fl KjfiHaS t- Kf'w ^&^^iS..^ ^S-F^' BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. W.P.(S)NO. ^-2-=?" OF 2010 PETITIONER Deepak Khapekar S/o Shrawan Khapekar, aged about 41 years, R/o 4A/Str. 52/ Sector-8, Bhilai, Durg (C.G.) lali i.'S VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^." '0 ..^-^" ^^^> ^^t^-^ ......;^3^'" State of Chhattisgarh through - the Secretary, Generai Administration Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C G ) High Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee through- President,Pandit Dindayal Upadhyaya Nagar, SectorfftRaipur Chhattisgarh Bhilai Steel Plant, Through- Managing Director, Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai, Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSITUTIQN OF INDIA. ^_A^ii HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRJT PETITION (S) No. 425 of 2010 PETITIONER Deepak Khapekar. VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. Post for pronouncemeut ofjudgment & order on--s3.day ofFebruary, 2011 -—- Sd/- SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI Judge «y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 425 of 2010 PETITIONER RESPQNDENTS Deepak Khapekar. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRrT^ETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA SBLHon'b!e ShrLSatislLK^Agnihptn, J, Present: Shri Anil Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.l&2. Dr. N.K.Shukla, Senior Advocate with Shri Shailendra Shukla, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. .v3 (Delivered on .^s/j... day ofFebruary, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 04.01.2010 (Annexure P/5) passed by the respondent No. 2 i.e. High Power Caste Scmtiny Committee (for short 'the Committee'). 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that on the basis of school records, a caste certificate was issued to the father of the petitioner namely Shrawan Khapekar stating that he belonged to 'Halba' community, a notified scheduled tribe (Annexure P/2) from Nagpur, Maharashtra. On the basis of said certificates issued on 22.7.1938 and 06.04.1974 respectively, the Deputy Collector, for Collector, Durg issued a caste certificate to the effect that the petitioner belongs to 'Halba' community which ••w- t W'MS3^ J -^'' ,4ur '.^ ;c) is notified as Scheduled Tribe. On the basis of said caste certificate, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Manager in the year 1994 and thereafter, Senior Manager at Bhilai Steel Plant i.e. the respondent No. 3. The petitioner preferred a writ petition being W.P. No. 2726/2006, impugning the order dated 04.04.2006 passed by the respondent No. 3 which was disposed of by this Court on 23.03.2009, quashing the notice dated 04.04.2006, reserving liberty to the re'spondent No. 3 to forward the case of the petitioner to the Committee, for verification of his social status. The Committee issued a notice on 09.09.2009, directing the petitioner to appear before the Committee alongwith necessary documents on 26.10.2009. The petitioner challenged the said notice also in W.P.(S) No. 5951/2009, which was dismissed with an observation that no cause of action arose as notice was issued to the petitioner to afford an opportunity of hearing in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Ku. Madhuri Patil & Another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & Others to the petitioner. Thereafter, the Committee, by impugned order dated 04.01.2010 held that the father ofthe petitioner belonged to 'Kosti' and not 'Halba'. The word 'Halba' was pasted above 'Kosti' word in the school attendance certificate of the father of the petitioner, Shri Shrawan Khapekar. Thus, this petition. 3. Shri Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that challenge to the order dated 04.01.2010 is mainly on (1994) 6 SCC 241 a the ground that the caste of the petitioner's father was mentioned as 'Halba' in the school leaving certificate. Thus, the finding recorded by the Committee was contrary to thejudgment and order passed by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Ravi Prakash Babulal . He would farther contend that the report submitted by the Vigilance Inspector was not communicated to the petitioner, nor his parents were interrogated or asked by the Vigilance Inspector. Thus, the same violates the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Ku. Madhuri Patil. 4. On the other hand, Shri Ajit Singh, leamed Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 and 2 would submit that the scope of judicial review over the findings recorded by the Committee is very limited and may be confined to the decision making process. The petitioner was specifically asked for producmg the documents, which the petitioner has failed completely. The petitioner was noticed by the communication dated 09.09.2009 (Annexure R/l) to produce the relevant documents clarifying that in the service book of the father of the petitioner namely Shrawan Balaji Khapekar, the caste mentioned was 'Kosti'. Even in the school register, the caste mentioned was 'Kosti' and not 'Halba' or 'Halbi' and the caste 'Halba' has been pasted thereon above the word 'Kosti'. The petitioner did not produce any document in respect ofthe above stated query. 2AIR2007SC295 ^' .- 5. Dr. Ninnal Shukla, learned Senior counsel appearing with Shri Shailendra Shukla, counsel for the respondent No. 3 would submit that the respondent No. 3 may be permitted to take appropriate action against the petitioner, pursuant to the order dated 04.01.2010, passed by the respondent No. 2. 6. Having heard riva] contentions of leamed counse] appearing for the parties, perused pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that the Vigilance Committee has examined records of Hislop College City Night School, Nagpur, Maharashtra, wherein the father ofthe petitioner was admitted on 15.7.1953 in class 1. Against the column of cast, the word 'Kosti' was mentioned. The caste 'Kosti' is not notified as Scheduled Caste. The petitioner, despite being afforded an opportunity to appear before the Committee and produce document, had failed to produce any document to remove the doubt as was created on pemsal of the records of the school and Service book of the father of the petitioner. Thus, it cannot be held that the process adopted in the scrutiny of the caste of the petitioner was not in accomce with the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in Ku. Madhuri Patil. 7. l^Director ofTribal Welfare, Government ofA.P. v. Laveti Giri &. Another , the Supreme Court has observed as under: "6...we agree with the leamed counsel for the appellant that the High Court adopted a traditional approach of placing the burden of proof of social status founded on the entries in Govemment record etc. and called (1995) 4 SCC 32 ..^' V;. ^..... ^,^ g -'^•s^ 1 '^--^ upon the State to rebut it on the touchstone of Evidence Act. We are unable to appreciate the view taken by the Division Bench. Burden ofproofof social status is always on the person who profess it to seek constitutional socio-economic advantages. It is no part ofthe duty ofthe State to disprove orotherwise..." 8. The Supreme Court, in State of Maharashtra & Others v. Ravi Prakash Babulal Singh Parmar & Another , referred the decision ofthe Supreme Court in Gayatrilaxmi Bapurao Nagpure v. State of Maharashtra and held that: "32.The said decision, therefore, is also an authority for the proposition that the Committee can go into the question as to whether a case certificate has rightly been issued or not. The authorities concemed were also found to have some role to play in finding out the correctness or otherwise of the claim for issue ofa caste certificate." 9. In this case, apart from verification done by the Vigilance Inspector who is authorized to investigate into the social status claim, no documents have been produced by the petitioner despite sufficient opportunity granted to him. Thus, it cannot be held that the report submitted by the Vigilance Inspector after investigation of school and local places, is not proper. The petitioner, except the selfsame statement that his parents and the petitioner were not examined, has not produced any document or any other evidence to establish the fact. The contention of the petitioner to the extent \that the petitioner was not examined is contrary to the facts as the -" '.xi ^ ^-] '"^3%.;.-^'?-' petitioner was duly noticed to appear with all the relevant documents to put forward his case. Thus, appearance before the Committee to put forward the case before the Committee comes within the definition ofexamination ofthe petitioner. 10. In view ofthe foregoing and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, there is no infirmity, illegality in the decision making and the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 2 is just and proper warranting no interference. 11. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. 12. There shall be no order asto costs. Amit Sd/- ^^K.AO^""0 Judge