@ Smt. Chameli Bai, aged about 24 years, wife of Shyam Kumar, Scheduled Caste — Ganda, Ward Panch, GTam Bamhnideeh, Tahsil Champa, District Janj gir—Champa (C.G.) PETITIONER : VERSUS . State of Chhatisgarh, through: The Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Secretary, Department of Law and Legislature, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) . The Director, Panehayat and Rural Development, State of Chhattisgarh, Mairtralaya Parisar, Mahanadi Khancl, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Collector, District Janj gir Champa (C.G.) 5. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sub Division Champa District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) The Secretary, Gram Panchayat (Panchayat Karmi) Gram Panchayat Kumharikala, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 7. Pyarelal Yadav son of Mangal Ram Yadav, aged about 32 years, Officiating Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Kumharikala, Janpad Panehayat Barnlmideell, Talisil Champa, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 8. Shri P.K.Harit, aged about 45 years son of not known, Occupation Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bamhnideeh, District Janj gir-Champa (C.G.) 9. Shri Vinay Harit, aged about 57 years, Son of not known, Occupation Deputy Advocate , General, 0E1ce of the Advocate General, Chliattisgarh, Bilaspur (C.G.) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 2145 of 2009 RESPONDENTS O\ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTIOLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri A N Bhakta, Advocate for the petitioner Slim Shashank Thakur Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents 1 to 5. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 24$ day of April, 2009) Challenge in this petition is’ to the resolution dated 19.12.2008 (Annexure P/2) whereby the petitioner could not be appointed as Sarpanch against the vacancy reserved for Scheduled Caste. In his place, the respondent No. 7 was appointed as officiating Sarpanch who belongs to Other Backward Category. 2. Being aggieved, the petitioner has approached this Comt in W.P.(C) No. 1136/2009. This Court, after hearing all the parties, observed as under: “Grievance of the petitioner is that no steps have been taken for verification of the caste eeitificate and this petition may be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to get the caste celtiticate of Annexure P/l duiy verified from the competent authority in accordance with rules. In View of the above submission, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to get the caste certificate of Annexure P/l duly verified from the competent authority in accordance with rules expeditiously.” The petitioner has again approached this court for the same relief in the present petition. This petition is not maintainable, as it amounts to an appeal against the order passed by learned Single Judge in analogus hearing. Secondly, it is well established that the competent authority to verify the social status certificate issued by a Revenue Officer is the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee (for short ‘the Committee’) alone and no other authority . (See Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Deveiopmem‘ and othersl) 4. Shri Bhakta submits that the temporary caste certificate is not required to be verified by the Committee. This contention is rej ected as the same issue was raised in the earlier petition also and was rejected. 5. Having regard/to the facts situation of the case, when the petitioner has come for the same relief earlier also, in order to discourage the practice of misuse of judicial process, the petition is dismissed with cost quantified to be a sum of Rs. 2500/—. Satish K. Agnihotrii Judge / . Sd[— H1994) 6 soc 241