wi ....' ^'^,^""^-- l.--' .••" ^ ^•^^^'' y,ese^;u"' Aa^tt-'" BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) WRIT PETITION FC1 N0. - a>(<(t1 OF 2009 SlnQte B< ^tV^ta fU^ (Sfas'ada—Nima^D/o Shri M. R. *•<. (' PETITIONER A ^Jlo Nimaje, Aged about 23 years, Sub 1<6^1ceL 'rt.3. s-,3 ^J^B.. ^/" * 'Vl-^4';W</'S^ Inspector, Central Industrial Security [ijp Force, Unit A.S.G. Jaipur (Rajasthan). A^^ VERSUS RESPONDENTS -^"_^ 1] state of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Social Justice SE Welfare Department, D.K.S. -cppy 'scevffly^ Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.; .< -? ^^f^ o.S-^''^ 2] Union of India, Through- Secretary, s;ftIs(*GSOfi5&.,_ - S^j- 7%^%^^ %h'Court"fChhdtisgsn ^/^_3] ^sisimiRnw^teP/INT, Directorate General, Central Industrial Security Force (Ministry of Home Affairs), 13, CGO's Complex, Lodhi Road, CISF, HQrs, New Delhi. ^] Assistant Coramissioner, Tribal Welfare, Raigarh, Tahsil SE District- Raigarh (C.G.). 5] Additional Tahsildar, Raigarh, Tahsil 8s Dista-ict- Raigarh (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226.0F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA F'OR ISSUENCE OF WRIT OR WRITS, ORDER OR ORDERS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMDTANCES OF THE CASE. :—«-ua_Ci1-t^a^>±£ulhz-siibjiutsas under: ii' ^'i;^'v:.v-,s;v- PETITIONER HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH • BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.3414 OF 2009 Sharda Nimje Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri S.K. Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. Ms Fouzia Mirza, Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India. ORDER (ORAU (Passedonthis21stdayofJuly, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the report dated 31-12-2008 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Department ofTribal Welfare, Raigarh. 2. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is working a§Sub Inspector at unit A.S.G., Jaipur (Rajasthan). The petitioner belongs to Halba community i.e. Scheduled Tribe category. The caste certificate was issued bythe Tahsildar, Raigarh on 12/05/1995. On promotion of the petitioner on the higher post, the respondent No.3 vide letter dated 24/08/2005 (Annexure P/3) enquired about the social status of the petitioner from the District Magistrate/Collector, Raigarh. Thereafter, the Collector directed the Tahsildar to ascertain about the social status of the petitioner. The Tahsildar submitted his report dated 18/07/2008 (Annexure P/4) stating that the caste certificate issued in respect of the petitioner is not in proper format; therefore, the same cannot be treated as genuine document. On 30/07/2005 (Annexure P/5) again the respondent No.3 requested the District Magistrate to conduct fresh enquiry in respect of the social status of the petitioner. The respondent No,5 after recording the statement of the petitioner's father and after completion of enquiry submitted his report on 13/10/2008 (Annexure P/9) stating that the father of the petitioner was not the resident of Raigarh prior to 1950, therefore, the certificate obtained by the petitioner was not a valid caste certificate. The respondent No.4, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without applying his mind, 4-Fi? T-7 •- ^'.^"^ i"l!*: \^y accepted the report and it was further sent on 31/12/2008 to the respondent No.3. The report adversely affects the service career of the petitioner. Thus, this petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is well settled principle of law that the State Level High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee (for short "the hligh Power Committee") alone is competent to verify and declare the social status certificates to be invalid or valid. In the present case, the District Authorities have found that the petitioner does not betong to Halba and, as such, impugned communication is not sustainable in the eye of law. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned communication is bad and illegal, as the same has been sent on the basis of a report, which was submitted by an authority, which has no jurisdiction to make such a recommendation. Learned counsel in support of his contention, placed reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others , GM, Indian Bank v. R. Ran.i and Another^. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that after affording proper & sufficient opportunity of hearing and after recording the statement of the father of the petitioner, the report was prepared. