BEfOBE 2HE M.P. SIATE AaiWZSTaATI?E Applieant B.esponiflents; •A. N0. yzooo. Mall.le Raa Bharia < S/0 Jugut Ran Bfaaria Afie- 53 years, R/0 Village- £Syahinudi Talisil Katgfeora, ;' Distt* Bllaspur'(M.P.). ¥E-K,S..Br S State of M.P. T-farough Seeretary, Scheduled Trihes and SehediiIeA Castes Vailate.Btaa»i®n, '(M.P.).' r. The Collector, Tribal Velfa.re aad Btlaspur (R.P.). r. Bloek.EtHoa-fcion ©ffj.eer: Mstt.Bilaspar (M.P.). -^'. Asslstant CoaBtasioner, Trltoal Melfare aafi illaayw (M.P.). SSCVIW 19 ©y'EHE M,tP.,S3».a ADKINISTBAIiyE T&IBBNAIACT.. 19©S. fi^:''*T*"n*+ = (1) (2) (5) (i) PartiCHlars ot tfae As detailedaBove in tfae eause title. Partieulars of ^fae resBBadeiits As detaileA above ia tlie eause title, Part.leulars of tfae ardter agaiast lAieta ora.giiaal appXiea'ti.oB,,isl.he,l.as^n&<s« :. No. 32 / Shikayat <»..»&•» / 83 * (Aanesia?ft&-2^ < ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTKOARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Dhwater) Writ Petition (S) No. 3238 OT2005 PETmONER Malik Ram Bharta VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of MSdhya Pradesh and others Shri S.R. J. Jaiswal, counsel forthe petftloner. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan PL Tor the Stat^respondents. WRfT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 228 OF THE coNstn-uncwTcnNDtA^ OROER (29.09.2010) Challenge in the present writ petltion is to the order dated 07.04.1999 (Annexure A-2) passed bythe Coltector, TritelWelfare and Development, Bllaspur terminatingthe servicesof the petitioner and other similariy placed 18 Assistant teachers. 2. Grievance of the pet'rtioner is that vide order dated 9.9.1988 (Annexure A-1) he was appointed as Assistant Teacher by Distrid Co-ordinator, Tribal Welfare, for Collector, Bilaspur. The petitioner was selected on the basis of his belongmg to "Bharia" Tribe. Aecording to the petitioner, he belongs to "Bharia" Tribe and to this effect a certificate was issued bythe Naib Tahsildar, Katghora on 28.06.1984 (Annexure A-7). From the record It appears that on 15.02.1999 a show-cause notice (Annexure R-4) was issued to the petitioner by the Additlonat Coltector, Bilaspur asking the petitioner to show-cause as to why his services be not terminated, asupon enquiry, it vras found that the petitioner procured govemment employment on the basls of false certificate of his belongtng to "Bharia" tribe whereas, the pstitloner's caste is "Bhoria" a sub caste of caste "toshta" mainly engaged In the -vocatlon ofweaving. It has further been stated in the said show-cause that the petitioner is llabte to be punished under Madhya Pradesh Civil Services fClassification: Control & Abbeall Rutes: 1^6: in addltion to ^ ; .'.y criminal action. In response to this the petltioner submitted various documents before the competent authority to establtsh the fect that he belongs to "Bharia" tribe. The petitioner hasplac^l his reliance on the documents (Annexure A-5 to A-20) in order to demonstrate that a valid and proper caste certlTicate was issued in hls favour by the competent authortty-. 3. By the impugned order dated 7.4.19^ the senrtces of tte petitioner along with 18 Assistant teachere have been terminated by holding that the explanation of the petitioner was not Tound satisfactory and it was found that the petitioner falsely daimed himself as a "Bharia" tribe whereas he does not belong to the sakl tribe. By the same order, the Coltector ordered to register criminal case against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, against the termination order, he preferreda representatlon dated 25.4.19^ (Annexure A-21) however, no action was taken by the competent authority on his representetion. 