The main legal point established in the judgment is the protection of the petitioner's service despite the cancellation of her caste certificate, along with the limitation on claiming benefits as a Scheduled Tribe member in the future.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:-

“10.1 It is, kindly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records concerning petitioner's case from the possession of the respondents the high level committee as also from the commissioner, Tribal welfare, in the matter of enquiries etc of the petitioner's case regarding the caste certificate for its kind perusal.

10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ/directions for quashing the order dated 09.01.2015 passed by the respondent No. 2.

10.3 This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to issue appropriate writ of mandamus restraining the respondent no.3 from taking any coercive action of dismissal of the petitioner from service etc. pursuant to the impugned order dated 09.01.2015.

10.4 Any other relief/relief's, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner passed an examination of Sub Inspector in Central Police Organization against the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe Community. The caste certificate pertaining to social status as Halba Community was issued to the petitioner by the competent authority. The respondent No.3 verified the petitioner’s caste certificate from the respondent No.2. The petitioner before the respondent No.2 submitted her representation dated 22.03.2011 along with relevant documents showing her to be belonging to S.T. (Halba) Community. The petitioner submitted caste certificate of her father, great grandfather, voter I.D. of her father, House Registry of great grandfather and also submitted a letter/notification issued by respondent No.1 dated 18.11.1982 and other relevant documents, but without considering the same respondent No.2 vide its order dated 19.05.2012 turned down the verification of Caste Certificate of petitioner. The respondent No. 2 erroneously without considering the representation and documents submitted therewith communicated the same to respondent No.3 that due to non availability of relevant documents, the respondent No. 2 is unable to issue caste verification certificate. The order dated 19.05.2011 was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore. The order dated 19.05.2011 and subsequent charge sheet dated 08.10.2012 were quashed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 16.01.2014 and the respondents were directed to refer the matter to the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee. Thereafter the Caste Scrutiny Committee vide order dated 09.01.2015 (Annexure-P/1) cancelled the petitioner’ caste certificate as Halba Scheduled Tribe Community, against which the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent committee has failed to comply with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court thereby caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. The findings recorded by the respondent committee are highly perverse. The jurisdiction of the scrutiny committee is limited only to opine into the caste on the basis of findings of facts. The opinion of the committee should be based on sociological, ethnological, etymological and anthropological accounts. The findings recorded by the committee are more in the nature of conjectures and surmises rather than of definite conclusions. The committee has applied rigid and unwarranted standards of burden of proof. Upon notice having been issued to the petitioner, the petitioner discharged her burden of producing ample material on record, but the committee has erred in law as well as in facts while rejecting petitioner’s case. The petitioner has not been afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard nor was she allowed to lead oral evidence. The respondent authorities have failed to see that