Point of Law: Where factual foundation arrived at by a committee authorised in this behalf concludes that a person is not a member of Scheduled Tribe, would remain operative unless set aside by a superior court.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MEHTA, J.

1. The instant intra-court writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant union (respondent no. 7 in the writ petition) being aggrieved of the order dated 24.11.2022, passed by the learned Single Bench accepting the writ petition filed by the respondent no. 1 herein, and quashing the order dated 26.02.2021, issued by the State Level Scrutiny Committee (hereinafter referred to as “SLSC” for short) recommending cancellation of the OBC Certificate of the respondent/writ petitioner.

2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are quoted herein-below:

The respondent/writ petitioner applied for and was successful in the selection process initiated for Junior Grade posts in the Assam Land and Revenue Service pursuant to an advertisement published in the year 2016. She qualified as an OBC category candidate and was appointed on probation to the said service vide Notification dated 09.01.2019. The appellant union lodged an FIR against the respondent/writ petitioner on 24.07.2019 alleging inter alia that the father of the respondent/writ petitioner belongs to General Category and, hence, she could not have possessed an OBC certificate. During the course of enquiry, the respondent/writ petitioner was directed to appear before the State Level Scrutiny Committee under the Welfare of Plain Tribes & Backward Classes Department (WPT & BC) and, after hearing the respondent/writ petitioner, the SLSC passed a speaking order dated 26.02.2021 recommending that the OBC certificate issued to the writ petitioner should be cancelled by the appropriate authority with immediate effect. The respondent/writ petitioner assailed the said order by filing WP(C) 2286/2021.

During the course of hearing of the writ petition, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, presented the original records before the court inter alia containing a report of enquiry conducted under supervision of Superintendent of Police, CID, Assam, Guwahati, with regard to the OBC certificate of the respondent/writ petitioner. The enquiry was conducted by the Inspector of Police, CID, Assam, and the enquiry report dated 03.10.2019 was submitted concluding that aspersion on the OBC certificate of the respondent/writ petitioner was based on no truth. Placing reliance on the said report, the learned Single Judge, vide the impugned order dated 24.11.2022, affirmed the findings of the enquiry officer in the report dated 03.10.2019 and set aside the speaking order dated 26.02.2021 issued by the SLSC. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is assailed in this intra-court writ appeal filed by the appellant union.

3. Mr. A.K. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel representing the appellant vehemently and fervently contended that the OBC certificate submitted by the respondent/writ petitioner for procuring employment in the Assam Land and Revenue Service was fabricated. He contended that it is an admitted position that the father of the petitioner hails from General Category and, thus, she cannot claim to be belonging to OBC category. Fervent reliance was placed by Mr. Bhattacharyya on the speaking order dated 26.02.2021 urging that the learned Single Bench was wholly unjustified in causing interference into the well reasoned speaking order. He urged that the respondent was required to lead unimpeachable evidence in order to establish her status as an OBC category candidate based on her mother’s caste. However, she did not provide any evidence whatsoever in this regard. No material was placed with the SLSC that the respondent had been abandoned by her father and as a consequence thereof she was discriminated against and was deprived of opportunities while living with her mother. No material was placed with the SLSC to show that the respondent/writ petitioner was compelled to live in the “Koch” community and, as a consequence, she suffered from deprivation, disability and handicap, etc. The respondent/writ petitioner all along resided at Guwahati