I have heard Mr. D. Biswas, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Das, learned senior counsel for the State-respondent and Mr. KN Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel for the private respondents.

2. The dispute at hand relates to a question whether the writ petitioner Smti Sushama Chettri belongs to 'Lepcha' Community or not. Her admission to the Medical College against seats reserved for Scheduled Tribes Community was challenged in writ petition No. WP (C) 365 of 2000 filed by Smti Pallavi Debbarma. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 11th August, 2000 taking note of the decision of the Supreme Court in para 10 of the judgment in Director of Tribunal Welfare, Govt of Andhra Pradesh vs. Laveti Giri & another reported in AIR 1995 SC 1506. The said civil rule was disposed of with the following direction :

"8. Accordingly, I dispose of the interim matter with a direction to the authority concerned to allow the nomination of the respondent No. 5, Smti Susharna Chettri for admission to the aforesaid college and her admission shall be subject to the final result of the enquiry by the competent Scrutiny Committee.''

3. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction, an order was made by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar wherein it was held that the writ petitioner Smti Sushama Chettri belongs to Lepcha Community which is Scheduled Tribe Community as per Presidential notification. Thereafter, the Secretary to the Govt of Tripura, Tribal Welfare Department by order dated September 8, 2000 reviewed the decision of the Sub Divisional Officer suo motu and reversed the finding of the Sub Divisional Officer declaring the writ petitioner as a member of Nepali Community and further that she does not belong to Lepcha Community.

4. In this writ petition, the order passed by' the Secretary reviewing the order of the Sub Divisional Officer is in challenge.

5. Mr. Biswas, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department has no jurisdiction either to issue certificate at the first instance or to recall it by way of review. The decision of the Sub Divisional Officer who is the competent authority to issue Caste Certificate is final. Mr. Biswas pointed out that the Secretary had exercised the powers of review delegated to him by the Governor of Tripura in exercise of powers under section 11 (5) of the Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts) Act, 1991, which has no relevance to dispute at hand.

6. The Act of 1991 as amended in the year 1997 nowhere provides for delegation of any powers under the Act to any officer of the State, not to speak of the powers of review a certificate issued by the competent authority. Moreover, the Act in question was enacted by the State Legislature with a view to provide for reservation of vacancies in services and posts for the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Communities. Thereafter, ex facie the order of review under challenge in this writ petition passed by the Secretary in the Tribal Welfare Department appears to be without authority of law.

7. It may be reiterated here that the earlier writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to get the matter enquired into by the competent Scrutiny Committee. The expression 'Scrutiny Committee' was drafted from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Director of Tribunal Welfare (supra) referred to above. It is considered pertinent to refer to an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil & another vs. Addl Commissioner, Tribal Development & others reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241. In a similarly situated case, for resolution of the dispute, the Supreme Court in para 13 prescribed the procedure to be adopted. Relevant excerpt from para 13 is as below :

"13. For that purpose, it is necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of social status certificates, their

Click Here to Read the rest of this document