L^S •^3?/°5 BBFORE -Em M.P_. STATE ADMINIS'ERATIVE TRIBUHAL : gAipm.. G.A.No. ^.^/2000. Applieaat :- Respondents :- Dharaa Lal S/C Salik Raia Bbaria Age- 52 years, resident of Village Birvat , ?ahsil Kat^iora, Distt, Bilaspur'(M.P.). VERSOS 1. State of M.P. Throygfa 3'he Secretary, Scheduled Tribed and^ Seheduled Castes Developaeat Departaent , Valiateh Bliavan, Bhosat (H.P.).' 2. The Colleeter, Trilaal Velfare and Developaent, Bilaspyr (K.P.). 5« Bloek Edt.icatlon O.Cficer, Poadi-Uprora, Distt.Bilaspur (H.P.). 4. Assistaat Tritoal Welfare and Developaent , BiIaspBr.(M.P.). GRJSINAL APPLICATIOX UBDE& SECTIOH 19 ©FTHE M.P. STATE AIMIHISTKAIIVE TRIBWAL ACT. -1985. (1) Partieular& of the ApiaU.cant : As detailed afeove In the cause title. (2) Particulars of ttie resDondents s As detailed ateove in the cause ti'tle. (5) Partieulars of tbe oraer against which oriffinal aBaIieatj.en is_teeinB sm.&e . (i) Grder.No, 52/Shikayat / 99/2000/63,(AnnexyreA-2). (ii) Dated 7.4<99. (iii) Issued tey Collector ,Schedulea Tritees Welfare Oevelopaent , Bilasgar. (iv) »^ c. «« ^S-^-i'b -7$ i(IiiT B:I HiGiH COURT OF GHHATTISQARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) VERSUS Dharam Lat Bharia State of Madhya Pradesh and others Shri S^R.J. Jaiswal, counselforthepetitiona" Shri V.^V.S. Moorthy, Dy.A.G.aiong with' ; Smt.Smitha Ghai PL for respondents fRSTPETITION UNDERARTiCLE 226/227 OFTHE CONSTITUTSONOFINDiA ^Wfi KIIT SSI'Sir; Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 07.04.1999 (Annexure A-2)passedbythe Col!ector, TribalWell'areand Deveiopment,' Bilaspur terminating the sen/ices of the petitioner and other similaFly placed 18 Assistant teschgrs. 2. ^ Grievance of the petitioner is that vide prder dated 09.09.1988 (Anriexure A-1) he was appointed as Assjstant Teacher by District Cp- ordinator, Tribai Welfare; for Coilector, Bilaspyr. The petitioner was seleeted on the basis of his belonging to "Bharia"- tfibe. Aceorcjing to the petitioneF, he betangs to "Bharia" tribe and to this effect a certificats was issued.by the Naib lahsildar, Katghora on 29.06,1986. From the record It appears that on 1S.02.1999 a show-cayse notice (Annexure R-4)was jssuecitothe petitJoherbytheAdditJQnaiCoiiector, Bilaspur asking the petitioner to show-cause as to why hissemGes be not terminated, as upon enqyiry, it was found that the pefitioner procured governmsnt employment ;on Ihe basis of false certifleate of his belonging to "Bhana" tribe whereas, the petitioner's easte is "Bhoria" a sub caste of cast "Koshta" mainiy engaged' in;the yocation :A K •li:S;: Uill WiX Bii^!:!!' K!i!:::''ti Elffi:?;ii iliill'i - IK :1111: s iili-'S m of weaving. it has further been stated in the said show-cause tha$ fhe petitioner is liable tb be punistied under Madhya Pradesh Civil Services ..(Classiflcatlon, Controi & Appeal) Rules, 1966, in addition to criminal actjon. InresponsetQthisthepetitionersubmittedvarioysdocuments before the compefent authority to establish the fact that he belpngs to "Bharia" fribe. Tlie petitionerhas placed his reiianee onthe:documents (Annexure A-4toA-235 in Qi-derto demonstratethat a valid ana' proper caste certlficate was issued in hls favour by the competent authQFity. 3. .By the impugned order dated 7.4.1999 the services of petitioner along with 18 Assistant teaehers have been term'inated by holdingthattheexplanatJonQithepetitlonerwasnotfoundisatisfactQry and it was found that the petitioner falsely claimed himself as a "Bharia" tribe whereas he dQes not belong to the said tribe.By the sgme order, the Collector ordered to register criminal case against the petitloner. According to the pefitione.r, against the termination order, he preferred a representation dated 25-4,1999 (Annexure A-23) however, noaction was taken bythecompetentaythorityonhisrepresentation. 