The court emphasized the protection of service benefits for appointments that have become final and considered the circumstances of caste certificate issuance to determine entitlement to benefits.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 04.11.2015 (Annexure P/3) passed by the respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner’s services to the post of Peon has been terminated pursuant to the report of the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee (for short ‘the Committee’), whereby the petitioner’s claim has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner does not belong to ‘Gond’ Scheduled Tribes caste, whereas he belongs to ‘Gada’ Scheduled Castes community and prior to 1971, his ancestral originally resides in State of Odisha.

2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that, on 30.08.1989, the petitioner was appointed as Peon in the office of Respondent No.3 against Scheduled Tribe “Gond” category under the special recruitment drive for the special category and class of people. The caste certificate of ‘Gond” community has been issued on 21.05.1986 by the office of Collector (Adim Jati Harijan Kalyan Shakha) Raipur. The Department, after examining the caste certificate, educational certificate and other documents relating to the testimonials, offered appointment to the petitioner. During the service period of the petitioner, on the basis of anonymous complaint regarding his caste and certificate, the Respondent No.4-Committee initiated inquiry regarding his caste certificate and vide order dated 20. 08.2015, the Committee came to the conclusion that the petitioner belongs to ‘Ganda’ (Scheduled Caste) and not ‘Gond’ (Scheduled Tribe) & invalidated his caste certificate issued by the Collector and communicated its report to the Department/Respondent No.3 vide letter dated 26.10.2015 with order dated 20.08.2015 (Annexure P/2 colly). Thereafter, the Respondent No.3, pursuant to the order dated 20.08.2015 of the Respondent No.4/ Committee, the Respondent No.3 passed an order dated 04.11.2015 (Annexure P/3) terminating the services of the petitioner. Thereafter, against the order of termination dated 04.11.2015, the petitioner, on 13.11.2015, preferred an appeal (Annexure P/4) before the Respondent No.1 under the provision of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1966, which was dismissed by order dated 22.10.2016 (Annexure P/4 colly) by the Respondent No.1 holding it to be not maintainable in view of Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013 (for short the ‘Act, 2013).

Hence, this petition by the petitioner seeking following relief(s) :-

“A. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the present case from the concerned authorities.

B. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ(s) in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order impugned Dt. 26.10.2015 and 20.08.2015 (Annexure P-2) respectively and order Dt. 22.10.2016 (Annexure P-4), issued by the Respondents.

C. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petitioner to continue in service without giving further benefits(s) of the caste certificate of “Gond”; as produced by the petitioner at the time of service if certificate found to be incorrect in the facts and circumstances of the case in view of judicial pronouncement(s).

D. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case with cost.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has secured appointment on the post of Peon in the office of Respondent No.3 on the basis of caste certificate of “Gond’ (Scheduled Tribe) community duly issued by the Collected after submitting related documents but the Committee in an arbitrary manner invalidated the caste certificate of the petitioner and the appeal preferred against the order of Committee has been summarily rejected by the Respondent No.1 being not maintainable, is bad in law. The Respondent No.4