IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee to consider the affinity test and the report submitted by the Research Assistant, as well as to follow the provisions of Rule 20 of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Rules, 2013, in making decisions regarding the cancellation of social status certificates.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner in the present petition has assailed the order dated 25.01.2020 passed by the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee whereby the social status certificate of the petitioner of caste ‘Mahar’ (Scheduled Caste) has been cancelled.

2. Essential facts leading to filing the instant petition are that the Social Status Report of Scheduled Caste, particularly, ‘Mahar’ caste was issued in favour of the petitioner on 18.09.1984 by the Deputy Collector, District Durg, who was the then competent authority to issue Social Status Report. The petitioner was appointed as Attendant (Coil Binder), W.R. Mill, Packeting Section, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) by virtue of the said Social Status Report. A complaint was made by one Dinesh Baghel against various persons including the petitioner to the effect that they had obtained employment in the Bhilai Steel Plant on the basis of a forged caste certificate. An enquiry was conducted by the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, in which, it was found that the petitioner does not belong to the ‘Mahar’ caste, thereafter, the social status report issued to the petitioner was forwarded to the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee for due verification on 06.02.2013. Respondent No. 3 called a report from Vigilance Cell and Research Assistant, Tribal Research Institute, Raipur in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Ku. Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner Tribal Development and another reported in 1994 (6) SCC 241. Vigilance Cell submitted its report on 22.04.2017 and found the caste of the Petitioner as “Mahra” whereas the Research Assistant submitted its report on 28.01.2019 on the basis of the affinity test i.e. after verifying the knowledge of the petitioner about deities of the community, customs, rituals, mode of marriage, and death ceremonies etc. in respect of that particular Scheduled Tribe and came to the conclusion that customs and rituals adopted by the petitioner and his family members are identical to that of ‘Mahar’ caste. Respondent No. 3 on the basis of the vigilance report alone of the Vigilance Cell came to the conclusion that the petitioner does not belong to the ‘Mahar’ caste and cancelled his social status report.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the affinity test conducted by the Research Assistant, it was categorically found that the culture, rituals and customs of the petitioner and his family are identical to the caste of the ‘Mahar’ community. He would further submit that respondent No. 3 without taking into consideration the affinity report submitted by the Research Assistant came to the conclusion that the petitioner does not belong to the ‘Mahar’ caste only on the basis of the report submitted by Vigilance Cell. He would further argue that in the Birth and Death Register of the year 1943, the caste of the father of the petitioner is shown as “Mahar”. It is further submitted that Vigilance Cell superficially enquired into the matter whereas the Research Assistant conducted a detailed enquiry before recording a finding with regard to caste of the petitioner. He would next submit that respondent No. 3 did not follow the provisions enumerated in Rule 20 of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Rules, 2013 while passing the impugned order and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra & others reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 326.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State while opposing the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner would submit that due enquiry was conducted by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, as the reports were called from the Vigilance Cell as well as from the Res