Ham! ceum- OF cHmxTTi$GARH§ BMSPUR wfit Fesiiion (s; Na. éeagiofzws < ‘ Veer Bahadur Sin‘g‘n, S/o. Shri Tutsi Prasaci, aged about 40 years, Assistant Engineen Public Heaith Engimeermg Depar*:msnt, Sub Dwisien —— Narayanpur, Distrki’t Bastar (CG) ’Uit; itioner Versus espondents 1) State of Chhatéisgarh, through Secretaw Department of PubHc Health Engineering: Id Mar’m‘ara‘fa, L I LLAS. H l/ nla anawafl I“ mEi'Qi)!‘ 5A5; lr‘I‘\ 2) Uccha Starwa Chhan‘oa’n Semi { in the maiier of SCJST Caste Certificate: *hreugh its Secretmv, Pt Ravi Shankar Viéhivavidyelaya Pariga}, Paipur {(12). CiNrii Petition under Ai‘ticie 226 of the Conetitution 0f indie) $3: i-ion’bie wit. Satisi1 K. Agnihatri, J. Present; Shii Suniiotwani: counseiforthe petitioner. Shri UNS Dee, , Govt. Advocate forthe Staie. ORAL ORBER (Passed on 28-3-2w83 With consent of iearneoi counsel appearing for boin the paniies, ”the maiter is heard finaiiv. 2‘; Learned counsei appearing for‘the petitioner submits inai on i'ne basis or” some compiaint, the respondent No.2 took up the matter to determine the caste of the petitioner. Learned oounsei turt‘ner submits that the impugned order dated 26-11-2007 (Annexure Pf’i), whereby the petitioner was deciared as not scheduied Tribe, beionging to Gond community, was passeci without foiiowing the o‘iota iaid down by Hon'bie the Supreme Court in severai decisions.‘ R @ aupport of tbelr o5am‘ A pubhc notes by beat of arum or any ethnr c0nv¢ment mode may be pubilshed In the mags 01 .Gcahy and if any perém or assouatior cpposes such a daim, an opptBr‘mniw to adduce evidence mav be given ti) himiit Affnr giving smh apportumtv eMer m aerscn 0r fbraugh counse t'k Cammmee way maKe such mqmry as It deemc expemant and consmer me cka "ns vxs-a vis me yomectlms ratsed by ihe candidates or apponent and pa“ an appropriaie cm‘er with bri‘ef reasans iiw suppm theyggff‘ 4) Learned counse‘ appearing for the respondents/State submits that the case of i‘ne petiiioner is that he was not suppiied a copy of the report of t’ne vigiianoe officer while considering the case of the petitioner and passing the order Thus, the impugned order is contrary to judiciai pronouncements of the Supreme Court and bad in iawi The order indicates that the grievance of the petitioner is genuine/ Thus, the order may be quashed and the case may be referred to the respondent No.2 for considering the case, in accordance with guidelines iaid down by the Supreme Court in various judiciai pronouncements and pass an appropriate order. e”wet _ 5) in View of fair and reasonabie statement made by teamed oouhsei appearing for the respondents/State, the impugned order dated 26-11-2007 {Annexure Pit) is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.2 for deciding the case afresh in accordance with iudioiai pronouncements as weii as other guideiines or provisions of iaw and pass an appropriate order. 6) Acoordingiy, the petition is aiiowed to the above extent. No order as to costs. Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Raju *\