4S . U • ! A"' »• Jd ou -ia a *. ~-r ~i x!j S9 t5 -3 ^ 1^1§ —I s-l -Sl &2 S8. ar —j^ a iei.—j —i•'af^-a.. a" =c'=t'' sq ^T £j ^ -Bl Sii1 S) < 1 •y-9 <''t si -1 01 -I —IU -*' * ;:l«t '. ai "3 il -f 0T ^ ai oa 3n" —f-i-t' a -T a jd ni -j •c! <q _ -ai ai -< "f -q. t) ' -f silf jjai? ll^ si^ ii^ j3h Jlsq II jl^i !aIIII j{« ,11^ !!-t> ^l? f-^ !t "i ^-!i -Ei.. iL;!^ $8i ,^!!^ k?!!^ ^)h '!!^ II II II ^ s^ €•' pi.i ti--:.;.. ^'£--.» 8 ffl" iit3 ^ 8 Bl (?BIna?^,^. ,^> '% \dw| "qioirt«,»Tll'(l<|<«,R|ril^y-< M.p- (.S-) ^g7& sn^?T q^tp (i?tg^) or 3iitOTg>[ Ri^jcb Hanail^?TiBHW srorsR^ifStTgii^r SB: HON-BLESHRI MANIND Shri Pawan Keshar-wani, c Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lm Heard. 2. The petitioner has fi!ed 12.5.1999, Annexure A/l, pas^ petitioner has been terminated Caste certificate submitted b| forged. The case of the petiti 23.10.1989 as Attendant in 6ol Bilaspur. Vide order dated 7.1( service. At the time of appoi[ Certificate, Annexure A/6, i: Bilaspur. According to the pe1( due enquiry. Further case o records of 1+ie Schoo!, wihe.re 1j his caste was always shown as '| the basis that he belongs to appointment, he had submitte^l tRi<ifn<I1i *ii*inT^"fe'iIl •<Ril+c;l'< ^SI^TSII^ST feA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.J. sunsel for the petitioner. »yerfor theState/respondents. this petition oggrieved by order dated ;ed by respondent No.4, by which, the from services on the aile9ation that the / 1+ie petitioner has been found to be mer is that he was initially appointed on /t. Ayurvedic Hospital, Mendra, bistrict ).1995, the petitioner was confirmed in itment, petitioner had submitted Caste sued by the Naib Tehsildar, District itioner, the certificate was issued after the petitioner is that in the School he petitioner took up primary education; taiga' and he also received scholarship on Scheduled Tribe. At the time of his his caste certificate, on which, due ii;,,i,i<'5:^"":S(lJ-IC-78 w^~ 1;^!.—..«SSS?' 7 ("? 3wT'r<4i^ii<?i«,ti>-al<(i<i<», Rlrtiwg'? \. sn^?iqaq;(^fgEi^) sii^nmtoiw as)T3II^?T(b*fi'b giRiT8R^ffer31I^CT enquiry was made and therea-f]ter appointment to the post of Bu petitioner is thoT on certain con^i enquiry, the petitioner subrr^ established that the petitioner enquiry, report was obtained fro|r! report dated 9.12.1998, Annexi( beiongs to 'Bai9a' tribe. 3. Srievance of the petitiorj Baiga tribe, respondents, ignor| during the course of enguiry by 9.12.1998 of Naib Tehsildar, order dated 12.5.1999, Annexur^ 4. On the other hand, su| respondents is that upon receiplj ths Collector, Biiaspur. In 1+iat Joint Coltector, Siiaspur on 2^ enquiry from the residents of ti( found to be one be!ongin9 to f <Ri<i[n<i1l *<i*i»V^'feiil•i[u|'^l'( ^ari^raiAsT ter, the petitioner was selected for Ffalo Attendant. Further case of the piaint, enquiry was initiated and in that |itted certificates/documents, which belongs to 'Baiga' tribe. In the said Naib Tehsildar, Bilaspur, who vide his Ire A/9 submitted that the petitioner (er is that even though he belongs to |ng several moterial evidence produced him and clso ignoring the report dated ^erminated his services yide impu9ned A/l. smission of tearned counsel for the of complaint, enquiry was conducted by enquiry, report was submitted by the i.11.1998 to the effect that after ie vilicige and documents, petitioner was Dhimar caste and not 'Baiqa' tribe as 'x .3(1^0-78 \dvcf •-<iWMtl, t»Tll'M<l<»,R|ril'tiy'< sn^?T iraq? ('i^fgsR?) aiitOTgiTR'ii* a2IT 3II^?Iri>t)icb B^iT8R?lflST9II^?T 3 claimed by him and therefore, basis, impugned order of termi the certificate was foraed. On n4tion of services has been passed. I hwe heard the rival ccjntentions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the rec^ 6. It appears that while tl^e some complaint was made that tribe and has pr-ocured appoin^ment Thus, in essence, the dispute to whether he belongs to 'Baiga the authority, whose certifi<|:( appointment, denied issuance of rellated 7. On the other hand, Annexure A/9, stated that the| such a situation, respondents case of the petitioner for Comrnittee, constituted at th^ Supreme Court in the matter 4 q>i<lfn<Ill •<l*inY^T'fai<9 ^lul^dl") ^? 3fRl*i 3ii^?r e petitioner was continued in service, he petitioner does not belong to 'Baiga' submitting the forged document. to liie status of the petitioner as tribe or not. It is not the case where :ate was produced at the time of any such certificate. Ntib wiere Tehsildar, Bilaspur in his report petitioner belongs to Baiga tribe. In ob!iged under the law to refer the 4'nsideration of Caste Level Scrutiny State leve! under the directions of Madhuri Patil and Anr. Vs. Deve, on^Ors.. 4IR1?95SC^4. T Xf-HC-7a ^wT^qraTcOT, »-n1'<i<i<»,Rrtmy<{ 3IT^97 q^F (lclid61<Ei) aSIT3II^?rsi>*fic|) ^tl/ni^ S^IISR^lfefSlAsT 4 Tlie respondant authoriti enquiry with regard to caste ^s had no jurisdiction to enter into the stc^tus of the petitioner. matter In this view of the declar-ing the status of the peti- tern'iincition of his services, is r^ iooking to the nature of all respondents are directed to consideration of State Leve! enquiry by the Caste Scruti petitioner belongs to 'Baiga' tritj in servlce with oli consequentia! ledations Trie petition is therefore <l>l<lfd41'l *ll*lriTffIs>cl xlut-t^lt ^? <!)K)lf an^r ter, the action of the respondents in ioner and taking consequentiai action pf susl-ainable under the law. However, levetied against the petitioner, •efer the case of the petitioner for Caste Scrutiny Committee. If upon ly Committee, it is found that the e, he shall be entitied to be reinststed benefits. ailowed to tiie extent indicated above. Sd/- Maniindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge WST :.^1,1:'1S. Sd/- Judge Manindra Mohan Shrivastava