JUDGMENT

BISWANATH RATH, J. - This writ petition involves a challenge to the order dated 26.4.2014 passed by the State Level Scrutiny committee involving Fake Caste Certificate Case No. 452 of 2010 appearing at Annexure-6 and seeking a direction to treat the petitioner as a Scheduled Caste being Pano by caste and Christian by religion in terms of caste certificate bearing RMC No. 406 of 1998.

2. Short background involved in the case is that petitioner is a resident of Barakhama village in Baliguda Block of Kandhamal district. Petitioner claimed to be Pano (Scheduled Caste) by caste and Christian by religion converted from Hindu. Petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher (ZP), Takasingh New Primary School, Baliguda Block. It is at this point of time, Nikhil Utkal Kui Samaj, G.Udayagiri vide letter dated 17.3.2008 brought up allegation against various persons who have obtained fake caste certificate under complete misrepresentation of facts. Pursuant to such allegation and following the direction of Hon’ble Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil Case, AIR 1995 SC 94, State Government vide resolution dated 26.6.2008 constituted State Level Scrutiny Committee to consider the allegation giving rise consideration of the case of the petitioner. Petitioner being noticed to show cause accompanying a copy of the report dated 20.2.2009 of the Investigating Officer, Vigilance Cell-cum-Circle Inspector of Police, P.S. Baliguda therein, on his appearance the petitioner requested the State Level Scrutiny Committee for supply of the documents relied upon by the Investigating Officer, Vigilance Cell-cum-Circle Inspector of Police enabling him filing an effective response. Petitioner also submitted various documents to satisfy his claim. He also appeared before the State Level Scrutiny Committee on 20.5.2009. it is alleged that the proceeding was concluded with a final order vide Annexure-6 but without following the principle of natural justice and also giving an opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses examined by the Vigilance Cell involving the allegation concerning the petitioner. Taking reliance of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the Case of Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, AIR 199 SC 94 and further a judgment of this Court in the case of Markesh Mallick v. State of Orissa & Others (W.P.(C). No. 14765 of 2009), Sri Bhojraj Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decision of this Court in W.P.(C). No. 14765 of 2009 has a direct bearing on the petitioner’s case. Under the above circumstance, Sri Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the interest of justice, at least on interference in the impugned order, the matter should be remitted back for re-consideration giving opportunity of cross-examination to the petitioner involving the caste proceeding and fresh hearing of the proceeding after documents relied on being supplied to the petitioner.

3. Learned State Counsel while opposing the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, taking into the impugned order submitted that it is false to allege that in spite of petitioner’s asking for supply of copy of the documents relied on by the Vigilance Cell, he was not supplied with any such document rather neither the records bear any such application nor the petitioner is able to file any such document establishing his such claim. At the same time, it is also false to claim that the petitioner has not been provided opportunity of hearing. Though the learned State Counsel did not object to the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the judgment involving W.P.(C). No. 14765 of 2009 but taking this Court to the findings involved in the impugned order, Sri Sahoo, learned State Counsel appearing for the State justified the impugned order.

4. Considering the rival contention of the parties and taking into consideration the judgments relied on, further perusal of the impugned ord