0 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.A.No. Z89 of 2011 APPELLANT fis.yaisTL's^- RESPONDENTS .\\ ^:.^<^ '^^^y Smt. Salina W/o Jiwan Livingstone, aged about 42 Years, Teacher Govt. Primary School, Chikhali, District- Rajnandaon (C.G.) VERSUS 1.' State of Chhattisgarh Through Scheduled Castes 8s Scheduled Tribes Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ..-•''..(fy ...' 2f. The Secretary, Government of /^>^/' "' "" ——•" )^' z^.:^%: ;8.-'^~..-" Chhattisgarh, General Administration Departanent, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Caste Certilicate High Level Scrutiny Conimittee, through its Member Secretary - Cum- Commissioner, Tribal 8s Scheduled Caste Development, Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University Campus, Raipur ^ (C.G.) 4. The Collector, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 (11 OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCHI ACT. 2006 w.^, ^ F < HIGHCOURT OFCHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR WRIT'APPEAL No. 289 of2011 APPELLANT PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Smt. Salina. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. Judgment for consideration Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhe Shvam Sharma 3 e*-^<>L'e-( Sd/- R.S. Sharma Judge I- Post for pronouncemeat ofthejudgment onthe /'•day ofAugust;2011 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 4 'M. HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR WRITAFPEALNo. 289 of2011 APPELLANT PETTTIONER RESPONDENTS Smt. Salina. VERSUS StateofChhattisgarh&Others, WRITAPPEALUNroERSECTIQN2ri)OFTHEGHHATTISGARHHIGH COURT(APPEALTODrVISIONBENCH)ACT.20Q6 . 'GQram : Hoii'Me^Shri Satish K.Agnihotei & Hon'ble ShriRadhe Shvani Sha.rma. JJ. Present: ShriV.K.Sharma,Advocatefbrthepetitioner. i Shri MJ'.S.Bhatia, Deputy Govemmenf ADvocate fbrthe • State/respondents. . JUDGMENT •,.:1: • (Deliveredon../A.dayofAugust,2Qll) Per SATISR E AGNmOTRI, J 1. This. intra-court appeal arises fcom the. order dated 10.05.2011 >, (Aimexure.A/l),passed bythe leamed.Single Judge in'W.P.(S)No. 1503/2011 (Smt\ Salina v. State ofChhattisgarh & Others)'wheieui the appellant (petitionertherein) impugned the legality and validity ,6fthe orderdated 02.05.2011 (Annexure P/8 to the writ petition) passed by the. High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee (for short 'the ^PC"). The HPC, afier verification, held that the certificate dated 24.02.1995 issued by the Naib Tahsilar, Rajnandgaon, holding the appellant to he 'Gond', a scheduled tribe, was bad and illegal. !,. .! f'•;'1'; ..:' ; ' •',. •' 1 ''' . 4 2. The appellant contends that thecoiTmiunicationdated 26.09.2007 (Annexure R/2 ito the writ petition) issued by the CHhattisgarh Rajya AnusucUit Janjati Ayog \ft)r short 'the Ayog') t6 the CoUector, wherein itwas found that the complai^ the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, was con-ect, is binding on the HPC and after the said communication, flie HPC has rio justificatiph to verify the soeial status of the appellaat and pass a confrary order. Further, it was raised that; no reasonable opportunity ofhearirig was afforded to the appellant by the HPC. ;: ' Leamed Single, Judge did not.^ appreciafe the above stated .submissions bf fhe appellant in the writ petjtion properly. The leamed Single Judge held that the HPC alone was competent to verify the social status of the petitioner and the communication issued by theAyog hasnobearing on the decision. 3. The leamed Single Judge, after having examined all the aspecfs of the matter, came t6 the conclusion that there was a proper enquiry condueted through the Vigilance cell by the HPC and in the , enquiry, itwas fpundthat A. John, father Qfthepetitioner,wasnot the son ofSitaram as it was stated by Kanta, wife pf A. John and mother offhe petitioner, that she used to reside in the house ofSita Ram and A.Jptm was iworking in flie house Of Sita Ram. The 'Vigilance Cell recorded the statement of other persons also befbre commgtotheconclusionthatshefailedTO establish thatSitaRam was herancestor;Aceprdingly,thepetitionwas dismissed. , ,4. Sllri Sharma, leamed coynsel appearing fbr the appellant wpuld submit that once the Ayog has taken a decision that the complamt i4 against the appellant with regard to grant of forged social status certificate was found false, fhe HPC was not competent to verify the social status ofthe appellant, as held by the competenf ofEcer i.e.Naib TahsiIdar,Rajnandgaon. 