{ss" :^ \^^^i^ XN-iHE M«B..ABICTEBSaRa3'XVE TRIBONMEi l aABMiPWl ©»A» Ne>*i AE'PLieANT NaBdu Kuinar Bolsde, Aged about 28 years* S/Q Sbri Nanadas Botoae |AssistaBt PEOfessor, zeology ,'Qa'verBBaent N.C.iT* Begree Goll&ge VERSUS RESPONDENTS Higber Editcation Departineat, •* .c.. APPIiICATXOH 8NOEE SBGTION 19 OF AQMINXS'BBATXVE OKIBUN&L ACT, ^HC-22 y ^' f/' an^rqii §?iW3n^( ^fSts •3^'=qra?Pf, ^•(1*18. (siwi'tfy STT^T ira^T W.^5'-^ <^i.\hcrvi TOTOffWtlW""" """""""""""""""'j^ 2W^, lare^r' SII^TTOIRtIBtet SB: Hon'Me Shri Manlndra Mohan 2S-02-2010 Shn'Ali Asgar, oounseiforthejpetitioner Shri An/ind Dubey, Panel law^ With the consent of learned heard finally. q)1iti(?t41 r\ 'RFT^f^ 'feT^ •l^K^R iisifigtisn^ Shnvastava.J, 'er for the State/respondents. counsel for the parties, the matter is Shorn of unnecessary detail^, brief faots of. this case are that the petitioner was selected for appointntent to the post of Assistant Professor through a regular process of selecfion and after having been called for interview, he was intimated vide le1|:er dated 11-06-1996 (Annexure A-3) that he has been selected. Thiswe[s followed by his appointment on tne post of Assistant Professor (Zoc(logy) vide order dated 20-02-1997 (Annexure A-4). As the order of ^ to Halba tribe and certificate to th'afl ppointment required the petitioner to submit his caste oertificate and char^cter oertifioate ete. for verification, the petttioner submitted caste oertiflcat^ (Annexure A-5) to the effect that he belongs to Halba tribe. The authorit'j? after due verification and satisfaction with regard to the petltioner's credejitial, allowed the petitioner to join and work on the post of Assistant Prof^ssor (Zoology). However, vjde order dated 16-06-1997 (Annexure A-'ij), services of the petitioner were terminated. Learned counsel for the petiti^ner submits that the petitioner belongs effeot issued by the Tahsildar, Seoni, was placed before the authority. Le^rned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though the order of tefjmination is iniiocuous, from the return filed by the respondents, it is clear t^at behind the back ofthe petitioner, an enquiry on a complaint was mad^ in which, it was recorded that the =f fS^',.. 't.XI-HC-22 ,^ -^si -^M\v^, ^Wt'i. fadi'My tiiiwr aitirai siT?OT tra^ .^.:^l^.:\^?.L_ "^n, 2005,' ft^ST' sii^rq^ •SfgV IOTR7W?B sn^r^aw^fet •L 4)l*licl<ftTT ^fPf^l ^ f^l<l1 <F3f'^K ^T SlPtPT 3I1^T petitioner does not belong to Halba t 'ibe whteh led to issuanoe of impugned order of termination. Learned coun^el for the petitioner submits tnat the jmpugned order-passed by the re^pondent authority is in violation bf principle of natural justice beoause termination of his service resulted in oivil consequences as the petition^r lost his source of livelihood, and therefore, he was entitled to opportuijiity of hearing. tt is next urged by learned cou(isel for the petitioner that the basis for termination has been the enquiry ^ind verification to the effect that the petitioner does not belong to Halba \ & Ors., AIR 1995 SC 94, the Stat1 ribe. According to learned oounsel for the petitioner, in view of the judgmei|it of the Supreme Court in the oase of Kuman'Madhuri Patil and another\v. Adttt. Commr., Tribal Devtopment level caste scrutiny committee alone had jurisdiotion and authority to mak^ enquiry wjth regard to caste status ot the petitioner and respondent or t^ enquiry and prepared the report had| eir offioers who have conducted the no Jurisdiction and authority to decide the question with regard to caste stafjus of the petitioner. In reply, learned State oounsef supported the order of termination by arguing that petituner's appoiritmeitit was against the post resen/ed for Scheduled Tribe and petitioner thopgh does not belong to Halba tribe, prepared false certificate to seek enquiry was conducted in which it w^s found that petitioner did not belong to Halba tribe. His claim, based or| Koshtee's are not Halba. I have oonsidered the submisl respective parties and perused the r^cords. It is no longer fes integra in vi| jurisdiction to determine oaste statui employment. On complaints made, he being Koshtee is not tenable as sions made by learned counsel for the sw of the settled legal position that the vests only with the State level caste —.-....-. SXI-HC-22 81'.^ 311^1'q^ fei?''3ns?i IWWHRTa Tumane zc( ~s^ '^vwvR, '^ftalre. fawi'Hy STI^T iRra? ^AISl.^\ WHctT Ch11<*i 200 <. ^^ar' •OT^I TOIIWdf??! ~'\ underlthe dbl tlhe statps scrutiny committee constituted the Kumari Madhuri PaM (supra). oaste status ofthe^petitioner, it was authorities to refer the case ofthe pef committee for consideration and not for which they have no competence Consequently, 1 am unable] termination and the same is thereforfe to refer the oase of the petrt:ioner to for determination of his oaste petitioner belongs to Halba tribe, t| service with all consequential benefit^ Learned counsel for the petij employment for the last more completjon of enquiry by the State fixed. Taking into consideration the| for the petitioner, it is directed that shall conolude its enquiry in the ca^f possible and all endeavor shall be| period of six months, subjeot to co-o( With the aforesaid directions, cM^id41i •>ff*mf^ fe*^ •(.RI'^K i? aipaq sn^i directions ofthe Supreme Court in If there is any doubt with regard to ligatory on the part ofthe respondent [itioner to the State level caste scrutiny (o usurp jurisdiction to decide the issue (fjurisdiction. to uphold the impugned order of ^ set aside. Respondents are directed State level caste scrutiny committee >. Ultimately, if it is found that the |ie respondents shall reinstate him in of pay, perks and seniority. tioner submits that since he is out of 13 years, some time frame for |evel caste sorutjny committee may be thbn tlhe submission made by leamed counsel State level caste scrutiny committee of the petitioner as expeditiously as made to complete the same within a )eration by the petitioner. ihe petition stands disposed of. Sd/- ' . \ Manindra Mohan Shrwastava; Judge ^