Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY, J.
Divya Gautam, D/o- Late Shri S.P. Gautam – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh - Respondent
Writ Petition (S) No. 7013 of 2011
Decided on : 02-07-2024
Constitution of India - Article 16 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - The petitioner challenged the cancellation of her social status certificate by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, which insisted on records prior to 1950, contrary to the Supreme Court's ruling in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241. The court found that the Committee's insistence was unjustified and quashed the order, remitting the matter for fresh consideration. (Paras 1-18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, born in 1983, applied for a caste certificate as a member of the Scheduled Caste 'Chamar', which was issued in 2004. She was selected for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest but faced scrutiny regarding her caste status.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the Committee's requirement for documents predating 1950 was improper and that the petitioner had established her status as a permanent resident of Chhattisgarh.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the Committee's demand for pre-1950 records and the fairness of the cancellation process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the procedure followed by the Committee was contrary to established legal principles, particularly the Supreme Court's guidelines for verifying social status certificates.
Result: The order of the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee was quashed, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration.
ORDER :
RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
10.2 To kindly direct respondent High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee to reconsider the case of the petitioner and verify the petitioner's caste certificate, without insisting on the records prior to the year 1950.
10.3 To kindly direct respondents No. 4 to 6 not to take any action against the petitioner till final decision of reconsideration of the candidature by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee.
10.4 To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.”
2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as follows:-
A) The father of the petitioner, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste, joined his services in the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Department of Panchayat and Social Welfare in the year 1972 at Jagdalpur, CG. The date of the birth of the petitioner is 13.12.1983. She was born and brought up in Jagdalpur. She passed Class-8th in the year 1997, Class-10th in the year 1999 and Class-12th in the year 2001 from Nirmal Higher Secondary School, Jagdalpur (Bastar), CG. She completed her Graduation in the year 2004 and Post Graduation in the year 2007 from Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur, CG.
B) The petitioner had applied for issuance of social status certificate and the same was issued by the competent authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jagdalpur, C.G. 15.07.2004 showing her caste ‘Chamar’ which is notified Scheduled Caste within the State of Chhattisgarh as per the Presidential Order, 1950.
C) An advertisement was issued for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest on 29.11.2007. The petitioner applied as a member of Scheduled Caste, she appeared in the examination and she was duly selected as she secured 11th rank in the merit list. The petitioner was informed with regard to her selection by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission vide letter dated 18.05.2009. An appointment order was issued by the Forest Department, State of Chhattisgarh on 04.07.2009 and thereafter the petitioner joined the services.
D) The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste category, therefore, the petitioner was asked by the department to get the certificate verified within a period of 03 months.
E) The petitioner moved an application before respondent No. 2 for verification of her social status certificate which was received on 24.06.2009.
F) On 21.07.2009, the Committee directed the petitioner to produce the necessary record prior to the year 1950.
G) On 09.12.2009, the Committee observed in its order sheet that pursuant to the order dated 21.07.2009, the petitioner could not produce any document, whereas the burden lies on the petitioner to prove her social status and again time was granted.
H) On 11.12.2009 and 16.08.2010 again time was granted to the petitioner to produce the record prior to the year 1950. On 18.03.2011, the Committee directed the Vigilance Cell to submit its report pursuant to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others, (1994) 6 SCC 241. The Vigilance Cell submitted its report on 02.08.2011 and it was considered by the Committee on 03.08.2011. On that date, notice was issued to the petitioner to afford her the opportunity of hearing. On 20.09.2011, the order impugned was passed by the Committee and the social status certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled.
3. Mr. Kishore Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that:-
The insistence on pre-1950 records for caste verification is contrary to established legal principles, particularly the Supreme Court's guidelines.
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.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that a person with a case based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court, and knowingly producing fabricated and fraudulent documents to ....
Cancellation of a caste certificate should be based on a detailed enquiry and the claimant should be granted necessary opportunity to prove their claim.
Point of Law : The object of Articles 341(1) and 342(1) of the Constitution is to provide additional protection to the members of the SC/ST having regard to the social and economical backwardness fro....
Point of Law : Petitioner is married in the State of Himachal Pradesh to a person belonging to OBC and even the Caste to which the petitioner belonged in the State of her origin has been declared as ....
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