5. The Aayog was constituted under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog Adhimyam, 1995 (/or / short 'the Adhiniyam'). The functions and jurisdiction pf tiie Commissioner of fhe Ayog is defined in seetion 9 of the Adhmiyam, 1995. TUe function ofthe Commissioner is td act as a watch-dog Cormnissipn fbr the protection affbrdedto the membdrs ofthe ScheduledTribes,torecommendto the State Govermnentto take steps to add particular Tribes or fa-ibal communities pr parts of or groups withia Tribes or Tribal communities in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, to wateh the proper and timely implementation of yarious programmes meant for welfare of Scheduled Tribes and to suggest improvement in sueh programmes ofthe Sfate Govemment or any other body or authonty responsible fpr such programmes,to tender advice regardirig reservation for scheduled Tribes in public services and admission in educational ^institutibnsandtoperfiwmsuchotherfunctionsasmaybeassigned to it by the State Govemment. Thus, the Ayog has nojurisdiction and power to verify the spcial status certificate issued by the ' cbmpetent authority. Even otherwise, the communieation dated 26.09.2007 (Aimexure: P/2 to the writ petition) is not .a confimiation ofthe certificate.issuedby the Naib Tahsildar but the '•f'. ',';f"" ••••'"": fcll, .4 Ayog lias simply rejected the complaint made against the petitipner withregardtqgrantofsocialstatus'certiEcate; • '6. :The Supreme Courf,/ m A& Afe(3%t(r2 PatU & Another v. Addl. _ Commissipner^ Jribcd Development &, 0?Aero, iii para 13(4) directed the State Govemments to eonstitute a committee hamely High Power Caste Scnitiny Committee fbr yerificatioii of the social status certificates issued by the competent authorrty. The same .was afBrmed ia Z3irectorfffe o/Tri'Aff/ ^e^re, G'ovemme^^^^^ H v; \.(^.P..v. £<h^.(3^r,(6J4B^ , ^ .. ' ^7.,. .Recently,.mGi%A(4Mnj^A:v,J;.^an^(fe^^^^ l._ Cpurt held ^fhat thg directions given m Ku. Madhuri Patil, .were not mere guidelines but the same became law a& has been reiterated with approyal in uinpteen number of eases. Even this Court in several deeisions has held that the HPC alone is . ^competent to yeriiy the social status certificate ofaperson and no pther authority.|Even.tlie^AyQg has uo jurisdiction and power to verify the Sbcial status certificale, Thus, the observation of the : leamed SingleJudge isjustand proper. . ^ 8. ^ We have pemseU fhe pleadings, order passed by the leamed Smgle Judge andthe;orderdated 02.05,2011 passed by the HPC, ^^^ i^ the writ petition, if is fbund that the Vigilance Gell has verified all the dociiments and recorded statement df mother ; Kanta, wife ofAJohn, who hadclearly stated that she was brphan ;ahd was staying witir Sifa Ram. A John was also living wifh Sita ' (1994)6 SCC 241 2(1995)4SCC32. T~(20Q7) 12 SCC 796 . t' 9. Ram. They were working as dQmestic servants and A.Jphn was not the son pf SitalRam who was 'Gond' by caste. The Vanshavali produced by the appellant cannot be a conGlusive proof. The village K^Qtwar and-Patwar;! were also examined. They clearly stated that fhe earlier Vanshavali prepared by Rajesh, clerk ofthe reyenue department, was ineorrect. The Patwari, m his statement lias stated that on enqyiry, it was fbund fhat Sita Ram was not the father of A.John. Thus, it was held that the appellant liad no relation wtth Sita Ram, excepf thafhe was workmg irithe house of Sitaram. Thereafter;the apRellant was afforded proper opportunity ofhearing ia by ccimmunicatibrtdated 14.02,2011, 14.03.2011 and 04.04.2011. TUeappeUaHtcoul4notRroduce any proofbefQre^tUe HPC and as such, the fmding recorded by the HPC is just and proper,needsnomterference., ' • '.•'".'.'. " • / '.•-.'••• ..' • .•••.••.'..'.'. . '. . '-•.•.•• • . • • . ':•.•••. :•••' • .. •''•.•• Forthe reaspHsstatedliereinabove, we do not findany infirmify or error in Ihe order^assed By the leamed Smgle Judge. Thus, the 'appealisdisnussed. •'.^^ ,' ;. ^ :; : '• .^ .'•:; 1 1, 1'' : ' : 10. -•No orderiaSto;costs. ~ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sd/- R.S. Sharma Judge Amit