ORDER :

1. Since common question of law and fact is involved in both the writ petitions, they were clubbed together and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioner was issued caste certificate by the District Coordinator in Scheduled Tribe (ST) category on 18-1-1993 and thereafter, he was appointed as Steno-Typist under the ST category on 9-12-1997. Thereafter, the Caste Scrutiny Committee verified the caste of the petitioner and on 9-4-2002, after issuing notice to the petitioner held that the petitioner is Kevat by caste and he does not belong to ST category and accordingly annulled the caste certificate granted in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, on the basis of that order, the Additional Collector, Distt. Koriya, on 26-10-2004, also cancelled the caste certificate dated 18-1-1993 issued in favour of the petitioner. Challenging legality, validity and correctness of the order declaring him to be non-ST category, the petitioner filed W.P.(S)No.1142/2008 and thereafter, his services have been terminated by order dated 23- 8-2008 which has been challenged in W.P.(S)No.4971/2008.

3. Mr. Aman Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the writ petitions, would submit that the caste scrutiny committee did not grant proper opportunity to the petitioner to adduce oral evidence in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, (1994) 6 SCC 241 and also the Caste Scrutiny Committee did not consider the notification of the State Government dated 7-9-1998 in which the State of M.P. has clearly directed that coercive action should not be taken against the persons who belong to Majhi caste and caste certificate has been issued in their favour. Even the notice issued to the petitioner by the Caste Scrutiny Committee was not in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) which has been followed by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra and others v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar and another, (2007) 1 SCC 80. As such, the impugned order declaring the petitioner not belonging to ST category and the order dated 26-10-2004 cancelling the caste certificate deserve to be set aside and consequently, the order of termination of the petitioner dated 23-8-2008 also deserves to be set aside.

4. Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned State counsel, would submit that the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee as well as the order cancelling the caste certificate, dated 26-10-2004 was questioned by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.No.4347/2004 and this Court has dismissed the said petition filed by the petitioner on 16-12-2004 declaring him not belonging to ST category and thus, cancellation of his caste certificate has been found to be in accordance with law and therefore the petitioner is bound by that order. As such, these writ petitions are barred by the principle of res judicata/constructive res judicata and the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise the point again which has already been concluded by the earlier decision of this Court. Accordingly, both the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on that ground only.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was issued caste certificate on 18-1-1993 that he belongs to ST category and he was appointed on the post of Steno-Typist under the ST category. The Caste Scrutiny Committee thereafter declared that the petitioner does not belong to ST category and further on the basis of the said recommendation of the committee, on 26-10-2004, his caste certificate has also been revoked by the competent authority and on the basis of revocation of caste certificate, his services have also been terminated on 23-8-2008 which has been challenged