4. Counsel for the petltioner argued that ttie entire proceedings being undertaken without due consideration of material ptaced on record by the petitioner are iltegal, wlthout jurisdiction and in utter violation of principles of natural justice. It is also argued that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ku. Mathurt Patil and another v. AcWitlonal Commissioner, Tiibal Dea/elc^Nnent and others, AIR 1995 S.C. 94, the Collector or his sub-ordlnates had no authority to hold and enquiry into the caste status of the petltioner as the State Level CasteScrutiny Committee alone had jurisdlction and competence to hold such an enquiry and give a declaration r^arding the actual status of the petitioner. In his submlsston, if at all, there was any such comptaint, the matter ought to have been referred to the State Level CasteScrutiny Committee for enquirywhich has not been done. 5. On the other hand, counsel for the respwidents submlts that the petttloner procured appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher whteh was reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate, though the t»titionerdid not belona to "Bharia" tribe. It is submitted that the -3- government issued an order on 29.05.1998 (Annexure R-3) to e Collector, Bitaspur to take acUon agalnstthose who are fateely clabning status of "Bharia" tribe in Katghora area of the Dfetrict. By the said order, the Collector was dlrected to take action for (ancdlation of caslte certificate issued in favour of those pereons who betongedto "Bhoria', sub-caste of caste "Koshta" but obtatned false certtfteates dedaring them as belonglng to "Bharia" tribe. Thereafter, the Sub DMsional Officer (Revenue), Katghora submitted a report on ^.10.1998 (Annexure R-1) to the Commissloner wherein it was stated Uiat 19 cases of such false claim were found. A list of 1& persons whwn the S.D.O has found notbelonging to '•Bharia" fribe, was annexed atong with the said enqulry report dated 29-10-1998 (^inewire R-1). This included the name of the petltioner also. Thereafter, the Commlssioner, Bila^iur directed the Cotleetor vide his memo dated 30- 01-1999 (Annexure R-2) to take action against those 19 Assistant Teachers by terminating thelr servlces, who falsely otrtained the caste certificate. It is submitted that a show cause notice waa gtven to tt>e petitioner and after giving him proper opportunity of hearing and coming to the concluston that the petltioner dkl not belong to the "Bharia" tribe, his servlces were terminated. 6. I have considered rival submlsslons made by the (»unselfer the parties and perusedthe records. 7. It is no longer res int^ra, in view ofthe settled legal posttlon that the jurisdictton to driermine cs®testetus vests only wlth the State Level Caste Scrutlny Committee constituted underthe direetions of the Supreme Court in the case of Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra). If there was any doubt or complaint with regard to caste status of the petitioner, it was obligatory on the part ofthe respondent-Colleetor to refer the case of the petltioner to the State Level Caste Scrutiny CCTnmittee for consideratlon and not to usurp jurisdiction to declde tte issue, for which, he had no competence. ^) -4- 8. Consequentty,! am unabletouphold the Impugned order of termtnation dated 7.4.1999 (Annexure A-2) (rassed by the Collector, Bilaspur and the same is declared illegal and is hereby set aside. The respondent-Collector is dirwted to refer th®ca®eof the petittoner to the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee for determination of petitioner's caste status. The Collector shall make suoh reference to the State Level Caste Scrutlny Committee at the eartiest and not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this ordBr: tf it is ultimately found that the petltioner telongs to "Bharia" trtbe, respondenls shall relnstate (he petttloner in servtee with atl consequential benefflspay, perks and seniority. As the petitioner is out of employment since 7.4.1999, itisdirectedthatthe State Lewel Gaste Scrutiny Committee shall conclude its enquiry In &te case of the petitioner as expedftiously as possibte and all endeavour shatl be made to complete the same within a period of SB( months subject to co- operation bythe petttioner. 9. In view of Tor^oing, the petition is allowed to the eident indicated above. (^- Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge ,