Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.
Suresh Kumar Dagla, S/o Late Shankar Lai Dagla – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPC No. 558 of 2011
Decided on : 26-06-2024
Caste Certificate - Scheduled Tribe - Article 341, Article 342 - The court discussed the legal provisions of Article 341 and Article 342 of the Constitution of India, which specify the process for recognizing castes, races, or tribes as Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. The court highlighted that the recognition of a caste as a Scheduled Tribe in a particular state is based on the social, economic, and educational backwardness faced by that caste in the home state. The judgment emphasized that a person migrating from one state to another does not carry their caste status to the migrating state, even if the same caste is recognized as a Scheduled Tribe in both states. The court also referred to various judgments, including the case of Chandigarh Housing Board v. Tarsem Lal, to support its interpretation of the legal provisions and their application in the present case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash the order cancelling their caste certificate, which was issued without following due process of law. The High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee initiated proceedings to verify the caste of the petitioners based on a complaint. The committee ultimately cancelled the caste certificate, leading to the petitioners filing a writ petition seeking to quash the order and declare themselves as belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners, who had migrated from Rajasthan, could not claim the benefits of reservation in the State of Chhattisgarh. The court emphasized that the recognition of a caste as a Scheduled Tribe in a particular state is directly related to the social, economic, and educational backwardness faced by that caste in the home state. The court also highlighted that a person migrating from one state to another does not carry their caste status to the migrating state, even if the same caste is recognized as a Scheduled Tribe in both states. The court upheld the decision of the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee to cancel the caste certificate and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The issues before the court were: (i) Whether a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe in relation to a particular state can claim benefits or concessions admissible to them in the original state from where they have migrated, and (ii) Whether the court can declare that the petitioners belong to the Scheduled Tribe community as Nayak or Bheel castes in the State of Chhattisgarh.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Article 341 and Article 342 of the Constitution of India, which specify the process for recognizing castes, races, or tribes as Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. The court emphasized that the recognition of a caste as a Scheduled Tribe in a particular state is directly related to the social, economic, and educational backwardness faced by that caste in the home state. The court also highlighted that a person migrating from one state to another does not carry their caste status to the migrating state, even if the same caste is recognized as a Scheduled Tribe in both states. The court referred to various judgments, including the case of Chandigarh Housing Board v. Tarsem Lal, to support its interpretation of the legal provisions and their application in the present case.
Final Decision: The court upheld the decision of the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee to cancel the caste certificate and dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners.
ORDER :
1. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking appropriate direction for quashing of the impugned order dated 10.01.2011 in Case No. 237/AJJ/2008 vide communicated memo dated 11.01.2011 bearing Memo No. Chhas Shiks/AJJ/237/08/2657 by which High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, Raipur has cancelled the caste certificate issued by Sub Divisional Officer to the petitioners.
2. A complaint dated 10.10.2007 was made before the Collector Bilaspur by Vikash Kumar Gond, Hridaya Rathiya and Ajay Kumar Agrawal who are intervenors of the case alleging that Shankar Lal Dagla, who is resident of Village Nanda, Tahsil and District Jodhpur, Rajasthan claiming himself to be a member of Bheel Tribal Community and on the basis of forged caste certificate he has been appointed as Lecturer and thereafter promoted as Dy. Collector. It has also been alleged that by using his power he has obtained petrol pump in the name of his son Petitioner No.1. It has also been alleged that the caste certificate has been issued without following the due process of law and thus prayed for declaration of caste certificate issue in favour of the petitioner to be null and void. On the basis of complaint, proceedings were initiated by the High Power Committee/ Respondent No.2. It has been further contended that the Committee vide order dated 10.01.2011 has cancelled the caste certificate.
3. The petitioners have assailed the impugned order by placing the facts which is in brief that the Shankar Lal Dagla, father of petitioner No.1 is having a caste certificate dated 04.02.1963 issued by Tahsildar, Jodhpur on the basis of caste certificate dated 04.02.1963 has obtained caste certificate dated 10.11.1994 of Bheel Tribe from Deputy Collector and Executive Magistrate Bilaspur. Thereafter, reorganization of the State, Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No. 2 have also obtained temporary caste certificate of "Bheel Caste bearing case number No. 863/A A121/04-05 on 28.06.2005 from Naib Tehsildar Lalunga, District Raigarh and on the basis of caste certificate, dealership of Indian Oil petrol pump was allotted to Petitioner No. 1 which is reserved for Scheduled Tribes of the State of Madhya Pradesh.
4. It has also been contended that in pursuance of complaint proceedings were initiated for verification of the caste of the petitioners and accordingly the Vigilance Inspector visited Rajasthan at parental village of the petitioner No.1 and obtained certified copy of the Family Tree which clearly reflected that petitioners belonged to Bheel Tribe and submitted its report on 25.11.2010. It has also been contended that the report submitted by the Vigilance Inspector is contrary to the evidence of statement of Tulsi Ram Dagla and Kana Ram and have wrongly recorded that petitioners by caste is Nayak. It has also been contended that on the basis of wrong report of Vigilance Inspector the impugned order dated 10.01.2011 cancelling the caste certificate has been passed. It has been further contended that as per the gazette notification dated 29.11.1979 Bheel and Nayak castes in the State of Rajasthan to Scheduled Tribe. It has also been submitted that the petitioners have purchased some property which was objected by other persons on the count that they do not belong to tribal as there is bar of purchase of property of tribal as per provisions of Section 170 B of the Land Revenue Code. The petitioners have contested the case and Board of Revenue vide order dated 19.04.2010 has decided the case in their favour which clearly suggested that the petitioners are tribal.
5. It has also been contended by the petitioners that petitioners No. 1 has been allotted retail outlet of Indian Oil Corporation by respondent No. 3 at Lailunga on 24.11.1995 which was directed to be closed down by the Collector in view of the order of Respondent No. 1 dated 10.01.2011, this has necessitate the petitioner to file the present writ petition with a prayer
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a person migrating from one state to another does not carry their caste status to the migrating state, even if the same caste is recognized as....
Reservation benefits are strictly confined to the State for which the caste is notified, and cannot be claimed across State lines based on marriage or migration.
No addition or modification in the Presidential Order is permissible.
Migrating from one state does not grant automatic Scheduled Caste benefits in another state, despite similar caste nomenclature.
Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative equality
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
