IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that misrepresentation in obtaining a caste certificate invalidates employment rights, and the authority's decision to cancel such certificates is within its jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.

Preface:

1. An order of cancellation of the petitioner’s social status certificate which has thrown her job in the state of uncertainty is the axis of the controversy in the present lis.

Petitioner’s case:

2. In order to appreciate the controversy, it would be apt to advert to the necessitous facts, as frescoed in the writ petition.

3. In terms of the letter of appointment dated 15.02.1997 issued by the Managing Committee of the Dubra Adarsha Vidyamandir (in short, the school), the petitioner joined the school in the post of Group-IV staff (Matron) on 17.02.1997 and her appointment was approved by the District Inspector of Schools vide. his memo. dated 21.02.1997. Suffice it to observe that the post was reserved for the candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste (in short, SC).

4. Sometimes in 2011, on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Monoranjan Mahato, Secretary of the OBC Sangram Committee, Jhargram, a proceeding came to be initiated by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jhargram to ascertain the authenticity of social status certificate of the petitioner.

5. Eventually, by an order dated 23rd February, 2011, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jhargram cancelled the petitioner’s caste certificate vide. no. 14/TW(SC) of 1994. The Sub-Divisional Officer vide, his letter dated 25.02.2011 communicated the order of cancellation of the caste certificate to the petitioner.

6. The order of cancellation of the petitioner’s social status certificate put her service in jeopardy. As such, the petitioner has ventured out to knock at the door of this Court in quest of a writ of mandamus or appropriate order or orders to save her job upon annulment of the order cancelling her caste certificate.

7. The petitioner questioned the tenability of the order dated 23.02.2011 on the grounds that she was not served with the complaint lodged by Mr. Monoranjan Maity. As such, omission to supply such complaint offended the principles of natural justice. The caste certificate was cancelled in derogation of the guidelines issued under a memo. dated 30.04.2010. In terms of the guidelines, the authority was required to hold a preliminary inquiry first and in case, such inquiry indicates anything adverse against the certificate, then only the authority could have resorted to discreet inquiry. A further ground was taken by her that the petitioner was asked to produce documents containing declarations of five to ten persons from her locality but according to the petitioner, as sufficient documentary evidence were available to resolve the issue, there was no requirement to call for such declarations.

Stand taken by the school authority:

8. Despite direction, the State has not used any affidavit-in-opposition. The school authority has submitted its affidavit, as directed.

9. In its affidavit, the school authority took the stand that the Additional Director of Schools concerned vide. his letter 28.03.2011 requested the school authority to take appropriate action in terms of the order dated 23.02.2011 cancelling the petitioner’s caste certificate and submit an action-taken report. Accordingly, the Managing Committee adopted a resolution on 12.04.2011 and issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 13.04.2011 seeking her response thereto within the time specified therein.

10. The petitioner opted not to respond to the show-cause notice. On the other hand, her learned advocate shoot off a legal notice dated 20.04.2011 to the school authority threatening to take legal action against it in case any adverse step was taken against her in derogation of the interim order passed in W.P. no. 5071(W) of 2011.

11. In terms of the resolution adopted in its meeting held on 29.04.2011, the incidents were briefed to the Director of School Education and D.I. of schools concerned.

12. As per instruction of the Additional D.I. of Schools, as contained in his letter dated 22.6.2011, payment of monthly salary of the petitioner was stopped since June, 2011.

13. By his