SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(HP) 50

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Kurian Joseph, Dharam Chand Chaudhary, JJ.
Sanjeev Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondents.
CWP No. 3302 of 2010
Decided on : March 12, 2012

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitoner:Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy A.G. for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India for respondents No.3 and 4.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of an individual's caste status and entitlement to scheduled tribe benefits based on relevant orders, documents, and legal provisions.

Headnote:

Caste Dispute - Scheduled Tribe - [Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(1)(x)] - [Constitution of India, Article 341] - [Summary: The court addressed a dispute regarding the petitioner's caste status, specifically whether he belonged to the scheduled tribe community. The court analyzed the scheduled tribe certificate, orders of the Financial Commissioner, and relevant revenue records to determine the petitioner's caste. The court concluded that the petitioner belonged to the 'Gaddi Hali' community, which falls under the scheduled tribe category, and directed the authorities to issue a scheduled tribe certificate to the petitioner.]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, claiming to belong to the 'Gaddi Arya' caste and a member of the scheduled tribe community, was recruited in the Central Industrial Security Force. He was suspended and faced disciplinary proceedings for allegedly producing a false caste certificate. The dispute revolved around the authenticity of the petitioner's caste status and the orders related to caste correction in the revenue record.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner belonged to the 'Gaddi Hali' community, a scheduled tribe, based on the orders of the Financial Commissioner and relevant documents. The court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to a scheduled tribe certificate.

Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's caste status, the validity of the suspension and disciplinary proceedings, and the implementation of caste correction orders in the revenue record.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the determination of the petitioner's caste status and the applicability of the scheduled tribe category. The court emphasized the significance of the orders related to caste correction and the entitlement of the petitioner to a scheduled tribe certificate.

Final Decision: The court held that the petitioner belonged to the 'Gaddi Hali' community, a scheduled tribe, and directed the authorities to issue a scheduled tribe certificate to the petitioner. The court also directed the third and fourth respondents to consider any appeal or representation made by the petitioner in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT :

Dharam Chand Chaudhary,J. (Oral):

This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:

“(i) that appropriate writ and directions may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents and order Annexure P-4 and P-6 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) That in sequel to the quashing of Annexure P-6 directions may kindly be issued to the respondents No.1 and 2 to carry out the necessary correction in the revenue record with respect to the caste of the petitioner and the respondents No.3 and 4 may kindly be directed to drop any further proceedings contemplated against the petitioner vide Annexure P-4 and his suspension may also be ordered to be revoked.”

2. The petitioner allegedly belonging to “Gaddi Arya” caste, claims himself to be a member of scheduled tribe community. He further claims that he was recruited in Central Industrial Security Force on 19.12.2003 as Constable being a candidate belonging to scheduled tribe category. Alongwith his application for this post, he had submitted scheduled tribe certificate, Annexure P-2, duly issued by the Executive Magistrate, Bharmaur, District Chamba, to his employer, the fourth respondent. The said respondent got the authenticity and genuineness of the certificate, in question, verified from the office of second respondent, who in turn, vide letter, Annexure P-3, had informed the fourth respondent that initially the petitioner was recorded as scheduled tribe in the revenue record and later on his father got his caste corrected from “Gaddi Arya” to “Hali”, which has been notified as one of the scheduled castes by the State of H.P, the first respondent.

3. Consequently, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the fourth respondent on the charge of production of a false caste certificate, vide order Annexure P-4, on the charges as per charge-sheet enclosed to Annexure P-4. Petitioner has assailed the order of his suspension as also the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by filing the present petition, on the grounds interalia that he belongs to “Gaddi Arya” caste, which has been notified as scheduled tribe by the first respondent. In order to substantiate his claim a copy of Wazib-ul-Arz (Annexure P-12) and copy of Shajra Nasab (Annexure P-9) have been pressed in service.

4. It has further been claimed that the order, Annexure P-6, in revision No.93/1998, passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Himachal Pradesh, in a petition filed by his father, is illegal and contrary to the factual position besides bad In Law being passed behind his back deserves to be set aside and quashed.

5. The first and the second respondents in reply to the writ petition have made preliminary submissions to the effect that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition and that no legal or vested right of the petitioner has been infringed by them. On merits, it is submitted that the caste of the petitioner from “Gaddi Arya” to “Hali” has been ordered to be changed at the instance of the father of the petitioner, vide order Annexure P-6, by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), H.P., passed in a revision petition. The petitioner being his off spring is stated to have stepped into the shoes of his father.

6. The third and the fourth respondents, in reply to the writ petition filed on their behalf, have averred, by way of preliminary objections, that since the departmental inquiry initiated against the petitioner has already been completed and the penalty of dismissal from service already imposed upon him, hence this writ petition has turned infructuous against them and as such deserves to be dismissed. It has further been submitted that since the remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, therefore, he should have not filed the present petition in this Court.

7. On merits, the case of respondents No. 3 and 4, in nutshell, is that the petitioner has produced scheduled tribe certificate showing his caste as “Gaddi Arya”














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top