^- 4F^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition (0 No. 3058 of 2007 Suyash Noel Ranga Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others Postforpronouncementofthejudgmentand order on^9-4-2009 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge PET1TIONER HIGH COU^TOF CHHATTJSGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 3058 of 2007 Suyash Noel Ranga, aged about 23 years, S/o Praful Kumar Ranga, R/o Near P.H.C. Chickhalakasa, Dallirajhara, Distt. Durg (CG). RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through it's Secretary, Department of Adim Jati Tatha Anusuchita Janajati Vikas, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). Anusuchita Janajati Praman Patra Uchha Esatariya Chhanbin Samiti, through its President, Pandit Ravi Shankar Shukla Vishwavidayalaya Parisar, Raipur (CG). Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Science (CIMS), through its Dean, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchita Janajati Ayog, through its President, 61, Jalvihar Colony, Raipur (CG). Collector, Durg (CG). •r" (Writ petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri P.S. Koshy, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Alok Bakshi, Govt. Advocate for the State. JUDGMENT AND ORDER (Passed on this ^22_day of April, 2009) 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the order dated 9-4-2007 (Annexure - P/6) passed by the respondent No.2 whereby (/) the Scheduled Tribe caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner on the basis of "Damariya" caste has been cancelled; (/;) directing the Dean, CIMS, Bilaspur, to c.ancel the MBBS seat allotted to the petitioner on the basis of caste certificate of "Damariya"; and (///) directing the Collector to take action against ^ ^ r the petitioner and the authority who has issued false caste certificate in favour of the petitioner, as per rules. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 20-4-2007 (Annexure - P/7) passed by the Member Secretary and Commissioner of Jati Praman Patra Uchha Esatariya Chhanbin Samiti, Raipur, whereby the Dean, CIMS, Bilaspur, was directed to proceed in accordance with para 7.2 of the order dated 9-4-2007. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner being member of Scheduled Tribe "Damariya" applied for the caste certificate before the Sub Divisional Officer, Dondilohara, Distt. Durg and after following the due procedure, the caste certificate has been issued bythe Sub Divisional Officer,which is evident from Annexure - P/1. On the basis of the said caste certificate the petitioner obtained admission in MBBS course in the year 2004. According to the petitioner, some complaint was made by an unknown person against the petitioner mentioning that the petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Tribe category and he obtained the caste certificate in a fraudulent manner. On the basis of the said complaint, enquiry was conducted by the Collector in which the petitioner produced all the requisite documents as demanded by the authority concerned from time to time. In the meantime, another enquiry was initiated by the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog and in which it was found that the family members of the petitioner belong to "Damariya" caste by order dated 10-1-2007 (Annexure - P/4). However, the Anusuchita Janajati Praman Patra Uchha Esatariya Chhanbin Samiti, who was conducting enquiry against the petitioner, asked the petitioner to remain present on ^- --&• '» r 6. p 26-2-2007 along with certain documents by letter dated 15-2-2007 (Annexure - P/5). In pursuance ofthe said letter, the petitioner appeared and submitted the documents. According to the petitioner, no opportunity of hearing or submission of written submission was granted to him and passed the order dated 9-4-2007 (Annexure - P/6) with an observation that in the Dakhil-Kharij Register of Sha. U. Buniyadi Shala, Dondi of Aphl, 1952 (for short "the School Register, 1952") the caste of the father of the petitioner is mentioned as "tea/", therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the caste certificate on the basis of "Damariya" caste and subsequently order dated 20-4-2007 (Annexure - P/7) as mentioned in para 1 ofthisjudgment. Thus, this petition. Shri Koshy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that only after following the process of law the caste certificate has been issued by the Sub Divisional Officer. The enquiry was initiated by the Collector against the petitioner on the basis of a complaint made by an unknown person; however, the petitioner participated in the enquiry proceedings and has submitted the documentary proof in support of his contention. In the meantime, the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog conducted enquiry and found that the family members of the petitioners belong to "Damariya" caste, which is a Scheduled Tribe category and the caste certificate has been properly issued. Shri Koshy, learned counsel would further submit that in spite of the aforesaid facts only to harass the petitioner again enquiry was conducted by the Anusuchita Janajati Praman Patra Uchha Esatariya Chhanbin Samiti and in which also the petitioner submitted the requisite documents and appeared before the said Committee as and when directed. However, the said Committee without granting any \0 7. 8. 9. opportunity of hearing passed the impugned orders in an illegal, arbitrary manner and against the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel would next submit that the impugned conclusion arrived by the Committee is a clear case of arbitrariness and non-application ofmind. From the School Register, 1952 (Annexure - P/8), it appears that against the column No.4 (Jati Ya Dharam) the "religion" ofthe father ofthe petitioner mentioned as "/sa/" and "caste" is mentioned as "Damariya". Per contra, Shri Bakshi, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, would submit that the enquiry was initiated in respect of the caste of the petitioner on the basis of complaint made by Balram Dhangar, Panchayat Representative of Dondi Lohara, which was forwarded to the Collector for enquiry. The enquiry has been conducted in accordance with the rules after granting opportunity of hearing to the father of the petitioner and submitted the enquiry report dated 21-6-2005 (Annexure - R/1) by the Collector. The respondent No.2 proceeded with the matter in accordance with law. The petitioner has not submitted any documents or evidence before the respondent No.2 in which the caste of grand father and father of the petitioner has been mentioned as "Damariya". So far as non-grant of opportunity of hearing is concerned, it is submitted that on 26-2-2007 the petitioner appeared before the respondent No.2, submitted documents and signed the proceedings ofthe order sheet, which is evident from Annexure - R/2. The orders dated 9-4-2007 and 20-4-2007 have been passed in accordance with the rules. 1 have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that "Damariya" caste comes within the Scheduled Tribe community. In the School v^'s' •^.w^ 10. 11 Y'D'T^ Register, 1952 the father of.the petitioner i.e. Praful Kumar, S/o Gordhan has been shown belonging to religion Christian (/sa/) and caste Damariya. The impugned order i.e. Annexure - P/6 passed by the respondent No.2 states that the School Register, 1952 indicates the caste of the father of the petitioner as "/sa/" and on that basis the caste certificate issued by the competent authority i.e. the Sub Divisional Officer in favour of the petitioner was quashed. On perusal of the documents i.e. the School Register,1952 it appears that the finding recorded by the respondent No.2 is contrary to facts, as in the said register name of the father of the petitioner as student was mentioned as Praful Kumar, S/o Gordhan, against the column No.4 i.e. Jati Ya Dharam, religion was mentioned as Christian ("/sa/") and below the religion caste was specifically mentioned as "Damariya". It is not the case of the either parties that there is some manipulation in the School Register, 1952. Even othenA/ise, Christian ("/sa/") cannot be held as a caste, as it is a religion. In the State of Chhattisgarh several Scheduled Tribes have converted to Christianity and they are treated as STs for the purpose of constitutional benefits granted to them under various provisions of the Constitution oflndia. A Constitution Bench ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Principal, Guntur Medical College, Guntur and Others vs. Y. IVIohan Rao , observed as under: "7. The reasoning on which this decision proceeded is equally applicable in a case where the parents of a person are converted from Hinduism to Christianity and he is born after their conversion and on his subsequently embracing Hinduism, the members of the caste to which the parents belongs prior to their conversion accept him as a member within the fold. It is for the members of the caste to decide whether or not to admit a person within the caste. Since the caste is 'AIR 1976 SC 1904 ^£> 12. a social combination of persons governed by its rules and regulations, it may, if its rules and regulations so provide, admit a new member just as it may expel an existing member. The only requirement for admission of a person as a member of the caste is the acceptance of the person by the other members of the caste, for, as pointed out by Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J., in Durgaprasad Rao v. Sudarsanaswami, AIR 1940 Mad 513, "in matters affecting the well being or composition of a caste, the caste itself is the supreme iudae.: (emphasis supplied). It will, therefore, be seen that on conversion to Hinduism, a person born of Christian converts would not become a member of the caste to which his parents belonged prior to their conversion to Christianity, automatically or as a matter of course, but he would become such member, if the other members of the caste accept him as a member and admit him within the fold." A Bench of two Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others , observed that "the entries in the school register preceding the Constitution do furnish great probative value to the declaration of the status of a caste. Hierarchical caste stratification ofHindu social orderhas its reflection in all entries in the public records. What would, therefore, depict the caste status of the people inclusive ofthe school orcollege records." In para 15 further it was observed as under : "15.......The Committee which is empowered to evaluate the evidence placed before it when records a finding of fact, it ought to prevail unless found vitiated byjudicial review of any High Court subject to limitations of interference with findings of fact. The Committee when considers all the material facts and records a finding, though another view, as a court of appeal may be possible, it is not a ground to reverse the findings. The court has to see whether the Committee considered all the relevant material placed before it or has not applied its mind to relevant facts which have led the Committee ultimately record the finding. Each case must be considered in the backdrop of its own facts." (1994)63cc241 > / ir'-' •' ' ^SSSi- ^ ^••^''s^^ '".^, t;' 13. 14. 15. 16. oK Gowri In Gayatrilaxmi Bapurao Nagpure vs. State of Maharashtra and Others , the Supreme Court observed as under: "17.......By a wrongful denial of the caste certificate to the genuine candidate, he/she will be deprived of the privileges conferred upon him/her by the Constitution. Therefore greater care must be taken before granting or rejecting any claim for caste certificate." Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case wherein the respondent No.2 has failed to consider all the relevant materials placed before it and has further failed to apply its mind to the relevant facts. Admittedly, the School Register, 1952 indicates the religion of the father of the petitioner as Christjan ("feaf") and the caste as "Damariya", which has been notified in the .Presidential Order as Scheduled Tribe (ST). In view of the foregoing and for the reasons stated hereinabove, 1 am ofthe view that the respondent No.2 has committed error in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 9-4-2007 (Annexure - P/6) passed by the respondent No.2 and the order dated 20-4-2007 (Annexure - P/7) passed by the Member Secretary and Commissioner of Jati Praman Patra Uchha Esatariya Chhanbin Samiti, Raipur, are set aside. In the result, the petition is allowed. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnibotn Judge (1996)33cc685