IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHnISGARH AT BILASPURV (c.G.) w.P.(5) No. 2%Vc I201o / . PETITIONER Smt. Tara Dhurve W/o- Rai Singh Dhurve, aged about 33 years, Qw-mkg \AQ . ‘ caste- Gond, R/o— Village_Bamhaml post— Rengakhar, Tahsil— Bodla, District— Kabirdham (C.G.) 4 HQ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. A g» VERSUS RESPONDENTS /' 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department U of Women '& Child Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) V 2. Commissioner, Department of Women .& Chiid Development, Old nurses hostel, Mantralaya Campus, Raipur (C.G.) / 3 Chairman, £— High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, Raipur (C.G.) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR sinul§ Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra WP. (S) No.2950 of 2010 EgllTiONER Smt. Tara Dhurve Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgam and others. WRIT PET!T!0N UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA $hri F .S. Khare, counsei for the petitioner. 5mt. Smita Ghai, P.L. for the State l respondent No. 1 &2. ORAL ORDER (25.06.2010) Heard. {2) The petitioner was selected on the post of Supervisor in th Department of Women & Chiid Deveiopment under the Govt. of $hhattisgarh. .By the impugned oommimication (Annemre Pl1) the petitioner has been directed to submit relevant documents with regard to the proof of her caste status for verification as to whether she is emitted to the benefit of reservation in the State of Chhattisgarh. it has been mentioned in the Annexure P/1 that the caste status certificate produced by the petitioner has been issued by the Sub Divisionai J Officer, Baiher, District Baiaghat (MR) on 29-05-2003, therefore, the petitioner has been asked to submit a certificate issued by an authority in the State of Chhattiegarh. \ \ {3) Having heard teamed counsel for the petitioner this Court is of the opinion that the communication Annexure Pit only requires the \petitioner to submit documents in proof of her caste status which the l l/ l l l e petitioner is required to satisfy before the issuance of order of appointment on the post of Supervisor. (4) Counsel for the petitioner, reiying on the judgment rendered by i-ion'bie the Supreme Court in the case of Sudhakar Vitha! Kumbhare Vs. State of Maharashta and others reported in MR 2004 SC 1036 has urged that since his caste status i.e. Gond Scheduled Tribe is inciuded in the oonstitutionai order appticabie to the State of Madhya Pradesh as weii as to the State of Chhattisgarh she is entitted to benefit of reservation, however when the petitioner appeared before the respondent No. 3 for scrutiny of her caste status, the said authority refused to examine the issue. (5) Having heard teamed counsel for the petitioner this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that if the petitioner approaches to the respondent No. 3 i.e. Chairman, High Power. Caste Scrutiny Committee, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, within a period of fifteen days, the said authority shaft scrutinize the petitioner's caste status. The petitioner shall aiso submit herself along with reievant documents before the respondent No. 2, who has issued the communication (Annexure Flt). (6) With this observation, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sdl- _ hant Kumar M‘sma Pras Judge \g