C tly/ ,y 3N ?HE £§GH CQURT OF JUDECATURE AT BILASPU CHHATT!$GARH WAR No.1 3V5 _ mm : wx Ku. Asha Naidu, Daughter of iate Shri Lakshman Rao Naidu, (Adopiive Father), natural father Shri P.Babu!al Naidu, aged about 36 years, ASsisiant Lecturer, Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Rajpur, District Sarguja (Chhaitisgarh). PE?§?EGNER3 Versus RE$PONQENT§ 1. fseate omhhawsgam through M a} j ;....« epretary, Department of Revenue, IQ?J/L £Woy£rt"§- .kBhawan, Mantraiaya, Raipur. w. .--' TYMV"%" .:$~’”,..v‘ ' ‘ . '" ... 2 .1! h M, 9 * vie Coliector, Jaspur, District Jaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 ¢ ‘ - I R, / ' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition N0. 1318 of 20M Ku. Asha Naidu VERSU$ PETiTiONER RESPGNDENTS State of Chhat'tisgarh and anothe! Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, counsel fer the petitioner. Shri Somesh'Ba}aj, Dy. GA. for the respondents. WRIT PETIT!0N UNDER ARTICLE 226i227 OF TiiE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (26.10.2010) Chalienge in the present writ petition is to the otder dated 20.67.2001 '(Annexure P-9) passed by the Coiiectoa' - respondent no.2 canceiing the caste certificate dated 1104.1 QQQ (Annexure 9-1) issued in favour of the petitioner by the Naib Tahasiidar, Jashpur in Revenue ~ Case No. 1,8l89-90. ' 2. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the petitioner is presentiy working as leoturer in the Sohooi Education Department. According to her she beiongs to the community of Scheduted Tribe “Mannewar’f‘ She was appointed in the service on 16““ June, 19§2 and after about 9 years of her service, the order impugned has been passed by the Coiiector oanoeiing a vaiid caste certificate issued in her favour. 3. Counsei for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered with the orders passed by this Court in‘WP. No. 1517 of 2004 in the matter of Anii Prasad v. The State of Chhattisgarh and others, W.P.(S) No. 3200 of 2007. in the matter of Bharat Nag v. State of Chhattisgarh and others ’WP(S) No 2524 of 2008 in the matter of Ku Sangeeta v The State oi Chhattisgarh and others and W P (S) No 7026 of 2007 In the matter of Vinay Khapekar v State o Chhattisgarh and others. He further submits that all the above orders f 3W ’2’ passed by thi$ Court are on the basis of the judgments of the apex Court reported in 1994 (6) S.C.C. 241 (Ku. Madhuri Patil v. Add}. Commissiener, Tribunal Development & others) and thereafter followed by series of deciéions including Gayatrilaxmi Bapurao Nagpure v. State of Maharashtra & others reported in (1996) 3 SCC 685 and State of Maharashtra & others v. Ravi Prakash Babulalslngh Parmar & another reported in (200?) 1 SCC 80. He submits that it is the High Power Caste scrutiny Committee alone who is empowered to decide the validity of the caste certificate but the order impugned has been passed by the Coliector without jurisdiction. Counsei for the petitioner has further reiied upon the judgment of this Court passed in W.P.(S) 3338 of 2007 in the matter of Dinesh kumar Bhagoria and others v. State of Chhattisgarn and others and similarly matters decided by this Court vide order dated 19*“ August, 201 0. 4t Counsel for the State supports the order impugned but is not in a position to justifythe same on the basis of itspieadings. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the documents as filed and considering various judgments of this Court and that of the apex Court, the impugned order appears to be without jurisdiction on account‘jof the fact that the needful has not been done in accordance with law in particuiar as iaid down by the apex Court in the case of Madhuri Patti (supra) and Ravi Prakas Babuialsing Parmar (supra) ‘The petition is accordingly ailowedt impugned order dated 20.07.2001 (Annexure 9-9) passed by the Coilector is set aside/quashed. On the request of the counsel appearing for the respondent/State iiberty is reserved to respondent/State to refer the matter of the petitioner to the High Power Caste Scrutiny Comity for examining the matter‘in accordance with law as enunciate by the Supreme Courtend this Court in various cases and to pass appropriate order within the time iimit prescribed in the ’ case of Madhuri Patii (supra). j Sd/— Pritinker Diwaker Judge c ’7