BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR WP(S) No. .1? Xi/zon Petitioner: / Kum. Nitu Harit, Dlo Shri B.L. Harit, Aged about 3O years. R/O Katrai Raj, Dantewada, Dentawada Dist, CG State. Versus Respondents: 1. State of C.G.., S (4/ Thru: Secretary, Tribal Weifare Deptt., DKS Bhawan, Raipur CG State. /2. Secretary, General Administration Deptt, DKS Bhawan, Raipur CG State. 3. Dist Collector, Coiiectorate, Dantewada Dist, CG State. /4. Block Education Officer, Tribal Development Block, Dantewada, CG State. / 5. The Secretary, High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, DKS Bhawan, Raipur. CG State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APROPRIATE WRITIS) / ORDER (S) / DIREDCTION (S), ETC. 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER. As mentioned in the Cause Title. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S! NO. 1025 OF 2011 WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon’bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present :- Shri KRNair, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Dy. Advocate General for the State. ORDER ORAL (Passed on this 23' day of February, 201 1) 1, Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Block Education Officer, Dantewada, without ha'ving jurisdiction, has ' directed the petitioner to produce documents i.e. revenue records prior to 1951 within a period of 3O days‘ According to learned counsel for the petitioner, it is not possibie to produce records within 3O days. Thus, the respondents may be directed to accept the caste certificate produced by the petitioner, as genuine, tiii it is proved otherwise. 2. On perusal of the impugned notice dated 22.1.2011 (Annexure P-1), ex facie‘ it appears that the Biock Education Officer has not issued notice on his own, but the notice was issued on behait of the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee (for short ‘the Committee’), as is clear from the subject, wherein the petitioner was required to produce certificate. 3, Shri Nair, further submits that the petitioner has not received any notice from the Committee. 4. On the other hand, Shri Thakur, teamed counsei appearing for the State/respondents suhmits that it is not ciear asto whether the appiication was made before the Committee for verification, as Petitioner Kum‘ Nitu Harit Resgondent @ required in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court as well as this Court in several decisions. Even if, the case is pending before the Committee, the Committee ought to have issued a notice directly to the petitioner not through the Block Education Officer. 5. Admittedly, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner has not made any application, as he has been working for the last 2 1/2 years without requirement of verification of the caste certificate issued by the competent authority. 6. Be that as it may, the certificate issued by the competent authority is required to be verified by the Committee. The other authority including the Block Education Officer has no competence to issue notice and call for production of documents. lf there is any doubt or dispute with regard to the caste certificate, the matter may be referred to the Committee and the Committee shall do the needful in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhun’ Patil and another v. Add]. Commissioner, Tribal Development & others’ as well as this Court in Dinesh Kumar Bhagon’a v. State of Chhattisgarh » I s & othersz and other connected matters. l. 7. in view of foregoing, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order Sd/—‘ Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ashok asto costs. '7 t (1994) 6 SCC 241 ‘ W.P.(S) No.3338 of 2007 decided on 19.8201 0.