IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is the requirement for Scrutiny Committees to adhere to Supreme Court guidelines and consider historical documents when verifying caste certificates.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order/report dated 22.06.2009 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Caste Certificate High Level Scrutiny Committee (for short ‘the Scrutiny Committee’) – Respondent No.4, whereby the caste certificate of the petitioner claiming to be ‘Halba’ has been invalidated.

2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner who basically belongs to Mehdiwada Waraseoni, District Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh genuinely belongs to Scheduled Tribe "Halba" as declared by His Excellency the President of India under Article 342 read with Article 366(25) of the Constitution of India. He passed his Higher Secondary examination in the year 1991 from Waraseoni. The Government Secondary School Waraseoni, Balaghat issued a transfer certificate (Annexure P/2) to the petitioner dated 24/01/1998 showing status of the petitioner as "Halba" Scheduled Tribe. A caste certificate (Annexure P/2) was also issued to the petitioner by the Naib Tehsildar, Rajnandgaon which indicates as "Halba". On the basis of caste certificate issued by the Naib Tehsildar, Rajnandgaon, the petitioner secured appointed on 16.08.1995 (Annexure P/3) on the post of Technical Inspector in Handloom Training Center at Raigarh, Madhya Pradesh. After completing the probation of 2 years, the petitioner was regularized on the said post vide order dated 16/06/1998 (Annexure P/4) with effect from 28/08/1995. Further, the Departmental Promotion Committee confirmed the petitioner on the post of Technical Inspector in the Directorate, Handloom, Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 14/09/1999 (Annexure P/5). After carving out of the State of Chhattigarh, the services of the petitioner were allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh vide order dated 14/12/2000 and he was posted at Directorate Handloom, Raigarh. During the course of employment, vide letter dated 18/05/2004, the Assistant Director, Directorate of Rural Industries (Handloom), Raipur Chhattisgarh asked the petitioner to complete the process of caste verification as complaint was made with regard to caste certificate of the petitioner. Vide letter dated 17/10/2005n (Annexure P/6), a departmental enquiry was instituted against the petitioner and the charge sheet was served on the petitioner stating therein that the decision with regard to institution of departmental enquiry was taken under Rule 14 of the aforesaid rules. Four charges were leveled against the petitioner for non-furnishing of relevant information in prescribed pro-forma. Vide letter dated 05/09/2006 (Annexure P/7), the petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the charge sheet. He had also submitted the required information in prescribed pro-forma (Annexure P/8) on 26/10/2006. Since the petitioner’s tribe claim was not verified, the employer of the petitioner namely Director, Rural Industries (Handloom) terminated his services vide order dated 08/02/2007 (Annexure P/9).

3. Challenging the order dated 08.02.2007, the petitioner moved a writ petition before this Court being W.P. (S) No. 6580/2007. The said petition was disposed off vide order dated 15.11.2007 (Annexure P/10) with liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appropriate appeal before the Appellate Authority. Thereafter, the petitioner moved a statutory appeal (Annexure P/11) before the Appellate Authority on 26/11/2007. While hearing the appeal, on 30/07/2008 the Secretary recorded on the order sheet (Annexure P/12) that no higher official has the authority to remove any person from service on the basis of suspicion. However, the matter was referred to the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee for verification of the Caste and it was recorded that if the report of the committee is not received within six months, the matter would be considered. Upon completion of the period of six months on 30/01/2009, the petitioner submitted a written request (Annexure P/13) to the Secretary that the peri