4. Counsel for the petitioner grgued that the entire proeeedIngs being undertaken without dye consideration of materiai ptaced on reGord by the petitioner are illegal, without jurisdiction and in utter violation ofprinciples ofnatural justice. It isalso argued ttiat in vlewof ttie judgment of the Supreme Court In the case of Ku. Miadhuri PatH and^?nother v. .Addjttonal Gommsaoner, Trital Devetopmert and others, AiR 1995 .S.C. 94, the Coliectpr or his sub-ordinates had no authority to hpld and enquiry into the caste status of the petitioner as the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee alone had jyrisdiction and competenceto hold such an enquiry and give a declaration regardini the actual statusof the petitioner. In his submission, :ifat a!l, there was any sueh complaint, fhe matter Qught to have been referred to fhe State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee for enquirywhich has not been done. : ' . : 1 •:1 ':. • ; . : ; : . : • ' . 5. Qn the other hand,coynsel for.the respondents submits thatthe petitipner procured appointment on the post of Assjstant^ Teacher .r •itiBI •^d-iSw- 'y^v ^p^ li: ;:,i: '"^•"^ •A?' ^ yj l;l!'14M?KSfd!" which was reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate, though the petitioner did not belong to "Bharia" trjbe. It is submitted that the •government issued an order OFI .29.05.1998 (Annexure R-3) to the Collector, Bilaspurto take action againstthosewho arefalseSy elaiming status of "Bharia" tribe in Katghora area of the District. By the said order,the Coilector wasdirected to take action for cancellation ofcaste certificate issued in favour offhose personswho belonged t6"Bhoria", sub-caste of caste "Koshta" buf obtai.ned false certificates declaring them as belonging to "Bharia" tribe. Thereafter, the Sub Divisionai Officer (Revenue), Katghora submitted a report on 29,10.1998 (Annexure R-1) to the Commissioner wherein it was stated that 19 casesofsuch faise ciaim were found. A list of 19 personswhom the S.D.O has found not belonging to "Bharia" tribe, was annexed along with the said enquiryreportdated 29-10-1998 (Annexure R-1); Thjs included the name of the petitioner atso. Thereafter, the Commissioner, BilaspurdiFectedthe Coliector vide his memo dated 30- 01-1999 (AnnexureR-2)to take action against those 19 Assistant Teachers by terminating theirservices, who falsely obtained the caste certificate. It is submitted that a show cause notice was given to the petitioner and after glving hlm proper opportunity of hearing and coming to the conclusion that the petitioner did not belong to the "Bharia"tribe,hisseryiceswereterminated. ~ 6. I have considered rival submissions made bythe counse! for the parties and perused the records. 7. It is no longer res integra, in view of the settled legal position that the jurisdiefion to determine casfe status vests oniy with the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committeeconstituted under the djrectionsof the Supreme Court in the case of Ku. Madhuri Pati! (supra). Ifthere was any doubt oreomplaint with regard to caste status of the petitioner, it was obligatory on the part ofthe respondent-Gollectorto referthe case of the petitioner to the State Level Casts Scrutiny Committee for consideration and not'to usurp jurisdiction to decide the issue, for which, hehadnocompetence, ' ^, ,.»^? ^^^^^ : ^ A,, .y^ ;s.i>.t!s!"'&»!"' :KssK^"': -Lf' .' :. • ' . ;. 8. Consequently, 1 am unable to uphold the impugned order of, termination dated 7.4.1999 (Annexure ^-2) passed by the Coliector, Bilaspur andthesameis declarediliegal and is herebyset aside. The respondent-Collector is directed to refer the case of the petitioner to the State t-evel Caste Scrutiny Committee for_.determination of petitioner's caste status. The Coliector shall make such reference {6 the State Leve! Caste Scrutlny Committeeat theearliest and not later than one month from the date of receipt of acopy of this orcier. If it is u!timately found that the petitjoner belongs to.-"Bharia" tribe, respondents sha!l reihstate the petitioner in service with all cons8quentialbenefitspay,perksandseniority,AsthepetjtioneFisout of employment since 7.4.1 999, it is directed that the State Leve! Caste Scrutiny Committee shall conciude Its enquiry in the case of the petitioner as expedifiousiy as possible and alt endeavour shalt be made fo complete the same within a period of six months subject to co- operation bythepetitioner. 9. In view of foregoing, the petition is indjcated above. . aiiowed to the extent Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge ^ ^