t<IQH CCXUIRT W CHHATrBGARH: MfcASPUR WrltPetitton(Sl No.eM4<rf2007 eeUUonsr Hiralal Son of Shri Bhoiaram, aged aborf 45 yeare, Assistanf Teacher, posted at Primary Schoi Jora Dabri, Tahsil Katghora, Dtstrid Koitoa (CG). Respondents Versus 1) State af Chhattisgarh, through the Seoretary, Tribal Dwelopmert Department,:'D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2) Jatl Pramanpatra Uehchastariya Chhanbeen Samiti, through the Secretaiy, Karyalapi Ayukt, Adim Jati Tatha Anusuchlt Jati Vilas Pandit Ravi Shanter Shukla Vishwavldyala Parisar, Raipur (CG). 3) The Commissioner, Schedule Tribe and Schedule Caste Devetopment Departmait Pandit Ravisankar ShuWa Vishwavidyatay Parisar Ralpur (CG). 4) The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Korba (CG). 5) The Btoek Education Officer, Btock Koyalibeda, District Uttar Bastar Kanker ^Vrit Petition under Artlcle 226 oftheGonstituttonoflndia.j SB: Hon'bte Mr. SatSsh K. Agnlhotrt, J. Presenfc Shri Rakesh Pandey, oounsetfortnepetiBoner. Shri Satteh Gupta, Govt. Advorate for the State. ORALORDER (Pass«ton 2-44008) With consent of tearned counsel appearir®for both the parties, the matter is taken up fbr hearing finaliy. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitiona- submits that the notice issued by the respondent No.2 was reeeived by the petttioner on 20-4-2007 and thereafter the petitioner sent a requ^t letter to the respondert No.2/Caste ScFuttny Committee on 21-4-2007 (Annexure P/4), asking tor some tlme as the petitioner needed time to collect pafws. The liespondent No.2/Caste Scrutiny Gommittee, without even granting opportunity of hearing, proceeded to decide the oase of the petitioner ex parte. Feeling aggriewd by the tact that the impugned OBeter was passed against the petttioner ex parte, without affording sufficient opportjnity ef heanng, this petition is ftled praying for relief that the inipugned order dated 23-7- 2007 (Annexure P/1) be quashed. II is further prayed that matter may be remitteel back to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for fresh decision, m acGordaroe with law. Leamed counsel further submits that ttie Supreme Gourt in the matter of SWe <rf Maharashtra & others Vs. Ravl Prakash Babidalsing Parmar & another has held that the Caste Scrutiny Committee is a quasi judicial body. Belng quasi judkaal body, the decision ot^ht to have been taken following due procedure of law. 3) Leamed eounsel appearing for the responderts/State submits ttiat since the matter has been decided ex parte, the matter may be remitted back to the Committee for fresh decision. 4) In view of the foregoing, the impugned orcter dated 23-7-2CC7 (Annexure P/1) is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Gaste Sorutiny ©ommlttee for fresh decteion, in aceordanee wtth law. It ts made elear that 1 have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case. The decision feie taken being uninhibited or un-infiuenced by any of the obseFvattons made heieinabove. 5) Accordirgty, this petition is diqsosed of. Consequently, I.A.No.1 ibr ad- interim stay stands disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihot-ri Judge Raju 'AIR 2007 SC 295