BEFORE THE M.P. STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENCH AT RAIPUR (M.P.) o.A. No. \ / CQ)>\ j/200g Qty/2g); gjg'yoy ‘ (M \‘// APPLICANT JAGMOHAN LAL BHARIAAged—37 Years S/o SHIVNATH BHARIA R/o Chhuri Khurd, Tehsil—Katghora Distt. — Bilaspur (M.P.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : (l) STATE OF M.P. Through: Secretary Adim Jati Avam Anusuchit Jati Kalyan Vibhag, Bhopal (M.P.) (2) Collector Bilasur (M.P.) (3) Block Education Officer, Pondi Uprora ‘ Distt. Bilaspur (M.P.) (4) Asstt. Commissioner Tribal Welfare andxDevelopment Bilaspur (M.P.) ORIGINAL APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE M.P. STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT 1985 ' ‘ p \\&( HRGH COURT OF CHHATTESGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice F'ritinker Diwakev} Writ Petition ($) No. 3182 0f 2005 PETIT$0NER Jagmohan La! Bharia VER$US RES?ONDENTS $tate 0f Madhva Pradesh and others Shri “a R. J. Jaiswal, counsei for the Detitioner. Shri A. V. Sridhar, PL fox' the State. WRIT PETIT‘ON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTH’UTmN OF NDLA cRbER (13.99.2011; Challenge in the present writ petiticn is to the order dated 07.041 999 (Annexure A—2) passed by the CoHector, Tribal Welfare and Deveropment, Bilaspur terminating the services of the petitioner and other simitarly placed 18 Assistant teachers. . 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that vide order dated 22.03.1988 (Annexure A-t) he was appointed as Assistant Teacher by District Co—ordinator, Tribai Weifare, for Collector, Bilaspur. The petitioner was seiecteci on the basis of his belonging to “Bharia” Tribe. According to the petitioner, he belongs to “Bharia” Tribe and to this effect a certificate was issued by the Naib Tahsildar, Katghora on 26.04.1985 (Annexore A47). From the record it appears that on 15.02.1999 a show-cause notioe (Annexure R-4) was issued to the petitioner by the Additionat Collector, Bilaspur asking the petitioner to show-cause as to why his services be not terminated, as upon enquiry, it was found that the petitioner procured government employment on the basis of false certificate of his belonging to “Briana” tribe whereas, the petitioner’s caste is “Bhoria” a sub caste of caste "Koshta" mainly engaged in the vocation of weaving. it has further been stated in the said show-cause that the petitioner is liable to be punished under Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966, in addition to \\ _a—- criminal action, In response to this the petitioner submitted various documents before the competent authority to establish the fact that he belangs to “Bharia” tribe. The petitioner has pieced his rehance on the documents (Annexure A—S to A-35) in order to demonstrate that a valid and proper caste certificate was issued in his favour by the competent authority. 3. By the impugned order dated 7.4.1999 the services of the petitioner along with 18 Assistant teachers have been terminated by hoiding that the expianation of the petitioner was not found satisfactory and it was found that the petitioner falsely ctaimed himself as a “Bharia” tribe whereas he does not belong to the said tribe. By the same order, the Collector ordered to register criminal ease against the petitioner. According to the petitioner: against the termination order, he preferred a representation dated 20.04.1999 (Annexure N35), however, no action was taken by the competent authority on his representation. 4. Counsei for the petitioner. argued that the entire proceedings being undertaken without due consideration of material pieced on record by the petitioner are iiiegai, without jurisdiction and in utter vioiation of principles of naturai justice. It is also argued that in view of the iudgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ku. Madhuri Patti and another v. Additional Commissinner, Tribal Deveiopment and others, AIR 1995 3.6. 94, the Collector or his sub-ordinates had no authority to hold and enquiry into the caste status of the petitioner as the State Level Caste Sdrutiny Committee alone had jurisdiction and competence to hcld‘such an enquiry and give a declaration regarding the actual status of the petitioner. In his submission, if at all, there was any such complaint, the matter ought to have been referred to the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee for enquiry which has not been done. 5. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner procured appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher which was reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate. though the \\C ,3— !t is submitted that the government issued an order on 29051998 (Annexure R-3) to the Conector, Biiaspur to take action against those who are falsely claiming status of “Bharia” tribe in Katghora area of the District. By the said order, the Collector was directed to take action for cancellation of caste certificate issued in favour of those persons who belonged to “Bhoria”, sub-caste of caste “Koshta” but obtained false certificates declaring them as belonging to “Bharia” tribe. Thereafter, the $ub Divisionai Officer (Revenue), Katghora submitted a report on 29.10.1998 (Annexure R-1) to the Commissioner wherein it was stated that 19 cases of such false claim were found. A list of 19 persons whom the S.D.O has found not belonging to "Bharia" tribe, was annexed along with the said enquiry report dated 29-10-1998 (Annexure 'R-1). This included the name of the petitioner also. Thereafter, the Commissioner‘ Bilaspur directed the Collector vide his memo dated 30— 01-1999 (Annexure R-2) to take action against those 19 Assistant Teachers by terminating their services, who falsely obtained the caste certificate. lt is submitted that a show cause notice was given to the petitioner and after giving him proper opportunity of hearing and coming to the conclusion that the petitioner did not belong to the “Bharia” tribe, his services were terminated. petitioner did not belong to "Bharia" tribe. 6. l have considered rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. it is no longer res integra, in view of the settled legal position that the jurisdiction to determine caste status vests only with the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted under the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of Ku. Madhuri Patti (supra). if there was any doubt or complaint with regard to caste status of the petitioner, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent-Collector to refer the case of the petitioner to the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee for consideration and not to usurp jurisdiction to decide the issue, for which, he had no competence. \ a? \ ._ 1p— 8. Consequentiy, i am unable to uphold the impugned order of termination dated 7.4.1999 (Annexure A—2) passed by the Conector, Bilaspur and the same is declared mega! and is hereby set aside. The respondent—Collector is directed to refer the case of the petitioner to the State Levei Caste Scrutiny Committee for determination of petitioner’s caste status. The Coiiector shall make such reference to the State Levei Caste Scrutiny Committee at the eariiest and not tater than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. if it is ultimately found‘ that the petitioner belongs to “Bharia” tribe, respondents shall reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits pay, perks and seniority. As the petitioner is out of employment since 7.4.1999, it is directed that the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee shall conclude its enquiry in the case of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and all endeavour shall be made to complete the same within a period of six months subject to co- operation by the petitioner. 9. in View of foregoing, the petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Sdl— Pritinker Diwaker Judge :