s'.^ c? IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR rCHHATTISGARH^ W.P.NO^S^/ OF 2005 PETITIONER /' c^ .^^> ^X<'"7./<" 0?->^9"' ./•^^' ^^•^ >'7 Mrs. Reena Masih, W/o Ishwari Masih,aged about 42 years, Occupation -Service, presently Working as Staff Nurse in the Regional Leprosy Training and Research Institute(controlled By Govt. of India), Lalpur,Tah. & Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) .%•^•'' .^ ^'^^^' ^^ VERSUS RESPONDENTS / ^rr^ ^^ fc\ ^'.^ >-^ * y^ ..lt ^ i;-' 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare, Mantralaya,Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G) 2. Uchha Stariya Chhanbin Samiti, (in the matter of scrutinyof SC/ST Caste Certificate) through Its Secretary, Ravi Shankar Vishwavidyalaya Parisar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) , 3. Commissioner, Adim Jati tatha Anusuchit Jati Vikas, Ravi Shankar Vishwavidyalaya Parisar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ^_ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN IINATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS. PROHIBITION AND JJOTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS, DIRECTION OR )1 DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR ORDERS: The petitioner, above-named, most respectfully submits as under: Fro4,^i.o' ^^'- y • .Mrecter^ ae®i^^al&@?r^ay traiNL,B@ & iBatit^itc^ I<§l$tur, District tatour CC.G.)', 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION N0.4881 OF 2005 Mrs. Reena Masih Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) . Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate for the respondent No.4. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 4th day of February, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 29-8-2005 (Annexure - P/1) has been passed by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee (for short "the Committee") on a simple ground that the petitioner seeking social status certificate has failed to establish the case on the basis of documents produced by her. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the procedure as mandated by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, reiterated in Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of A.P. v. Laveti Giri^and Another2, have not been complied with in its letter and spirit, while considering the case of the petitioner for verification of her sociat status certificate. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly and fairly submit that this case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others and other connected matters, wherein this Court after considering all the -'v/VA 1 (1994)68cc241 2 (1995)48cc 32 3WP (S) No.3338 of 2007 (decided on 19-8-2010) ^f^^. ^/:,rS^ '^ % "^ssy^"^ j ,;<' v ^" 6. Gowri aspects of the matter and after considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in umpteen number of cases, in para 26 of the judgment and order, has made certain clarifications for verification of the caste certificate. In view offoregoing, the impugned order dated 29-8-2005 (Annexure P/1) is quashed. The Committee is directed to proceed in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Madhuri Patil (supra) & Laveti Giri (supra) and further explained by this Court in Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria (supra) and other connected matters, as early as possible. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs. — Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge /y:^'