for the foregoing reasons, the order (Annexure- P/4) made by the third respondent dated 24.09.2005 is set aside on th® ground that ftatorder was passed bythettiird respondent on the basis (rf the order of the Caste Scnrtiny Committee dated23.0950re which Is already quashed. It is now open to the High Power Gsste VertficaUon eommittee to proceed furtherand take a decision on the issue ofthe caste statusof ttie petttioner after glving her feir opportunity to adduce evidence and of being heard and, thereafteiwards, ttie third respondent dependingupon the outeome of tte enquiryofthe State High Power Caste Veriflcation Committee to decide whether the petitioner shoutd be given admission or not. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. Nocosts. Sd/- Chiefjustice