The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of fair opportunity, examination of relevant persons, and proper inquiry in the issuance and verification of caste certificates.

JUDGMENT

1. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client belongs to scheduled tribe 'Gondo'. He has challenged final order dtd. 20/6/2012, of the State Level Scrutiny Committee, passed in fake caste certificate case (FCC no.21 of 2011). He submits, the Investigating Officer (IO) did not afford his client opportunity in the purported investigation conducted. His client had earlier moved a Division Bench of this Court by W.P.(C) no.2003 of 2012, which was disposed of on order dtd. 8/2/2012. There was direction for his client to have fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing and allow him to furnish the documents, if any.

2. He draws attention to report dtd. 11/11/2011 of the IO, on the investigation made without participation of his client. He points out from findings in impugned final order that when his client produced photocopy of the admission register relating to, inter alia, his father, the committee said they had perused the original admission register and found that caste entry on admission of his father had been tampered with by overwriting and made 'Gondo'. Hence, the document could not be relied upon and was not taken into consideration. He submits, there is no mention in report of the IO that school admission record regarding his client's father had been tampered. He relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Sayanna vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2009) 10 SCC 268, paragraph 14. He submits, impugned final order be quashed.

3. Mr. Babu, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and relies on paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 in the counter. He submits, it will appear therefrom that petitioner was given opportunity to appear in the investigation but, he did not. The committee complied with directions made in aforesaid order of the Division Bench, by supplying copies of documents attached to the report of the IO, to petitioner. His show-cause was perused and he was given personal hearing. Steps were duly taken in the matter as per observations of the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commr., Tribal Development, reported in AIR 1995 SC 94. Impugned final order was made. It has clear findings. In the circumstances, there should not be interference by judicial review.

4. Court has perused report of the IO, made before aforesaid direction of the Division Bench, to allow, inter alia, fair opportunity to petitioner. It appears from the report that admission record of elder brother of petitioner, admitted to the school on 16/7/1970, was verified by the IO and on requisition made, the Head Master had opined that the caste of petitioner's said brother is 'Guna' in general category. Several khatas in the RoR were also verified by the IO. Of them, except khata no.796, all were joint. Khata no.796 stands in name of father of petitioner, where the caste is written as 'Gondo'. Relevant paragraph from the report is reproduced below.

"On verification Khata No.796 of G. Udayagiri mouza stand in the name of Sridhar Nayak, S/o. Surendra Nayak of G. Udayagiri in which the caste is written as "Ganda""

The IO remarked that such was proof of the record having been managed by any means.

5. Impugned final order says that the committee gave opportunity to petitioner and he appeared before it on three days. As aforesaid, petitioner produced photocopy of the school admission register in respect of his father's admission. Mr. Mishra hands up the photocopy, as obtained on requisition dtd. 2/3/2012 under Right to Information Act, 2005. The photocopy of the admission register page, showing some admissions made in June and July, 1944, was forwarded under cover of letter dtd. 3/3/2012 by the Head Master, Hubback High School, G. Udayagiri, Kandhamal. This was noted in impugned final order. It appears, the committee itself called for the original register and on perusal thereof found tampering, as aforesaid. Such tampering is not obvious in the photocopy. Also, there is no refere