Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.

Heard.

The aforesaid two petitions are being disposed off by this common order as the petitions are by the same petitioner and both the petitions involve determination of core issue as to the petitioner's status and entitlement to the benefit of reservation in the then State of Madhya Pradesh (now State of Chhattisgarh).

2. The petitioner applied for and are granted caste certificate on 09-11-1992 by the Nayab Tahsildar, Rajnandgaon. The caste certificate declared that the petitioner is a resident of Rajnandgaon (M.P.) and belongs to Halba tribe. According to the petitioner, she was born and brought up in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh prior to Madhya Pradesh Re-organization Act, 2000 (In short "the Act of 2000"). The petitioner had taken her school/higher education in the State of Madhya Pradesh, part of which, is now within the territorial jurisdiction of State of Chhattisgarh.

The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Fisheries Officer in the Department of Fisheries under the Government of Madhya Pradesh and was selected. The petitioner was appointed on 16-08-1995 as Assistant Fisheries Officers in the services of the then State of Madhya Pradesh. After reorganization of State of Madhya Pradesh under the Act of 2000, the petitioner was allotted State of Chhattisgarh and then, she became a member of the Services of State of Chhattisgarh in the department of Fisheries.

All through this period, the petitioner always claimed the status of Scheduled Tribe on the strength of her caste certificate issued in the year 1992.

3. The petitioner while in service, applied for appointment to the post of Assistant Director, reserved for Scheduled Tribe. It appears that the petitioner was not being given the benefit of caste status on the strength of caste certificate of 1992, which led to dispute and the petitioner had filed W.P. No. 3813 of 2006 which was finally disposed off vide order dated 04-08-2006 with a direction to the competent authority of the State Government to get enquiry conducted in accordance with law and as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others AIR 1955 SC 94. In compliance of the aforesaid judicial directions, the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted under the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), initiated verification and enquiry into the claim of caste status of the petitioner. The petitioner was issued show cause notice, after collection of material through the Vigilance Cell. Pursuant to show cause notice dated 20-03-2007, the petitioner submitted her reply on 09-04-2017 and along with the said reply, the petitioner submitted 17 documents. However, vide impugned order, the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee held that the petitioner was issued caste certificate contrary to the directions of the Supreme Court, Union of India and related rules. Thereafter, the Sub Divisional Officer, Rajnandgaon also proceeded to pass an order dated 12-09-2006. holding that the petitioner was not entitled to the caste status of Halba Tribe in the State of Chhattisgarh and therefore, she is liable to be terminated from service. Assailing the order of State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner filed WPS No. 6006 of 2007. In W.P. No. 5671 of 2006, order dated 12-09-2006 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Rajnandgaon is challenged.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued in extenso to submit that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe (Halba). It is submitted that the father of the petitioner was working in the Postal Department under the Government of India and he had migrated to Rajnandgaon in then State of Madhya Pradesh way back in the year 1965 and permanently settled in the State of Madhya Pradesh (now State of Chhattisgarh). During that period, he remained posted in various stations in the State of Madh