,,^^^ /s", ^ci ^> ,! HmHa>URTOFCT[HATTISGAmiATBILASPlJR PETITIQNER WntPetitfontS)No. 713 of2008 Kanliaiyyalal Bareth, aged about 40 years, S/o Late Tanag^i Ram Bareth (Tambu) Caste-Dhobi, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Prmiary School Village Baiiklietapara, Tali. Katgliora,Distt. Korba(CG). VERSU8 BISPONDENTS : 1. StMe of Chhattisgarh, Throu^i Principal Secretary, Scheduled Tribes Welfare Department, Govt. of Clihattisgarh, Secretariat, DKS Bhawan, GE Road, Raipur(CG). 2. Assistant Conmiissioner Tribal Welfare, Govt. of Chliattisgarh, Collectorate, Korba (CG). 3. Block Education OfiBcer, Pondi Uproda, Distt. Korba (CG). 4. Station House Iiicharge P.S. Bango, Distt. Korba. 5. Shri D.K. Tiwari, The then Nayab Tahsildar, Janjgir at present posted at Jarhagaoii, Bilaspur (CG). (WRTT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTtTUTION OF MDIA) (SB: Hon'Me Mr. Satish K. Affirihotri. J.} Present : Sliri V.G. Tamaskar, Advocate for the petitioner^ Shri Alok Bakhshi, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORALORDER (Passed on 04th ofFebmaiy, 2008) 1. The .petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 29.06.93 (Annexiire P/2) in Govt. Prmiary School Nimaukachhar Tahsil Katghora, Distt. Bilaspur (Now Distt. Korba). Qn the basis ofsome complamt, notice was issued to the petitioner on 19.04.99, thereafter on 16.11.99, 27.10.07 and later on 04.12.07 (Aimexiire P/3, P/4, P/5 and P/7) to verify the caste certificate of the petitioner cn the basis of which the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in June, 1993. 2. Tlie respondent authorities ought to have referred the matter to the State Level Caste Scnitmy Conmiittee as the respondents are not competent to detemiine the ca^te ofthe petitioner. 3. The Horfble Supreme Court in the matter of Director of Tribunal Welfare, Govenmient of Aiidlira Pradesh v. Laveti Giri and another (AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1506) laid down a dictum that dispute with regard to caste has to be decided by the Caste Scmtiny Conmiittee coi'^tituted at State Level after affording fiill opportumty ofhearing to the employee/candidate. Tlie mipugiied order passed is not m accordance with the dictiim laid dowii by the Supreme Court in the case of Director of Tribunal Welfare, Govenmient ofAndhra Pradesh (Supra). 4. For the reasons stated above, tliis petition is allowed with a direction that dispirte of caste raised in the petition be disposed of by the State Level Caste Scmtmy Comniittee as expeditiously as possible within a period of tliree months. Iii the meantime, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue in the post. Respondents are at liberty to take appropriate actioii, if so advised^ beiiig unmfluenced by the observation made hereinabove, on the basis of report/reconmiendation of the State Level CaMe Scnitiny Conmiittee. 5, With the above directions, the petition is disposed of No order asto costs. The iiotices, issued to the petitioiier are aecordingly quashed. 6. The parties are entifled for certified copy ofthis order. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Sahu