ORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAR BILASPUR.~ - ) w.P.(c1No.v b2£ 0Fzoo7 Singie Benéh C¢(cé// BEF H AT / Vinay Khapekar, Son of Shri M B Khapekar, Working as Senior Manager ( Mechanical ) Gumgaon Mines, aged about 38 years, resident of Gumgaon , Mines, P.O. Khape, Tehsil : Saoner, District : Nagpur, Maharashtra. VES RSU ./ 16- State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, General Administration Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur ( C G) / , . °¢ 2§ The Joint ColIeCt‘or, Durg ( CG ) The Nayab Tehsildar,:Durg Chhattisgarh /' . .4. / ._ _ 3.§- \ . Sadar, Nagpur, Maharashtra. RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE 'CONSITUTION OF INDIA. - The Chief‘Personnel Manager, Manganese Ore india Ltd, 3-Mount Road Extension PETITIONER ‘ Q , § W , HIGH COURT OE CHHATTISGAMI AT BIL WRIT PETITION (CL N0. 7026 of 2007 PETITIONER : Vinay Khapekar. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others RIT PEIITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri! J. Prsent: 'Shri T.K.Tiwari, Advocate for the, petitioner. ~ Shi A.V.Shridhar, Panel ayer for the State/respondt No. 1 to 3. Si Shri P.S.K0shy Advocae with Shri Vaibhav Shukla, Advoate for the spondent No. 4. (Pass on 0 day o August, 2010) 06 .07.2007 ( rt nd Annexure P/6) passed by the esponden No. 2, wherein a whereunder the oint Collctor for Collector, Durg has xamied the social sus of the etitioner and came to the onclusion that the scia status certificate ssued as forged and the said crtificat s ‘ issued fm e ofce he ahildar,‘Durg. It is further obsrve th the eqiry was conduted ursant to the order dated 9.5 x H w hi in W.P(C) N 5976/2003. The indisputable facts; brief, are that e petitioner joine the service with th resndent No. 4 on the basis of a caste certificate sued b te Naib Tahsildar on 10.1995 (Annexure P/2) which according to he I petitioner was reiterated subSequentl ao. The respondent o. initiad enquiry gainst the petitioner through Joint Clector, Collector, Durg, wherein it was found by the Joint Colector, at the The petitioner impugns the report te J e en tat p c ol i w ee wa not ro th fi of t Ts ed at nu c pu 14.0200 ’ (Anneure PB) paSsed by the igh Court of Delhi at Ne Del ’1 ‘w ”w . W e r Lw en hr , t c re ORDER gORALl 4 f ed dad o. in th d e po is y h 0.3 t y ls N4 te a ol for l th petitioner does not belong to scheduled tribe community, but to other backward class, after having examined an the materials in respect of social status of the petitidner. Thus, this petition. Shri Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Joint Collector/Collector, Durg, has no jurisdiction to verify the genuineness of the social status certificate of the petitioner as the same l has been done in the instant case by the Joint Collector. Secondly, the report submitted by the Joint Collector is contrary to the facts. Firstly, there is no order passed by the High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. « 5976/2003 to enquire into the genuineness of the caste certificate in respect of all the employees as it appears that the High Court of Delhi has passed an order in respect of Chandeshwar Prasad: the petitioner l t 7 therein, and directed to continue investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. There was no such direction or observation with regard to other cases. Secondly, in the departmental enquiry, the issuing authority N.R.Sahu, who was posted as Naib Tahsildar at the relevant time in Tahsil Durg, has clearly stated in cross examination that the certificate dated 10.03.1995 (Annexure P/2) and 17.7.1997 was issued by him to the petitioner in accordance with the instructions, as issued by the then State of Madhya Pradesh. On bare reading, it does not appear to be forged. Even if the petitioner has obtained a caste certificate on the basis of forged document, that can be verified only by the High Level‘Caste Scrutiny Committee. Shri Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 submits that the Collector is very well competent to verify the genuineness of the caste certificate. \ Shn Shrldhar learned Panel Lawyer appearlng for the State/respondent No 1 to 3 submlts that the genumeness of a somal status certlficate of a candldate/employee can be ascertalned only by the Hlgh Level Caste Scrutlny Commlttee as has been lald down 1n a catena of decmons by the Supreme Court Heard learned counsel 'for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. The impugned report (Annexure P/6) appears to be contrary to the facts V Collector that the certificate was not issued by the office of Tahs1ldar ts not based on any reason except that forged documents were produced for obtaining caste certificate The Supreme Court, in Director of Tribal Welfare Government r)f Andhra Pradesh v Lavetz Gzrz & another has laid down that a dispute With regard to caste has to be dec1ded by the Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted at State Level after affording full opportunity of hearing to The report impugned herein is not in ccordance with the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in the caste ofLavez‘z' Giri (supra) the employee/candidate a 1(1995) 4 scc 32 m The fmding recorded by the Joint Collector is perverse and Without any' Ifthere is any doubt about the genuineness of the caste certificate, that can be verified only by the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee. In View of the foregoing, basis. the impugned report dated 06.07.2007 (Annexure P/6) is quashed. However, the respondent No. 4 is at liberty _ to get the caste certificate of the petitioner verified from the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee and the vigilance cell ,which makes enquiry on behalf of the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee’ may further g0 into details including the fact that Whether or not caste certificate was obtained from the office of Tahsildar, Durg, if yes, on the basis of genuine documents or the forged documents. The Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto 1.,/ ‘l H} u \ Sdl- . l \ Satish K. Agnihotrl i ‘\\ i l 'Amit