Writ petitions seeking caste certificates must be substantiated with clear evidence of the claimant's religion, as per the Orissa Caste Certificate Rules, 1980.

JUDGMENT

Murahari Sri Raman, J. -

The challenge made in the intra-Court appeal:

This is an intra-Court appeal directed against Judgment dated 15.02.2024 rendered by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.12122 of 2022 in the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

The fact as adumbrated by the appellant in the writ appeal:

2. The appellant (petitioner in the writ proceeding) claiming himself to be member of Schedule Caste community (pano), stated to have submitted application before the Tahasildar, Rayagada for issuance of a caste certificate in his favour for the purpose of employment. Similarly, his two sisters had also applied for issuance of caste certificates in their favour. The applications were registered as Misc. Caste Certificate Case Nos. e-CAS/996 of 2019, e-CAS/1691 of 2019 and e-CAS/1693 of 2019 (relating to the appellant). It is stated that applications were rejected by the Tahasildar on the ground that though the appellant/writ petitioner and his sisters belong to Scheduled Caste community, they profess Christianity.

2.1. Challenging such rejection, three appeals being Misc. (Caste Certificate) Appeal Case Nos.4/2019, 5/2019 and 6/2019 (relating to the appellant), were filed before the Collector/respondent No.2. While entertaining the appeals, direction was issued by the respondent No.2 for fresh enquiry in respect of three appeals, in pursuance of which enquiry, being conducted by the concerned Additional Sub-Collector (respondent No.4), report dated 22.07.2019 was submitted with an observation that the appellant though is pano by caste, but not Hindu by religion, considering the way of living, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, performances during death ceremonies and the method of burial of dead bodies of the family members.

2.2. It is alleged that the enquiry was conducted behind the back of the appellant. Though the presence of the appellant was marked during enquiry, no statement was recorded from him. This is apparent from the enquiry report as no statement of the appellant was enclosed to said enquiry report.

2.3. After submission of the enquiry report, COVID-19 restriction had commenced, as a result of which the case of the appellant could not be heard nor was status of the appeal was communicated to the appellant. However, after recession of COVID-19 pandemic, challenging the enquiry report dated 22.07.2019, the appellant had approached this Court by way of filing writ petition. The report of the Additional Sub-Collector was questioned specifically on the ground that the enquiry was conducted perfunctorily without following statutory provisions. It was alleged that the enquiry was conducted with bias and the authority had acted with mala fides.

2.4. Being noticed, the opposite parties entered appearance and participated in the writ proceeding by filing counter affidavit justifying the enquiry report. It is affirmed by the appellant that in the counter affidavit, it was specifically pleaded that the enquiry was duly conducted by observing all the formalities and without having any mala fide intention or bias.

2.5. It is brought to the notice that final order dated 28.08.2019 was passed by the respondent No.2 by rejecting Misc. (Caste Certificate) Appeal Case No.6/2019 on the basis of contents contained in the enquiry report. It is stated that though the final order was passed much prior to filing of the writ petition, since the appellant was not aware about disposal of appeal, he challenged the enquiry report.

2.6. The a