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 6. It is evident that on the basis of some communication sent by the respondent No.3, the District Authorities conducted enquiry for verification of social status of the petitioner, which has no jurisdiction because the High Power Committee alone is competent to verify the social status of a particular person. Thus, the impugned action taken by the respondent authorities is not sustainable in the eye of law. 7. In Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), the Supreme Court observed as under: "15. The question then is whether the approach adopted by the High Court in not elaborately considering the case is vitiated by an error of law. High Court is not a court of appeal to appreciate the evidence. The Committee which is empowered to evaluate the evidence; placed before it when records a finding of fact, it ought to prevail unless ' (1994) 6 SCC 241 2 (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 956 m 8 found vitiated by judicial review of any High Court subject to limitations of interference with findings of fact. The Committee when considers all the material facts and records a finding, though another view, as a court of appeal may be possible, it is not a ground to reverse the findings. The court has to see whether the Committee considered all the relevant material placed before it or has not applied its mind to relevant facts which have led the Committee ultimately record the finding. Each case must be considered in the backdrop of its own facts." 8. The Supreme Court in Gayatrilaxmi Bapurao Nagpure v. State of Maharashtra and Others , reiterated the view taken in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). 9. In State of Maharashtra and Others v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar and another, the Supreme Court observed as under: "31. Reliance has also been placed in Gayatrilaxmi Bapurao Nagpure v. State of Maharashtra wherein this Court referring to Madhuri Patil on the fact situation obtaining therein opined : 17. Applying the above test to the facts of the present case, we are satisfied that the Committee failed to consider all the relevant materials placed before it and did not apply its mind to an important document "Sl. No. 9" which led the ' Committee ultimately to record a finding against the appellant.' By a wrongful denial of the caste certificate to the genuine candidate, he/she will be deprived of the privileges conferred upon him/her by the Constitution. Therefore greater care must be taken before granting or rejecting any claim for caste certificate. 18. The High Court without appreciating the probative value of the documents placed before it has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant by simply accepting the conclusions reached by the second respondent Committee. Undoubtedly, in cases of this type, the burden heavily ties on the applicant who seeks such a certificate. That does not mean that the authorities have no role to Sa play in finding out the correctness or otherwise of the claim for issue of a caste certificate. We are of the view that the 3 (1996)38cc 685 4 (2007) 1 SCC 80 •uosjsd jB|noi}jed 8 p SnfBlS [BIOOS 9L|} suiLUjaiep Q) jeMod ou eAey seiiuoqinv PUISIQ 34} se '6uipuiq iou si s}seo eqiEH 0} 6uo|sq }ou op jeuoitiisd SLji }eqt ssiiuoqinv 10!4Sia SL|} ^o uoitepuaujuiooaj sqi • 1.1. 'ljnoo siqi^o qoueg sBpnp-e e Aq usAa )nq ssqousg eBpnp-z Aq A|UO iou jsqujnu }noq}iM SSLUI^ pQvawyw ueeq seq ijied unqpe|/\| j.o sseo sq) ui UMOp pie| MB| sqi 'MSIA jno u| -ssuiispine A|dLUIS 9J9AA ]l}Bd UnL|pB|A] Ul usM6 suoipejip OL|) tBMl P!es scl louueo )! suoissnosip 6uioBe-io^ 9lj} i0 M91A U] •J9UBLU aq) epiosp ||eqs seHiujLUOQ p8}ni!)suoo A|jsdojd sqi }eq) poiosjip SBM ti pue peMO||B SBM |esdde sij} |!(ed un4pe|/\] u! U9M6 suoipsjip p SLujai ui sauiujuioci sieudojdde 01 . pejjs^ej iou SBM jeneuj sij} qoiL|M 01 ej}4sejeqe|/\] io sieis 'A ojeqqLun>| |eqii/\ je^eqpng ui }jnoo siqi ^o L|ousg e6pnr-£ e Aq psAojdde uoaq OAeq SSKIUJLUOQ ^o uo!}n}!)suoo 6uipje6sj ]!}Bd unL|pe|/\j ui )jnoo siqi p suoipajip pies sqi 'Liso^e joueui sqi sppsp pue |!}ed unL;pe|/\] ui }jnoo siquo uoisiosp eqip sujje} ui aeuiujujoo sqt S}n}iisuoo o)' paioejip SBM ti pue p8MO||e SEM |esdde sqi qons se 'yyed un4PB|AI ui ijnoo SILJI Aq pajspusj uoisiosp sq) qiiM souepjoooe ui }ou SBM eeuiLULUoo eq) ^o uo4n}!)suoo 94} yeu^ p|8q (Jnoo siqt BJiqsejeqei/M p 8^3 'SA tuemseg u| 'sjaueuj essqt 01 UO!}B|SJ ut uoiieisifiei ujjo^iun e }noqe Buuq pue |ie}8p -is}esj6 ui psuiLuexs J9UBLU eqi eAeq p|noqs eipui ^o tusujujsAOO sqt leqi pQAjasqo SBM ti Buiiejaiisj 9|!4M qoiqM Ul UIQ !}8AB-] 'SA 'd'V J-0 IU9LUUJ9A09 '9je^|S/V\ |equi p J0)08jja 10 aseo sq} ui paiejaiisj ussq 9Aeq |!i@d !-inqpB|/\| ui ueAiB suoipajip sqi •^ : jspun se pSAjssqo (ejdns) >|ueg ueipui '|/\]o ui }jnoo sujsjdng sqi 'oi. ,,'eiB3^!}J90 8iseo e p enssi jo^ Luie|o eqi p osiMjaqio jo sseupajjoo eq) ino Buipuy ui Ae|d 0} e|oj SLUOS aAeq 01 punoj OS|B QJSM psujaouoo ssiiuoqine 3L|i 'iou jo penssi useq A|)L|6u seq 9}BO^!)J90 siseo e jsqisqM o) se uoiisenb sq} O}ui 06 ueo eeujujujoo 941 )eqi uoiiisodojd 941 joj Aiuoqine ue OS|B si 'sjoiajoq} 'uoisioap pies s^l'ZS •uoisniouoo tusjsyip B }B SAUJB 01 pSUJSOUOO ssiiuoqine ay} Aq psonpojd u88q sei| Buiq)ou 'iue||edde eqi Aq psonpojd siusLunoop aq} idaoxs 'sseo siqi u] 'uoisioap pajjoo e 1B 8MJJB 0} S9UIUJLUOO Sq) 6u!isisse ui 9|OJ e Ae|d OS|B isnai paujsouoo seiiuoqine 12. 13. Gowri Applying the well settled principles of law, for the reasons stated hereinabove and without expressing any opinion about the social status of the petitioner, the impugned communication dated 31/12/2008 (Annexure P/1) is quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent authorities to get the caste certificate of the petitioner verified from the High Power Committee and pass the appropriate order accordingly on the basis of report of the High Power Committee. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs, .------------ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge