@ @ s i B c h n g i e e n 1 N T H E H O N ' B L E H I G H O U R T O F C H H A n I s G A R H A T B I L A s P U R ( c . G . ) ' ' ' ‘ ’ [ ‘ S m t . R a j n ‘ i h o u d h a r y ’ A g e d a b o u t 3 3 e a r s W / o S h r i B . S . o u a r y c 6 v 3 - 5 - t m C h d h e , A b - n g i n e e r , £ E P u b l i c W o r k s D e p a r e n t , B r i d g W o r k , S u b - D i v i s i o n R a i p u r ( C . G . ) t V E R s u s * L S t a t e o f C h h a t t i s g a r h w o “ T h r o u g h S e c r t a r y , ’ H i g r E d u c a t i o D e p a r t m e n M a n t r a l a y a , D . K . S . h a w a n R a i p u r , ( C . G . ) / . H i g h P o w e r C a s t e C e r t i f i c a e S c r u t i n y o m i t t e e , T h r o u g h V i c e P r e s i d e n t c u m D i r e c t o r , A d i m J a t i A n u s d h a n E v a m P r a s h i s h a n S a n s t , S t t o f C h h a t t i s g a r h , P t . R a v i s h a n k a r S h u k l a U n i v e r s i t y P r m i s e s , R a i p u r ( C . G . ) { V 3 / P r e s d e n t i S c h e d u l e C a s t e / S c h e d u l e T r i b e A y o g , P t . R a v i s h a n k a r S h u k l a U n i v e r s t y C a m p u s , R a i u r ( C . G . ) , c . 4 . P r i n c i p a l G o v e r n m e n t G a j a n a n d A g a r W a l P o s t G r a d u a t e l l e g e , B h a t a p a r a , D i s t r i c t - R a i p u r ( C . G . ) / W . P . S N o . . . § . . . . i . . / 2 0 0 9 C P E T I T I O N E R : y e R E S P O N g E ‘ T s : / m t e h e n t , B , t C m a n k h a n a e e / 2 7 a. i p C o @ @ P E T I T I O N U N D E R A K T I C L E 2 2 6 Q F T H E C O N S T I T U T I O N O F I N D I A F O R I S S U A N C E O F A P P R O P R I A T E W R I T S O F M A N D A M U S A N D C E R T I O R A R I A N D F O R O T H E R S U I T A B L E W R I I S A _ N D D I R E C T I O N S : - X I — H C — 7 8 w k m g m m m ( u ) W W W W W ‘ @ m 2 0 0 g a m m m a a m m w W a z a i m m ( 5 . 3 : H o n ’ b l e S h r i s a i i s h K . A g n i h a i r i , J . ) ” £ 8 2 0 1 0 C o m m o n o r d e r h o s b e e n p a s s e d i n W . P . ( S ) N o . 3 3 3 8 o f 2 0 0 7 ( D i n e s h K u m o r B h a g o r i c v . S f o f e o f C h h m ‘ t i s g a r h & O f h e r s ) i n c l u d i n g f h i s p e f i ’ r i o n . S d / - ‘ S a t i s h K . A g n i h o t r i J u d g e l ~ ~ \ ‘ Hl©NGQURTQF:©HhlArTIS(3ARHl:BILASPUR WRn'RETI-riON(©lN0.33380F:2007 RttlTlQNEK ^ Binesh KumarBhagoria Versus ga®fG>Nt:)EIMTS StateofGhhattisgarh^&Qthers ,^s': •^w' K, ^sti1 ;,& :'And'11. . ! • :.. , : , ';;,. 1 W.P. 4951/2005, ;W.P.(C) 68/2007, W.P.(C) -187/2007, W.P.(C) 6146/2007, W.P.(Q) 22'72/2008, W.P.(C) 2275/2QQ8, W.!:'.(G) ll@43/2QO§,W.P.(S) 2889^007, W.P.(S) 3367/2D07, VV.P.(S) 3881^007, W;P.(S) 3698/2007,^^^ W^ ^.N7/20Q7, • W.P.(S), 7272/2007, W.P,(S) 2679/2008, ';W.P.(S} 3gg@/g008,V W.P.(S} 40^ 4@ iy|3Q®r;W.P:(S) 5808/200 :1783/1QQ@,^ W.P,(S).. ^44/2009,^ ^.f3.(S),3040/2m^^^ 3lt1/aOQS, W.F.(S^ 5@17/2I30S,:? / ::- ' ' :: . ' .,.:'-: •,:-:./:1^ •:•.:•.• :x ! : ••:1:'. .:1. PostfcirpronouneemehtQftheordersQnthe/^dayofAugust,2Q^ Sd/- SatishK. Agnihotri ^^:'r3ud@e :h i1 l>-ii>>: 9: M HI©HCOUF^T' Ql? GMl-IAtTISOARH : BILASPUR WRITF>6TITI©M(M) 3.3338 QF 2007 BRTJTiaNBR DineshKumaFBhagoria. V^rSus''', • ' • ' tBfiRflJfflgMTl gtgteef^hhg'ttisgarh&Qthers , WRlT'.[smi!lflNNQ..A85iaPilOOS EBnnflMSS ©h^neti-sMhekharKotariwar lilSlQNKBN'rS RETltiahlEB ^BiSIWBEN-l-t Versus . „ . @tete ©fOtihattisgarh & Othere WRIT PETITIQN (G) NQ.6S OR 2007 YashwantBhal Chandra Somaw^r '.VeFsus :1 . , ' ;. ' StateofQllhattiSgarh&Oth&rs WRIT PETITIQN (G)NQ.187 OF 2007 ftBTin^NER RupfamBaiga Vsrsus ISBaB^NGEhJTg ©ortimissioner, Adim Jati Tatha Anusuchit Jati Vikas & Another ^•-if WRIT R'ETlTiaN (C) NQ.6145 QF 2007 PBTtTIQlyER- Ohhattisgarh Chattri Safflaj . Versus St&te of©hhattisgarh& Anether SBttPdMBENTg. t-6( ;., :1 -:M 3-fiz- "fip1 »: ,.V:.L ^ *-• WRITIaETlTIQMf!3lM0.^27t©1320Q8 RKtlTlQNER ®8njay@omawar Vgrsus:'. ," ':" '1: • tt sB©N&tiyi"S State of (3tttiattisaarh & Others WRITPET13"IC)N;fC)N!3.22?'SQF20Q8 Tifl@NER Sfiit. Pratibha Somawar "'Versus ' ;, ' ~. ;: ,:' : §tdte©fChhattisgarh & pthers PBtlTIQNER RfigRMBBNTt WRIT I'ETITKaNtB') N0.3043 2009 . Rajesh Singh Arya ' 'Versus : :' .:.: ; "' ' . ':' :. ', ThgStateofChhattisgarh&Others WRIT PETITI^N 1 NQ;2889 ©F2Q07 PBTITIONER Ku. Rita ®ingh !lE@RaNl3ENTS Versus BfateefGhtiatfisgarh&Qthei-s WRITPETlTION(SyNC:>.3367'QF2007 PEIITtQNER Sunil KunnarSonkusare tEtF'Qt'ilDteNtS Versus StateofChhattisgarh&Others WRITPETIT]©IM;t®1NQ.3391OF2007 R6TITIQNER tfin^sh KumarSonkusare KBaFtQMESttN-rB Versus ' . @tateofChhattisgarh&©th6rs ; /'S& « i£i ;-K WRIT PETITION (gy N0,3698 OF 2007 PBTITIQNER §hambhuPrasadNishad ftBSBQNDENTS Versus SNte of Ghhattisgarh & Others WRIT MTlTiaM (S) MQ.4106 QF 2007 BaTII'lQKBft Bhuwan @ekat6 &EaislC3Nl3iNTS Wrsus State of Chhattisgarh& Qthers WRITPETn-IQN (SVNQ.4147 OF2007 EfiXlIlQNEfi PravihNimje Versus ftBStQNOKWB ©tat^af ChhEittisgarh & Others WRIT PETIT10 (§1N0.7272 OF 2007 RSTlTiaNER Smt.ManjuTudu Versus REgF'ONiaENTB ®tateofCshhattisgBrh &0the WRITF'mTIQN^) N0.2679 QF 2008 EBTmQNER Dashrath Dekate nB§F'£31SJB@NTS Versus State Qovt. of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT(PETITIC3N(S) N0.3266 OF 2008 RiBtlTlQNER AnuragLal Versus , BBfiPQM@gNl§ StateofChhattisgarh&Others 'Z-fi3 '2-6 t) % ^ .£ WRI'Tl3ETITia (%NQ.40g10F20Q8 13Btm©NffiR ArnritNand MBffQWENT® VgFSUS• ®tateof Chhgttisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (S) N0.4620 QR 2008 ISKTlTlffNfi^ KarrfalKUmarMahDyr •ftB8i@ffiSN:T-g Versus • • - . aNsoffhhaftisgsrh&Gthers RBT-n-IOMEIS WRITI3ETITIG)N(S)NCN6210F2008 NarlnitaGorakh ^BttWlSIBBNlt" Versus gteitg of Ghhattisgarh & Qfhfers RBTiTlQNtB WRITPETlTl©N(mN0.56Q8©F2008 Surya Nath Ram BiEgPONDENTg Versus BtateQfGhhaittisgarh&Othere HttTlTIONER WRIT PET'lTietMi'gyMQ. 1316 OF 2009 @mt. Rgjrii Choudhary MB®l©hlE3ENTg Versus Stste of GhHattisgarh & Others PETITIQMER WRjt PETITlBNfSI N0.1703 OF 2009 Mahenclrsi Kumar Uke g6api3Nl3ENTS Versus Stelt&tifChhattisgarh&AnotHer :^ ^. .•."s •e^- RETITIiQNBR iESRDhlBENTg WRffiRETITIQN (Sy NQ.2644 OF 2009 Dr. Elveeha GraceToppp VerSus gtate of Ghhattisgarh & Qthers WRITP6T'lTl©N(S;)N(3.30*0 QP 2009 Bfill33flNB& •: , ; F'fadeeFiXuniar Arya , ' Versus:'.! '.; .• :1. ,..'1 .''.• The^tateofGhhattisgarh&Qthers tBSNQNGElslTg i9ETITlQNER ttBfiffiMlEhM WRIT F'EtlTlQN (Sl N0.3191 OF20Q9 Ram Kishore Mirja VgFSUS ! • §tsit®of Chhattisgarh & Othgrs WRITPETITIQN(a)MC3.4360F201Q egTTUSNEg ' Dr. Mukesh KumarMahor BBfiPQNBENTS Versus''•,., • •• :::. ;:;' StateofChhattisgarh&Qthers '2-6$' ..f: WRITI3ETITIQN(£;yNQ.6135QF2006 PETITIQNER Neire&h KumarDhruwanshi ftKila©NE3ffiN1~i§ Versus Mirh Jati Tatha Anusuchit Jeiti VikaS&Another -:And • ."•-..: : .,;:.:•:.'•:• WRITPETITION N0.5517 OF 2005 PBTITIQNER Mrs. Raohna Naidu gfiIRQNBtNTS Versus, , : StateofChhattisgarh&Others F^; • • WSSK-s -:- .@ ./^r-' 'A' '; - •^ •^/: (Wrlt petitioHs underArticlS 226/227 oftl-ieConstitutionoflndia) 8ing]eBenoh:Hon'bla0tiri8atishK.Agnihotri,J. ^TOsent:- Shri Kishore Shrivastava & Sliri K.A. Ansari^ Senior Advocates with Shrl Ashish Shrivastava, Shri S. Tamrakar, Shri Akhilesh Dalpati, SlTri DeverTdra Patel, Shri Harsh Wardhan, Shri Anll Singh Rajput, Shri Parag Kotecha, Shri P. Sam Koshy, §hri N.N. Roy, Shri Ranbir Singh Marhas, Shri L.C. Dash.Shri Sunil Otwani, Shri Vihay Pand^y, Shri Anup MajUrridar, §hri Jitendra Pali and Shri Mateen Siddique, Adveoates for the respeetive petitiQners. ®hri A.S. Kachnwaha, Deputy Advocate General with. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Deputy Gdvernment Advocate for the State. • : Shn Amrito Das, AdvOGate appearing as amicus curiae. , ORDER , (Delivered on thjs Jj^ay pfAugust, 2010) 1. W.R.(S) 3338/2007,W.P. 4981/2005, W.P.(C) 65/2007, W.P.(C) 187/2007, W.P.(C) 6145/2007, W.P.(C) 2272/2008, W.P.(C) 2278/2008, VV.P.(G) 3043/200@, W.P.(S) 2889/2007, W.P.(S) 3387/2007, W.P.(S) 3391/2007, W.P.(S) 3698^007, W.P.(S) 4106/2007, W-P.(S) 4147/2007, W.P.(S) 7272/2007, W.P.(S) 2879/2008, W.P.(§) 3206/2008, W.P.(S) 4051/2008, W.P.(S) 4620/2008, W.P.(S) 4621/2008, W.P.(S) 5608/2008, W.P;(S) 1316/2009, W.P.(S) 1703/2009, W.P.(S) 2644/2009, W.P.(S) 3040/20Q9, W.P.(S) 3191/2009, W.P.(S) 436/2010, W.P.(C) 6136/2006 andW.P. N0.8617/2005, involve thesame question df l8w and common factsand, assuch, they arebeing disposed of by this common order. 2-£& iL-e^- iffl. feS *^,t^' •-.-"^pr ^ ^ •^; -^'^ The faets, in nutshell, involved jn the individual petitions, are that: .' '. '..: .! . ••": 1'". ~; , ; : 1 •' ' •1 . (!) W.mS);N@.3338'Qf2007 • The petitiorler seeks a WFit quashing the impugned QFder dated 25-6-2007, wh^rsbyit has been found that th® oaste certificate^ ^ favour af the 'pe'titioner, was Wrong. Thus, the caste certificat& was E|uaShed and the appointment of the petitioheF on the post eif Assistant Engineer against the" reserved quota was canGelled. It was dir^eted to teke aGtiQn in aeODrdance wittt law fdr obtaining wrong caste certiflcate. The impugned Eirderwas stayed bythis Court :v - ; • •' . '. ' :• videQrderdated 1®-06-2007; Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned sehior coynsel appearing as lead eounsel, woulcf submitthatthevigilanceehquiry as requiredundertheguidelinesissyedbytheSupremeCourt in Kurnsri Msdhuri Patil ahd another v. Addl. CQmmissloniQr, Thbal Osvelopmehf and others reiteratecl \nDifectorofTribslWelfare,QovBmmentofA.P: v. Lavett ©tfyand Anotliei2 have not been complied with in its letter . and spirit, as thgre wasno vigilanTO cell in ex^ the ehquiry was (sondUGtey thrbugh the Su|:)erintendeht of Police, Bilaspur, who had sent an Inspector to g6 to the place of birth of grgndfather of the petitioner and oh the. 4 (1894)6SCG241 4§QC32 . T-6 & 1,..» "c, ^ basis of certain alleged doouments collect^d from the school, has c&me to tha conclusion that the petitipnerdid not belong to "Dhefba" ©cheduleTritie eommunity, thus ths Qrder passed by-the High Rower©asteScrutiny Cornmittee (f(3rshOH:°the©oiTimittee'')wasbad;andilEega^^^^ ;, (ii) W.P. fGI.Ngs. 6§Qf2QQ7,2275 of 2008, 2272 0^2008 & W.P. a..A^\M2SQS. •;./.. In these cases, nQ ffiport ©fthe yigilance egll was supplied t@ the petitioiners tft put forward their respeotive cases. Thus, the impugned orders passed by the CQmnnittee are bad; illegal and not suStainable in fhe eye of law. ln..suppprt Qf .tils Gont^ntipn, learned CQunsel plaeed relianGe uponthedeeision QfthfeSuprfemeCourt.Fenderecl iri Shantidevl Katnaleshkun'iar Yadav y. .gtate of Maharashfra &others^. C\ause e of Ku.-Madhuri Patil (supra) further directs for a public tiotiee by beat ofdrum for the purpose of opposing gny claim made by ttie Gandidate which has nfit beeri complied with in any of the case. The Committee has further failed to obnsidsr all the clocuments in suppprt of .. ' social status filed by the'petitioners that alsc) vitiates the enc|uiry,aswellastheirnpugnedprder.? Learned eQunsel als0:plaeed reliariGe upon the deeision of the Supceme Court rendered in -Sayanna v. .State . of S8GE718 s ^' ^ Mahara&htra and Other^ and GM, Indian Barrk v. R. Rani andAnothei9. In the event, itis found that the report of the Vigilanee Cell w8s procured or fraudulently obtglned the Director Can taKe the further action in accordance with clause@ of the cjireetiori issued by the Supreme Caurt. It is fyrther subrnitted that all the docyments of pre-constitution, have probatiye value and, as such, the same would be treated to be an authentic one that has not been done in the cases on hand. In W.P. (C) No. 4951 of 2005, the impugned order was passed an 29-03-2008: In this case, it appears that the authorities after having considered the d&cyments submitted by the petitioners with regard to gotra, cultuFe and tradition have not held the investigation as cantemplated underolayse 6 ofthe guideline issued by the Supreme CQyrt in . Maef/it/o /3aff/ (supra) ancl came to thg conclusion that the caste certificate issued to the petitionerwas notc6rreet and acGOrdingly, the appointment order was canoelled and further action was direoted to be initiated against fhe petitioner. According to the learned CQunsel appearing for the petitioner, the father 6f the petitiQner was born in the year 1910 at Bilaspur and the petitioner was born at Nagpur in the year 1954. Before reorgahization of the State, father of &-A^ 10 SCC 268 12SGC796 io s-^-b '^ .:& :«'<'- th®petitioner has beeh siffed'to Bilaspurin the year 1850 jtself.LearnedGounselfyrthersubmitsthatthereportofthe vigUance enquiry was not supplied to the petitioner along wifh the shQwcause hotioe. With reQard tothe dOGuments SuBrnitted bythe petitioner, the Gornmittee having not been satisfied with the doCuFnents, rejected the claim 6f the petjtioner of being gchedyled TribeCQrnmunity. In ffiese cases i.e.W.P.(e;)Nos. 6S;6f 2007, 2275 of 2008, 2272 of 2008 &W.P; N6. 4951df 2006, the impugned ordere passed by the responclent authprities were stayed by this Court On 19-01-2007, 22-04-2008, 22-04-2008 & 7-1Q-20QSrespeetiv^ly. , > (iii); ;.W.P.(CyN6.187Qf2Q07 , The petitioner belongs to "Baiga" community as notified, it isQmeswithirt the Scheduled Tribe category, Ttie petitifiner was app&inted on the post of Sub Enginger in Irrigation Departnnent oh 31-10-1994; Onacomplaintofsomeother person, an enquiry was conducted by the Superintendgnt of Police, Janjgir-Champa. Showcause notice was issued fo the petitioner without supplying a copy of th6 vigilance report, which acGCirding to the respondents was agaihstthe petitioner. Thus, the impugned order pags^d thereon was illegal, arbifrsiry and ag'ainst principles of natural justice. TheimpugnedorderdSted 11-12-2006 wasstayedbythis Courtvide order dated 01-03-2007. 11 -^M ,.® <§tf< '•^' (N) W.R.(Sy;MQS.:32!@7&33g4fif200'7 ' ^ ^' ehallenge ih thgge pgtitions •is to the orders dated 26-02-2QQ7and 28-03-2007, respectively.Thepetltioners claim that they belong to "Halba" ccjmmunity. The yRStitioners ai^: regidenfs Qf'BalagHat; ; T'he Committee . . . cancelled the .c^stt C8ffifJGate'!Qf the petitioners on the grQund .that •tha •Sgtjtjoners have failed to -procluee the' dpcumentstc:iestgll3lishthefaetthattheybelongtQ"Halba" eommunity. 'Thsy, ir( fast, beldng to ''Koshti" Gornmuhity. The yigilianoe enquii'y Was cQnducted through the ©Uperintendetrtof PQlJce, Balagliat; There is no mention of anynQtice^Qrsi.ipp'lyQfreportofthevigilanceenquirytothe petitioner as ^required i-inder tiie direction/guideline issued by the Sypreme (Sourt in Ku. Afei^urf Paffl (^ easte Gertificates were issued tQ the petitioners by the Najb Tahsildar, Rajnahdgapn on 27-Q7-19&5 & 31-05-1996 respectivsly. Tliis Court by orders dated 11-12-2007 and 26-11-2QD7, stefa/s (?ye> with regard to service of the ^ petitioners was granted. (v) VV.^.(GyN]B.@-t3i5-Qfi200B . ' In this case, thg caste certificate dated Q3-03-1994 issued by the Tahsildai-, Takheitpur, Distriet-Bilaspur holding the petitioner as "Gond" .Scheduled Tribe, was under vBrificatiQn before th6 Corhmiftee. The enquiry was Gonducted through th& Superintendent Qf Pplioe, aMaa—./ ^ '.7^" -t' 12 rt-^s Balrampur, Surguja. Thereafter, it was got done by the vigilance InspeGtorefthe Committee. AccOrding to the leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, the vigilance report was not supplied along with the show eause notiee th&ugh opportunity was afforded to thg petitionertci prodyoe documents. Thus, there was ho compliance df the dlreotions/guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Xu. Maefftur; Paffl (supra). The petitioner is working as DistriSt Prosecution Offieer, KaWardha, District-Kabirdham.ThisCourtbyorderdated 03-01-2007 gr&nted interim arder infavour of the petitioner. (Vi) W.P.No:5617of20Q6 In this case, ttie east^ csrtificate dated 14-05-1 990 issued bythe Tahsildar, Raigarh holding the petitioneras "Chhfitri" Scheduled Tribe, was under verification before the Committee. The enquiry was conducted through the Superintendent df ppliee, Bilaspur. According to the learned eounsel appearing for the petitioner, the vigilanGe report was not supplied along with the show Gauseneitioe though opportunity was afforcled tci the petitioner to produoe documents. Thus, there was no GOlnpliance of the clirections/guidelines issued by the Supreme Court iri Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra). The petitioner is working as Leoturer. This Court by order dated 21-11-2005 granted interim order in favour of the petitioner. W' T l5! . jr r 'WSf ^ •tf^' 13 (vli) W.P. (Sy NQ. .S698 of 2J3QZ In this casg.theoastessriificat&dated 05-02-1981 issued bythe NaibTahsildar, SyrgjpuF, District-Surguja I'loldingthe petitioner as ''IVIanihi" Scheduled Tribe, was under - ysrification Befbre the Gemhrtittee. The ehquiry was QQnducted thFOygh Ihe SUFierintendent of Police, Surguja. :, ;•: , : :. , , ,,. : .,• : , : ,, ;, • AQCording to the learned ceunsel appearing for the petitioner, the vigjlgrtGe re)aort was^hot supplied along^^w^ the show oayse notioe though opportunity was afforded to the petiticinerto produce clocurnents. Thus, there was no cempliance g^ .•SupremeC(3UrtinKy.fttec un/^ffl(suRra).Thepe^^^^ is working as Leeturer. This Court by ordgr dated 27-06-2007 granted interim prder in favour Qf the petitioner. . • ~ W.P. (GyN©;61A5M2Q07 This petition filecj by GhhattisgarK Chattri Samaj seeking quashing of ordersdated 29-08-2005 (Annexui'e P/1) passed by the ?CQmmitt6e in Fespect of Chandrashekhap KotriwarandtheQrderdated 04-12-2006 (Annexure P/2) pgissed by the Ceninlittee in respect of Yashwant B. Somawar, Further, declaratipn thdt the Committee has wrongly held that 'Chattri' asub-easte of'Kawar'. NDorder ean be passed in ttiis petitiori 6n two coynts i.e. firstly; the impugned ordeFS are passed in respect of individuals on Z^3 ^.3g: ';^^'.''" .»R^ 'l*^' f5: ^T;- (X) 14 2-^ vBrifiGatiGin of the easN oertifieates. Thys, the individuals alone are cpmpetent tb .qyesfion the ,same,< not .an assoeiation and secQnd/y; the individyals have alreaclyfiled separate Reti(ion$ ti'npugning th®orders passed by the Rcjmmittee! against them. W.P.(S^,NQ..4621iflf2QOS ,. • r. , ^ '. Gnevance of the? petitiorier, in this petition, is that the GQ'rnmittee deGljnedto^erif^thscasteeertificat^iSsued iii favow of ttie petitjoner On the groynd ;that no dcicument prior to 10-08-I^SOwas made available. Having regai'd'to th®above-stated facts, noapplication can be declined on the basis of hpn-availabillty of certain elQeuments Before 1950, as it has bgen held by the Sypreme CourtthatthedoGumentsalonecgnnptbetreSited gs material to verify facts, Thei'e are certain;other aspects, which are reqyir^d to fcie.seen and examined. In view of foregQing, if an applicaticm js rnade^by the petitioner for verification of his social status beforg th® GQmmitt^e, the Gofnmjttee eannot deoline to entertain the applicatioi'i on the above-stated reasons. W.P.(Sy.4626.Qf2008 . : ,.—: . ; • , : Challenge iti ffiis petltion is to .the prder dated Q7-08-2QOg (Annexure'R/1) passed by •the Direotor^te of EconomicsandgtatisticswheFebythepetitionerhasbeen asked to prpduc®the caste cgrtificate duly yerified hy the Cornmitteeonwhichthe petitiQnerisrelying. : :iS?f?^&ft£iE!£&£dEl£riE^y3^.TwS.fc^^j^^^^?§^f^^3y^;(^^i£- ^ f W) 15 It has been made clear in Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra) ttiat the candidate should make anapplication for verificatiQn of the caste QertifiGate before the Committee. Thys, the order clirecting yeriflQation of the easte certificate cannot be quashed, at this stage. If is ihformfeel by trte respondent/State that the appllcation dated 04-08-2008 submitted by the petitioner was eonsidered by the Committee and by order dated 22-09-2008 (Annexure R/2) it was found that the petitioner does not belong to 'Koli' community. The subsequent order dated 22-09-2008 is not under ohallenge in this petition. Thus, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. In view of foregolng, the prayer ofthe petitioner to consider hjs application for verification and declare him that the petitioner belongs to 'Koli'cflmmunity i.e. Seheduled Tribe cslnnot be issued in this petition. Particularly, when the Committee considered and passed theorder on merits and thesame isnptimpugned in this petition. W.P.(S)No. 3206 of 2008 Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 26-Q5-20Q8 (Annexure P/1) passed by e Committee wherein caste certificatedated 28-06-1989 issuedbythe Sub DivisiQnal Officer, Bilaspyr holding the petitibner as 'Gond' Scheduled Tribe community was under consideration, The Conrtmittee tield that fhe petitidner did o-^-s" »^rw--i^''H:;*,tf9'sss,g!S5,*!C!SStS!Sl<^£g^^^^^ ,^ i^ \^v 1S not belpng'tQ '©srid'GGimrnunity, as He was ''Telenga''frarn State pf AnctKra Rradesh. The inyestigafiQri was dohe by the Superintendent of Pblice, Bilaspur tiolding that the petitioner belQngs to Soheduled Tribe Gommunjty, as is evident from Annexure P/9; Thus, under Clsiuse 6 of the diFecrtion/guideline ifcsued by the Sypreme Coyrt in ^ Atetfhuff Paff/ (supra)^ ho furtlier actioh was neG6ssary. Show causei notiefe for aupply pf other materi^l by the petitiQner was not required and, as Such, the order pasSed by the Commlttse was bad io law and deservgs to be 'quashed. . :,1: ,.. . ..•'.•,. ' : ' :;, . W.P. (S) NQ. §191of2QB§ By this petition, the petitioner seeks a directlon te the respond^ht No.2 i.e. the Comrnittee to recognize/verify the caste^Gertifieate 6fthe:petitioner.' , There is nO ohallenge to any order passed by the Gbmmittee. It appggrs tliat there is no firaal order passed bytheCommittee. AcGordingly, the writ petltion is not rtiaintainable. However, jt is made clear;that if the application is filed by thfe petition^r fpr yerlfioation of the caste certifiGate, the same may be cdnsidered and decided by the Committee; in ^ecordanGewiththelawandinviewofthedireGtionsissuea by this Court in ofner Gonneeted matters. <^ fe- m :1^-;. H^': <ffFI "»-:ft AS? ^' -17 ^T- ;W.P..(S)NQ.,17'03 Qf:2QQ9 . . ^ • • -; - ', ; • By: this petition, :the petitiorier seeks a <:lirection''t0^ the ,respondenftN6.21.6.the'06mmitteetoreeoghize/verifythe caste certificate of (he petitionsr. ' Accordingtothspetitionsron 13-02-2009 heappeared befoFg the Ophlrnitfee and reqi-iested tHe Gommitfee to venfy his casfe certlfieate, but ths said pirayer has been refused Qri the ground that the petitioner ought t6 tTave producedthelaricli-eCQrcisGifth&y^rlSSO. Ther-e is ITO ehallehg® to &ny ord6r passed by the Gommittee. It appears that there is no firial order passed 'by::ttTe:-Comm:iftee.::••••-: ;•;-; -1 '; . •: .; -:. • •- ' , - . :- '11 • AccQrdjngly; (hewrit petition is notWaintainable.hlowever, it is made cleaF that If the application is filed by the p^titioner forveriflcatiQn of the easte certifiGate, the same msy be' consiclered and decided by the Gomiflittee, in aGcordancewiththelawandin vlewofthedireGti6hs;is6ued bythisCourtinoffiereonhectedmatters. Vt/.P.(Sy7272trf20Q7 The petitioner seeks to Ghallengethe legality and validity of theordei-dated 23-07-2007 (AnnexyreP/^ 5) wherebyand whereunderthe easfe certificatedated 06-04-1989 issued by the Tatisildar, Pendra Road, holding the petitioner as 'Uraon' §ehedufed Tribe was under verification. The investigation wa& eondycted by the St.iRerintendent of ,PQliGe,,B:ilaspur.'.. •' .'- ;v''^ ;-:;.-':" . 3^ .^R .1, '•v^ Sfi 18 Wlthout examination of the vigilance report and affording an