The court emphasized the importance of scrutinizing caste certificates with utmost expedition and promptitude, and highlighted that re-opening cases without sufficient reason would be detrimental to the interest of the Scheduled Caste members.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has challenged the notices issued by respondent No. 2/High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee vide Annexures P/1 and P/2 dated 04.08.2018 and 04.09.2019, respectively, whereby the petitioner was directed to appear before the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee for verification of his caste certificate.

2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner is a member of the Scheduled Caste community, particularly Sonkar/Sunkar caste, and a caste certificate was issued in his favour by the prescribed authority on 12.08.2009, wherein, he is shown as a member of Scheduled Caste community, caste Sonkar/Sunkar, which is a notified Scheduled Caste. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Senior Auditor in Local Fund Audit, Finance Department, Chhattisgarh on 22.05.2004, thereafter he was promoted to the post of Assistant Director vide order dated 05.09.2018. The caste certificate of the petitioner was referred to the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee for verification and the same was invalidated by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee/respondent No. 2 vide order dated 17.01.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the order dated 17.01.2012 by filing WPS No. 787 of 2012 before this Court and an interim order was granted in his favour. During the pendency of that petition, the petitioner produced certain documents before the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee and an order was passed in his favour by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee on 15.10.2015. The petitioner withdrew WPS No. 787 of 2012. Thereafter, the intervener, Digvijay Das Sirmour filed WPS No. 429 of 2016 challenging therein the order of the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee passed in favour of the petitioner on 01.02.2015. A reply was filed by the State wherein it was specifically stated that after due verification, the caste certificate of the petitioner was found valid, thereafter, the intervener again made a complaint during the pendency of WPS No. 429 of 2016 before respondent No. 2/the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee and two notices vide Annexures P/1 & P/2 were issued against the petitioner for his presence before the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee. Thereafter, the writ petition filed by the intervener i.e. WPS No. 429 of 2016, was dismissed by this Court being rendered infructuous on 11.10.2023.

3. The petitioner in the present petition has challenged the notices issued by respondent No. 2/the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee and the Vigilance Committee on the complaint of the intervener.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier the matter was thoroughly scrutinized by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee and an order was passed in favour of the petitioner wherein the caste certificate issued in the year 2009 in favour of the petitioner was found valid and again the same issue cannot be re-opened by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee on the basis of a false and frivolous complaint.

5. He would rely on Rule 19 of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Cases, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013, which talks about Registration of cases by High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee. The aforesaid rule is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-

“19. Registration of the Cases by High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee.-(1) The Higher Power Certification Scrutiny Committee shall register the referred cases by Verification Committee or by the State Government or by the State Government in FORM-5G.”

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that a complaint made by a stranger or private person cannot be entertained by the Committee/respondent No. 2.

7. In support thereof, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of J. Chitra v. State Power Vigilance Committee, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 654.

8. He would also rely on the judgment rendered by the Hon