^, W. P. »jl.6//<k-....-,../03 (^ s A !B *w BEFORB THi3 M.P. STATE ADL-tINISTPATIVB TRIBUNAL J&BALPBR, ;;...rf.A'—":'.if'--—Il't'''w<t"*'''''8i'^:l"ulrf'"':''" " of 2000 O.A. Ho. Applicant .J Prabhunath Bharti S/o Karalu Hslba Asstt. Teacher Priiaary Schooi Keshnapur Block- Oarbha, Distt. S"".il "«:.&Ml«-r VSRSUS Responcients 1. State of M.P. through s Secretary Tribal Welfare Qeptt. Mantralaya Bhopal. 2. Tbe Joint Director Tribal Welfare Oeptt. J&GDALPUR 3. The Commissioner Bastar JAGDAL.PUR. 4. The Collector Bastar J!*GDALPUR. Application U/S 19 of theAdn'iinistrative Tribunal's Act Details of Application Parfciculars or Apolicant : As per cause Title Particulars of Respondentss per cause title 3 • Particulars bf the orders against whicih this appj-lcatlon 1s rnade ; Contd...2 .»-j'i^fl si'y's.-'^ssaiilesizicxsawass^iSS^ES;HS-( "ihfs.^sv'S".'s'S" AF^ HIGH COURT OF CHHAniSGARH AT BILASPUR WR!T PETITION (Sl N0. 209Sof 2005 Petitioner Prabhimath Bharti S/o Kanrfu Halba, Asstt. Teadier, Primary Schod, Keshnapur, Block- Darbha, Distt. Bastar. Respondents Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. Steite of M.P. Secretary, Tribal Welfare Deptt. Mantralaya Bhopal. The Joint Director, Tribal Weifare Oeptt. Jagda'pur The Commissioner, Bastar, Jagdalpur. The Collector, Bastar, Jagdaipur. APPLICATION U/S 19 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNA'S ACT (SB: Hon'bte Shri Justice Satlsta K. Agrahotrt) Present:- Shri Prafuil Bharat, Advocate for the petitkinw. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Govt. Advocate forthe respondents/State. ORDER (Passed on this 18"* day of July, 2007) 1. By this petition, the petitioner challeng^ fte legality and validity of the impugned order dated 3.11.99 (Anneaire A/5), whereby the respondent No. 4/Coltector, Bastar, ^igdalpur has found that the caste cerUflcate submitted by the petrtioner was not correct, as he belongs to "Kalar" community. In view of that, appolnbnent of the petitioner on ttie post of Assistant Teaeher, Primary School, Keshapur, Block Darbha was cancelled and by the impugned order dated 14.8.2000 (Annexure A/6), the appeai filed by the petittoner was dismissed by the Commissioner, Bastar Dh/ision, Jagdalpur. 2. According to learned counset appearing for ttie petittoner, the petitioner belongs to "Halba" community, which is declared as origfnal tribe. Certificate to that effect was issued by the Naib- Tahsildar, Jagdalpur vide orcter dated 1.2.92 (Annexure A/1). Tha petitioner, on the basis of the said casite certificate issued by the Naib-TahsiUar, Jagdalpur, applied tbr appointenent on ths post of 2 Lower Division Teacher and after proper selectton, the (»tiUoner was appointed as Lower Division Teacher and was posted in Primary School, Keshapur, Block Darbha vkte order dated 9.1.8t (Annexure A/2). 3. The respondent No. 4 issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 4.10.99, which was replfed on 11.10.99 (Ann®<ureAV3). After having considered the reply filed by the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 found that the petitioner belongs to "Kalar" communlty, not "Halba" community which is a Scheduled Tribe. The respondent No. 4 removed the petitioner from his services vide order dated 3.11.89 (Annexure A/5), without holding proper enquiry. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal, being Appeat Case No. 25/8-121/99-2000, before the Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur. The Gommissioner dismissed the appeal vide order dated14.8.2000 (Annexure A/6). 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the records and document appended thereto. tt is evklent that the Revenue authorities have decided the caste ofthe petitioner without referring the matter to the Caste ScruCny Committee, as held by ttie Hon'bte Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Itodhuri Patil and another vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others and in the case of State of Maharashtra & Ors. vs. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar& Anr.2. 6. The Supreme Court in Uie matter of State of Maharashtra &0rs. vs. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar & Anr. (sypra) observed as under:- "12. The Caste Scrutiny Committee te a quasi-judiciat body. It has been set up for a specific purpose. It serves a social and consdtutional purposes. tt is constituted to prevent fraud on Constitutton. tt may not be bound by the provisions 6f Indian Evidence Act, but it would not be correct for the superior couris to Issue directions as to 3 7. how it should appreciate evidence. Evidence to be adduced in a matter before a quasi-judicial bwly cannot be restricted to admi^ion of documentary evidence only. It may of necessity have to takeoral evidence. 13. Moreover the nature of evidence to be adduced would vary from case to case. The rights of a party to adduce evidence cannot be curtailed. It is one thing to say how a quasi-judicial body should apprwiate evidenee adduced before tt tn law but it is another thing to say ttiat it must not altow adduction of oral evidence at atl." The Supreme Court has clearly held that the dispute wlth regard to the caste of a perswi can be decided by the Caste Scrutiny Committee alone. The Supreme Court has further given the procedure asto how the Caste Scrutiny Committee shodd decide the dispute. In view of the well settled primiiple of taw, ttie Coltector, Bastar, Jagdalpur has exceeded his jurisdldion in dedaring the feut that the petitioner was not a Scheduled Tribe. In view of the foregoing, the impugned order dated 3.11.99 (Annexure A/5) passed by the respondent No. 4/Collector, Bastar, Jagdalpur and the impugned order dated 14.8^000 (Annexure A/6) passed by the Commissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur are set aside. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any benefit or reinstatement in service till the Caste Scrutiny eommittee decides the dispute in accordance with iaw. tn view of the fact that the impugned oider was passed on 3.11 S9, the matter is remitted back to the Collector, Bastar, Jagdalpur to refer the dispute to the Caste Scrutiny Committee forthwith and the Caste ScruUny Committee, in tum, shall dectete the dlspute as eariy as possible, preferably, within a period of three months frwn tte date of receipt of reference by the Collector. The Coltector, Bastar, Jagdalpur after receiving the report of tfte Caste ScruUny Committee in respect of the caste of the petitioner, shall decicte the case afresh and pass appiapriate order in accordance with taw. 9. As a result and for the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is altowed and the matter is remitted back to the Collector, Bastar, Jagdalpur for fresh adjudication in the light of the above-stated direcUon. There shall be no orderas to costs. Sd/- SatisbK.^nl "°'" Judge itiotn 1. (1994) 6 SCC 241 2. 2006 AIRSCW 6093