HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPtR WRIT PET'TION NO. 1617 OF ZQM PETITIONER Anil Prasad, aged about 40 years, sun of Shsi Mbal Ptasad. Assistant Grade-m. omce d me Public Health and Engineering Department Bilaspur ~r (ChhaNsgarh). Vetsus W The Skate of Chhatu'sgarh. through the Weary, Depaltmant of Pubiic Heallh and Engineering Depanment. D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhanisgam). 2. The State of Chhattisgam, thmugh the Secretary. Depamnent of General Administration and Public Grievanc s, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhaitisgarh). 3. The Collector. Disit. Bilaspur (Chhaitisgarh). 4. The Executive Engineer, Pubiic Health and Engineering Department. Bilaspur (Chhauisgarh). (Writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present : shri Malay Kumar Bhoduri. counsel for the Mow Smt. Smite Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 7“; day of August, 2008) Being aggrieved by the memo dated 12.5.2004 (Annemre-PM), the Peiilianef has preferred this writ petition under Amcle 2261227 of the Constitution oflndia. 2) The brief facts, in nutsheil, as projected by petitioner, are that the petitioner is a Grade-ll! employee working in the Department of Public Health Engineering at Bilaspur. He belongs to the community of Scheduled Caste. The petitioner was appointed in theseniieg on 28-10-19w and aner a period of 15 years of service, he received the memo dated 12-52004 (AnnexurePM) issued by the ottice of the Col , Bilaspur, to produce the documents in order to establish the gen ineness ofthe caste eertincate. 3) Shri Bhaduri, teamed counsel appearing for the pehh‘oner, submits that in the tight of the judgments and orders passed by the Hon‘ble / \ \ / \ ,2 Supteme Court in the mauets of Kuari Madhuri Pati! and another vs. Addl Comissiner, ibal Devetopment a others‘, Gau'ilaxmi Bapurao Naure vs. State of ahashtra and oersz State o Mahara'm‘a vs. Mili and others. and State of Maharashu'a and others vs. Ravi Prakas abulalsing Parmar and another‘. the memo dated -5-204 (Annexure-PM) is without an jurisdiction and deserves to be quash. 4) Per oontra, St. Ghai teamed Pane! Lawyer appearing ot me State, submits on he sis of retum that this is a routine administrative action. On the questio a t whether he Additionat Collector or the Hea of the eartment of . partiular Ministry is competent to decide the caste certihate ther is no respons either in he retum or i orat submission. 5) Having eard teamed counsel apearing for the parties, penrsing the pleading and documens appended thereto, it is evident mat the authorities have considered about the caste of the petitioer without referring the matter to the Caste Scrutin Committee. 6) The Supree Co i he att f State of Maharashtra & Ors. vs. avi Prakash Babulalsing Farmer & Another (supra) observed as under :- “12. The Caste Scrutiny Committee s a quasi-judicial body. it ha been set up or a Vspecihc purpose. lt serves a social and constimtinal purpoes. it is constituted to prevent fraud on the Consh'tutio. lt may not be bound by the provision of lnian Evidence Act, but i would't be correct for the suerior m to issu directions as to how should appreciate evidence. Evidencetobeadduoedinamatterbetore a quasi-judicial body cannot be restricted to admission of documenhry’ evidence only. lt may of necessity have to take oral evidence. 13. Moreover, the nature of evidence to be adduced 'wouid vary from case to case. The righs of a party wadduce evidence cannot be curtailed. lt is one thing to say hurl a quasHudioiai body should appmciate evidence adduced before it in law but it is another thing to say that it must not allow adduction of oral evidence at all.“ ‘ I (1994) c scc 241 2 (1995) 3 scc 685 , 3 (2001) 1 soc 4 - ‘ (2007) 1 scc a0 \ ’ ; @ m . mo Tr nd ya up Mar th. f sl nd ’ h B 120 y ed m , f t ba n s o t d Dp a c e e t n h p s n y m urt n t mer o R i s t o s n s d t no p e it @ 7) In the light of above judgments and orders of the Hon'bh Supreme Court every State has constitumd a State Level Ca§e Scrutiny Committee. If there is a comphint Mm regatd to amhantieity of a caste estimate issued by the competent anthem, me Sme 'Level Caste Scmmy Committee atone is competent to determine the dispute tn accordance with the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court tn the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patit (supra) and other cases. 8) Leamed counsel for the State further submm that the matter may be referred to the State LeVet Caste Scrutiny Committee for examining the genuineness of the caste certincate produced by the petitioner. 9) tnvtewoftheahove, ltbortytsreservedtotheStateGovemmentto refer the dtspute to State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee accordingly. it so advised. 10) ln the result, the memoldated 12—5—2004 {Annexure—PM) is hereby quashed and the petition is allowed to the above extent. No order asto oasis. ~ /_/_/ / \ J‘ Sd" . m Sa . h K! Ag" o Juége .