Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 836
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Meetu Passi W/o Rajiv Sharma – Petitioner
Versus
National Commission for Scheduled Caste through its Chairman – Respondent
W.P. (C) Nos. 2760 of 2010, 4922 of 2015
Decided On : 25-07-2018
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Mr. Shreya Mishra.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sachin Kumar, Mr. D.K. Dubey, Mr. Kumar Harsh.
Headnote:
Civil Laws – Cancellation of Caste Certificate – W.P. (C) has been filed for the reliefs for quashing the impugned Memo issued by District Welfare Officer, Ranchi whereby and whereunder caste certificate issued to petitioner in year 1989 has been cancelled; as also for quashing enquiry report whereby and whereunder the caste certificate issued to the petitioner in the year 1989 has been declared to be a forged document on the basis of an ex-parte enquiry in which the petitioner has not even been noticed and no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before coming to the conclusion by the Enquiry Officer, as also for the issuance of such other writ, order or direction as may appear just and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner and in the interest of justice – Held, Counsel appearing on behalf of private respondent has also submitted that as per the order passed in W.P. (C), Caste Scrutiny Committee was to examine as to whether the petitioner is entitled for the caste certificate from the State of Jharkhand. – Accordingly, while answering the reference, the Caste Scrutiny Committee has confined its decision in holding that the petitioner is not entitled for caste certificate from the State of Jharkhand and has rightly not gone further. – Certainly the petitioner is entitled to apply for issuance of caste certificate before the competent authority in the state of Punjab and the authorities in the State of Punjab after making thorough enquiry regarding the caste status of the petitioner on the basis of on the spot enquiry may issue the caste certificate to the petitioner. – But so far as the caste scrutiny committee in the State of Jharkhand is concerned, it is bound by the circular of the Union of India in connection with issuance of caste certificate to persons who are migrated from the State who can only be issued Caste Certificate on the basis of caste certificate of their parents. – Accordingly he submits that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. – He also submits that records of the case shows that the caste certificate which was issued to the petitioner in the year 1989 had no legal basis for its issuance. – There is no such record available with the State and there is not even an affidavit of the petitioner or her father before the issuing authority. – As per the case of the petitioner, she submitted certain documents which was taken back after showing the same to the said authority. – Accordingly the caste certificate which was issued to the petitioner by the authority in the state of Jharkhand has been issued without even primary enquiry and the format in which it is issued does not indicate that the petitioner belongs to the State of Punjab. – Accordingly, he submits that the impugned order passed in W.P. (C) as well as in W.P. (C) does not require any interference. – Upon being asked to a query that what locus has private respondent got to challenge the caste certificate of the petitioner, he submits that one criminal case has been instituted against private respondent by the petitioner stating herself as a scheduled caste and the caste certificate has been issued to the petitioner has a direct bearing in the said criminal case. – In this view of the matter, he had taken steps challenging the caste certificate itself which was issued to the petitioner by the District Welfare Officer, Ranchi. – Counsel for the private respondent has also submits that during the pendency of this case, ultimately the criminal case has been dropped against the private respondent on the ground that she does not belong to the scheduled caste category. – The said order has been brought on record wherein it has been stated that the petitioner does not belong to scheduled caste category. – Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. – Writ Petition Dismissed
1. Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Shreya Mishra, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Sachin Kumar, counsel appearing for the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
3. Heard Mr. D.K. Dubey, learned senior standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-State.
4. Heard Mr. Kumar Harsh, counsel appearing on behalf of private respondent.
5. W.P. (C) No. 2760 of 2010 has been filed for the following reliefs:-
“For quashing the impugned Memo No. 1746 (ii) dated 25.05.2010 (Annexure-7) issued by the District Welfare Officer, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the caste certificate issued to the petitioner (Annexure-2) in the year 1989 has been cancelled; as also for quashing the enquiry report dated 26.10.2009 (Annexure-6) whereby and whereunder the caste certificate issued to the petitioner in the year 1989 has been declared to be a forged document on the basis of an ex-parte enquiry in which the petitioner has not even been noticed and no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before coming to the conclusion by the Enquiry Officer, as also for the issuance of such other writ, order or direction as may appear just and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner and in the interest of justice.”
6. From perusal of the writ petition and from the records of the case it appears that one of the main grievance which was raised by the petitioner was that the impugned order dated 25.05.2010 cancelling the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was passed without any notice to the writ petitioner and without granting any opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner.
7. Vide order dated 24.07.2013 this court observed that the whole controversy in the writ petition is relating to cancellation of caste certificate issued by District Welfare Officer, Ranchi vide order dated 25th May 2010. This court found that in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another vs. Additional Commissioner Tribal Development and Others, (1994) 6 SCC 241 the State government has constituted Caste Scrutiny Committee vide notification dated 08.07.2004 to make recommendation for issuance of caste certificate as also to enquire into the instances of issuance of fake caste certificates. In such circumstances, this court vide order dated 24.07.13 thought it proper to remit the matter to the Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted by the State of Jharkhand for taking appropriate decision on the point “whether the petitioner was entitled for issuance of caste certificate on the basis of caste which she claims to belong, and whether she is covered under Presidential Notification as such to seek the status of scheduled caste in the state of Jharkhand or not and whether her caste certificate was fake.”
8. The aforesaid exercise was to be completed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee within a period of 16 weeks and it was directed that the same should be brought on record by filing affidavit.
9. Pursuant to the order dated 24.07.2013 the petitioner duly appeared before the caste scrutiny committee and the caste scrutiny committee subsequently prepared a report dated 24.11.2014.
10. The said report of caste scrutiny committee dated 24.11.2014 was challenged by the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 2760 of 2010 by filing a petition for amendment vide I.A. No. 3395 of 2015 which was dismissed vide order dated 02.09.2015 on the ground that the same is a separate cause of action and cannot be clubbed together in one writ petition.
11.Thereafter the petitioner challenged the report of the Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 24.11.2014 in the second writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 4922 of 2015 and by the order of this Court, both the matters were clubbed and directed to be heard together.
12. By referring to the facts of the case, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Apprentice Development Officer by virtue of letter of
