IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.K.MOHAPATRA, J.
Pramod Kumar Bindhani – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha and Others – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 9312 of 2022
Decided On : 20-05-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. caste certificate validity and disputes. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. judicial observations on jurisdiction. (Para 2 , 10 , 18 , 19 , 24) |
| 3. enquiry procedures and legal standards. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. expectations of the enquiry process. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. final order and disposal of the writ petition. (Para 25) |
JUDGMENT :
A.K. MOHAPATRA, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the letter dated 21.10.2021 of A.D.M., Mayurbhanj under Annexure-8, letter dated 07.10.2021 of the Tahasildar, Badasahi under Annexure-7 and letter dated 19.09.2021 of R.I. Kuradiha, Badasahi under Badasahi Tahasildar under Annexure- 12 and letter dated 06.12.2021 issued by the RDC, Cuttack under Annexure-13 and finally letter dated 20.05.2021 under Annexure- 6 issued by the Sub-collector, Kaptipada, Udala. The petitioner further prays for quashing of letter under Annexures-6, 7, 8, 12 and 13. It has also been prayed for in the writ petition to declare that A.D.M., Mayurbhanj cannot act as a member of the State Level Scrutiny Committee.
2. Heard Ms. Pami Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Y.S.P. Babu, learned Additional Government Advocate and Mr. P.K. Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the Paradeep Port Trust-Opposite Party No.4
3. The case of the petitioner, bereft of all unnecessary details and as culled out from the pleadings in writ petition, is that the petitioner joined in Paradeep Port Trust (hereinafter referred to ‘PPT’) Opposite Party No.4 on 16.06.1991 in the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). The petitioner joined before the Opposite Party No.4 as S.T. candidates by availing the reservation for the S.T. Category candidates. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) in the year 2002 under the reserved category man for S.T. candidate. Thereafter again on 30.10.2007, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Superintendent Engineer. However, without availing benefit of reservation as the law of reservation is not applicable to the said post. At the moment the petitioner is discharging his duties as Superintendent Engineer (Civil).
4. Initially, a caste certificate was issued by the Tahasildar, Udala on 05.11.1985 in favour of the petitioner in the district of Mayurbhanj by following provisions under Orissa Caste Certificate for Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Rules, 1980. Thereafter, again another caste certificate was issued by the Tahasildar, Udala on 16.11.1998 on the request of the petitioner. The necessity to apply for another caste certificate arose as the petitioner had misplaced the original caste certificate issued in the year 1985. However, both the caste certificates reflected identical details. While the matte stood thus, in the school admission register of the children of the petitioner, the school authorities insisted upon a caste certificate from the office of the Sub- Collector, Kaptipada, Udala. Accordingly, a fresh caste certificate was issued by the Sub-Collector, Kaptipada, Udala vide Certificate No.1 of 2000 dated 25.03.2000. It is needless to mention here that the certificate was issued in the year 1985-1998 are the basis of appointment of the petitioner in PPT under the S.T. category.
5. While the petitioner was discharging his duties as Superintendent Engineer (Civil) in PPT, the Opposite Party No.4 issued a show-cause notice dated 29.10.2020 alleging that the petitioner belongs to “Kamara” caste, which falls under SEBC category and as such the same belongs to OBC category and that the petitioner does not belong to “Kollahars” which comes under the S.T. category. The show-cause notice that was issued to the petitioner reveals that some materials were collected behind the back of the petitioner and further some strangers, who had hostility towards the petitioner, had raised objection with regard to caste certificate of the petitioner before the National Commission for the Schedule Tr
Only the Caste Scrutiny Committee has jurisdiction to verify caste certificates, rendering unauthorized inquiries invalid under the Odisha Act, 2011.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a proper and lawful process of caste status verification, in compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, an....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that a person with a case based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court, and knowingly producing fabricated and fraudulent documents to ....
The court emphasized the importance of scrutinizing caste certificates with utmost expedition and promptitude, and highlighted that re-opening cases without sufficient reason would be detrimental to ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the procedural requirement for issuing a show cause notice when the vigilance report is in favor of the petitioner, as required by Rule 17(11)(i) o....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a fair and detailed vigilance inquiry to ascertain the validity of a caste claim, emphasizing the importance of providing co....
Caste Certificate – Invalidation of - Affinity test may not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing link of applicant with a Scheduled – Tribe.
The main legal point established is the requirement for a detailed vigilance inquiry and the importance of documentary evidence in proving caste claim under the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Rules.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.