3A& .taitoJ.JA 'fii^j.ttlttg te.U 61 JMti ykfe.ffi Jai6^ BBA^j. 1& MaMqfiJffi liUJilA j&.&^te 'J^Myjs fifia iy£b iaiiy.iv. la^^s '&iiiw fa ^Stijiyy. jiiuy. '^a&tefe ojtote AMltiiSj. 'iijBAB JtSttli^y. l£ !z; ^'^' ^> t-Hl ,-^.v<.<- ^at^ic teVtiitj.B S tiv>'r'~"v, ^ ^ ^4^^^^SJ re JJS1J^ \'^£&^' S dfij. o&St jsStiliii&j. iw^ ^yjA sjaUtej. ^StBJa 'iyaJbB ^jjajlE &A ^lajtey. jyy IRA^^ 4^iA itig 4,tu&ty. 'iy^ tej^!te6 &A6 ^S 0£ !f£11A te^iyilft : ^. ^" pyE/4,5^fi^BJ-£ JUA a&a MJ11AA Ji6 ifc5^Jiya56Jffi 2&l-i fi^ 'la2Aty.tE teil SfcJ.RUSljt&Astt felfeVi fitoB (Q^^V^J<S^ T N 39Vd y I-HC-22 an^T'qii l<;-)i+ 3TI^[ ^THI=ti ~^^Q •g-g -sfp^f^, et^l'y'lri. I«<dl'Ml< Sff^T IR^ ...^..p..^.}.....2^: WHWI sKWefi &>^ 200 •f^^r' sn^i t^iiw ^rfsa SB: Hon'ble Slui Manindra RIIohan Shriwastava, J. 24.02.2010 Shri Pawan Kesharwani,, Shri Ajit Smgh, Pauel La Heard. filed This petition has been order dated 5.5.1999 (Annexulre that upon iaquuy inade oa petitioner did not belong to| petitioner aad on which basis,| said order, it has also been subiait his case wifh proof, hj|s been termuiated w.e.f. 5.6.199 the poUce. In the retui-a, it has petitioner's apprehension thsjt service aav tiine is incorrect a departmental iaquiiy, which| It is weU. setfled fhat in. status, the jurisdiction to inq State Level Caste Scrutiny +l'l<i<-lifl-< t|Wdl"'?fsIzt <[q«<i< i? arfigq 3ii^( counsel for the petitioner. 'wyer for the State. by fhe petitioner aggrieved by the A-l), by which it has been stated complaiats, it was foiuid fhat the 'Baiga' caste, as claimed by the he procured aa appouitment In the itated that/if the petitioner fails to services shall be treated as havrug 9 and niatter witt be ha&ded over to bifcen stated by the respoudents fhat he may be termiaated from the imagiuary, as it would depend on has not vet been initiated. atid fhe ruatter of inquiry iato the caste lire iato caste status vests wifh fhe Comiuittee constituted under fhe iXI-HC-22 SD^T^iT R;-fi°b sn^i ^qNT^Tiid -SirJ?a ^s? -iiwicf''), d'dl'y'is. fawi'yy 3TT^?T 'q^T tiiHCfrgiNi* "fl^ 200 fcl^cyS' AIR19S3SC94. It is not disputed that existence aad functioniag in t]I<li<t<ftl ^WfS ^ ^S <["Itdl< ^srfSgiisn^i directiou of flie Supreine Co^u-t in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil aad another v. Addl. Clomnir., Tribal Developmeat & ors., fhe Caste Scrutiny Committee is ia State of Chliattisgarh. tihe ln view of the aforesaicfl circuinstances, it would be open for fhe respondeats to conduct ^ of Supreine Court in. the cas .ppropriate iaquuy through the State Level Caste Scrutiay Commit|;ee iu accordaace with the dircctions Respondents shall be free to wifh law on fhe basis of Conunittee. s^ ofKumari Madhuri Patil (supra) . ;e appropriate action in accordaace the report of the Caste Scrutiny Witti fhese observations|, fhe petition is finaUy disposed of. Sd/- Maniindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Sd/-