C^- Sff^ ^. IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Vi^^ W.P. (CLUo. ^?€ J_8^^G/0 PETITIONERS 51B*" \f'..--"J&-- .?1,.--YV .,\/l%%^ '..•^y^y ^ ^-^^ .^\-^Q7,y ^' .-••' y RESPONDENTS <s"ei 1. Dr. Hitendra Bansode, S/o Dr. Y. C Bansode, aged about 25 years, R/o Near Old Power House Gate, CSEB Colony, Gudiyari, Raipur (C.G) 2. Dr. Akshay Bansode, S/o Dr. Y. C Bansode, aged about 30 years, R/o Near Old Power House Gate, CSEB Colony, Gudiyari, Fiaipur (C.G) 3. Jitendra Bansode, S/o Dr. Y. C Bansode, aged about 25 years, R/o Near Old power House Gate, CSEB Colony, Gudiyari, Raipur (C.G) V E R S U S 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through its Director (Research), C.aste Certifieate High Level Scrutiny Committee, Scheduled Caste and Training Institute, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University Campus, Raipur (C.G) ?. "^'^^ \.]U^~'f^ °-M let-£> , ^s-oi o • ^ s^tl (,l/~s-"a."a.-?-ol° \^-.o9-' 2. State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Mantralay, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Dr. T.K Vaishav, S/o Not known the Petitioners, Member & Director (Research), Caste Certificate High Level Scrutiny Committee, Scheduled Caste and Training Institute, Pt. k Ravishankar Shukla University Campus, Raipur (C.G) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA S8 KIQI-1 COURT OF CHHATrlSGARM : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Cl N0.126 OF 2010 PETITIQNERS Dr. Hitendra Bansode & Others RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ' ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 27*11 day of July, 2010) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 21-10-2009 (Annexure - P/1) whereby the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee (for short "the Committee") has declined to verify the social status certificate issued by the competent officer on the ground that the petitioner original belongs to State of Madhya Pradesh. 2. The brief facts, which are necessary to dispose of this petition, are that the father of the petitioners joined service as Health Officer at Municipal Corporation, Bhatapara, in the year 1979. Thereafter, he was appointed as Medical Officer in the year 1982. He continued to be posted within the territorial jurisdiction of State of Chhattisgarh. The petitioners were born within the territoria] jurisdiction of State of Chhattisgarh. Father pf the petitioners obtained social status certificate i.e. he belongs to Mahar from the Collector, Raipur, on 2-12-1977 (Annexure - P/4), The petitioners, thereafter, made an application for grant of social status certificate to the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur. Accordingly, the caste certificate was granted on 1-5-2009 (Annexure - P/6). According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, after obtaining the caste certificate from the competent officer, the petitioners filed an ^^s—s'i^ •ai6ii: ••^3®'A^l Fji' .^- 6. application before the Committee for verification of their social status certificate. The Committee declined to verify the same on the ground that the petitioners belong to State of Madhya Pradesh. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that in the case on hand where the caste certificate is issued by the competent officer of State of Chhattisgarh, the verification has to be done by the Committee. 1 have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. The Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others has laid down certain guidelines for verification of social status certificate of a person. Thereafter, it was reiterated in Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of A.P. v. Laveti Giri and another . Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) and Laveti Giri (supra) were referred with approval in Gayatrilaxmi Bapurao Nagpure v. State of Maharashtra and Others , wherein it was clearly held that a wrongful denial of the caste certificate, the genuine candidate, he/she will be deprived of the privileges conferred upon him/her bythe Constitution. In the case on hand, there is no dispute that the f.ather of the petitioners came here way back in 1977 and joined the service in Bhatapara & Korba. Father of the petitioners also obtained the caste certificate from the competent officer i.e. Collector, Raipur. Thereafter, they continued in the then State of Madhya Pradesh. State of Chhattisgarh, pursuant to the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, was carved out on 1-11-2000. Thereafter, ' (1994)63cc241 2 (1995)43cc 32 3AIR1996SC1338 •••/ fi the petitioners applied for caste certificate from the competent officer, which was also granted on 1-5-2009. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, 1 do not find any reason asto why it is not subject to verification by the Committee on two grounds i.e. firstly the petitioners were born in a place, which after bifurcation became part of Chhattisgarh. Secondly, the social status certificate was granted by a competent officer of State of Chhattisgarh. In view of foregoing, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the impugned order dated 21/10/2009 (Annexure P/1) is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Committee to examine the case of the petitioners on merits and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, as early as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs. ,—• Gowri Sd/- SATISH K. AGNmOTRI Judge