r- /1 Y-.r CWG?f 3B.S& & / IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PBTITIONER W.P. (S) No.^5^3 of 2011 /": Smt. Salina W/o Jiw^i Livingstone, aged. about 42 Years, Teacher Govt. Primary School, Chikhali, District- Rajnandaon (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ / 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Development Department, D.K.S.. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, General Administration Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Caste Certificate High Level Scrutiny Committee, through its Member Secretary - Cum- Commissioner, Tribal & Scheduled Caste Development, Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University Campus, Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Collector, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA :^y- '^'Si.^-SSKS^vf'S'^^.SyS^, ^ ^^S^f^S^!^^ '^&S^^^^-s^s^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Writ Petition (0 No.2503 of 2011 Petitioner Smt. Salina Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 the Constitution of India) '^SiSSfSiM^ ^iSBSSiS' i^mi'^ Present: - Shri V. K. Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Y. S. Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State. •"^M'&SStXK ^'iKiSiSSl ^SSSSiSSS ORAL ORDER (Passedon 10-05-2011) Heard on admission. ^SiSiSSSKX 2. By this petition, the petitioner has called in question the correctnessi and vaiidity of order dated 02-05-2011 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Hig^ Level Caste Scrutiny Committee directing cancellation of caste certificatlj of the petitioner. . ^ 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the High Level Cast|s -Scrutiny Committee had no jurisdiction or authority to make any enqujr^j with regard to correctness and validity of the caste certificate issued tn| favour the petitioner, because Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayo|S has also made an enquiry with regard to correctness and validity of Vr^ caste certificate and the complaints were found baseless. He submits thsffi as the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Commission, which has statutory" power, has already enquired into the complaint regarding correctness ofj the caste certificate, the said decision operates as res judicata. Learne^ ^KI^B'^^^l^- f^^-""!"/^-'^'-^' ^s^^&s^^^ ^!^^^^'^'^. w'^^^y^ •^iB'ill 'BS^W^^^ :"\ 1 I ^. ^ 1- SSSSgSiSKS. :^^^^f^^?>^Si^; ^SS^iSiSiSffS counsel further submitted that the vigilance enquirywas not made as PtijBBjgK the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the case of KumsffitQ^ :liNI Madhuri Patil and another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Developmenii and others, (1994) 6 SCC 241, and the enquiry was conducted throu|g|^^^^| Superintendent of Police. It is also submitted that proper opportunity e® adducing evidence in respect ofthe claim, was not granted to the petition||gg^^j and the reply and preliminary objections, documents and case laws not been properly considered. It is further submitted that the enquiry is ^•'^iitiiiilSSiSii& completed within a period of two months. Learned counsel also submittil^ that the petitioner is daughter of A. John, and therefore, the certificate was rightly issued in her favour and the hligh Level Scrutiny Committee committed serious error in holding that the petition|||•^S^Si^. has failed to prove that Sitaram was her ancestor. 4. The High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee has been constitute|g| under the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhu^j ^•s^ Patil (supra) to enquire into the caste status. Therefore, merely becau&igg Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Commission constituted under th|g^|^gg Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog Adhiniyam, 1995 holds sorT||Jg enquiry which ended in favour of the petitioner, it cannot be said High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee is prohibited from making sSIIUSi WSSiSSiSffSS ^^S^:^:S;f-K-Si:S^sS::x & enquiry with regard to caste status of the petitioner. Neither in the SC/% SBlBK8iS.; Act nor in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ky/nas^^^^g Madhuri Patil (supra), there is any thing to support that where the Commission rejects complaint; the State High Level Caste Scrutii||^^^^|g' '^^:s?:iss^'^}^s:s^.^: Committee would be prdhibited from enquiring into the complaint relatin||||^^^g W ^S1i^ :;StlSigffSL//i' ..^' ; -?^ //' ';'l ^, ^^^./ ^" ..J --3> to caste status. The submission that res judicata is applicable misconceived as it could be and deserves rejection at the threshol|| Though, the petitioner has stated in the petition that he was not affordiig proper opportunity, from the order dated 02-05-2011(Annexure P-8), revealed that notices were issued to the petitioner and the order al||g records that the petitioner was granted opportunity of hearing on numerou|| occasions and also submitted certain documents. Therefore, there is specific allegation in the petition that on any particular date of heariril§|j^^^j|| before the Committee, the petitioner sought production of any oral ^ig^^^g documentary evidence, which was declined. Therefore, the aliegation thiigiggggjl BSSB88881 the petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity of hearing is notma(^|gg^BBSI ^.:^SSisSiSM out. The impugned order dated 02-05-2011 further shows that the Hi||g|1ggg|g 'SSBSBSSiS Level Caste Scrutiny Committee conducted investigation through Vigilanc|||gjg|||g|| Cell and it was revealed in aforesaid enquiry that A. John is not the Son^ot-ySsiffyy^ Sitaram and on the other hand, Kanta W/o A. John and mother of tllig petitioner has stated that sh^ used to reside in the house of Sitaram and ffilggjgggggs John was working as Servant in the house of Sitaram. Therefore, it cann||g||B3KI be accepted that proper enquiry throu&h Vigilance Cell as directed by '^•9'';^S^iiSs^''^s\S •®tJSK8S81SI Supreme Court was not made. ;til818SSSU I 5. From the impugned order, it is revealed that after detailed enqui^| obtaining report through Vigilance Cell, considering statement of mother^||| the petitioner and other persons, who are residents of the area and affe||| perusing the material before it including the documents submitted by ttT|| :r^. petitioner as also her reply, Committee has come to the conclusion thattl'^j^^ggl ^^^iJ^lll!€aisK. SISSJ ti%^ ^iisissss 'mSSSSiBitiiiS. •iSS!SiS9S:^' (I? !'l 1 (K SD 3. =5 <Q ^< Q. O) 11 o oa. CD —I Q) O) oo O) 55' N'l' k.^.: M^ %^ ^ 'i^K\ls^-y ®^SS^^^^8^KIS;'??^ •——--..-.-...-.-.,—.-.-.....-•- .-.-..-^-.^.._^___^^^'^^^_._^^^^_^_^^^^^^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^^ '..^^Si^^^SiSM^^'^^^^ • . • •• . • • '• •' " BiiSSlgli3 S^&^^S^^^M^ ^^i^?%ii^i^^