By the Court.—The petitioner was issued a caste certificate of ‘Kharwar’ caste on 15.6.2004 by the Tehsildar, Ghazipur. Another certificate, reiterating the earlier one dated 15.6.2004, was issued by the Tehsildar on 22.3.2007. Both the certificates have collectively been filed as annexure-2 to the writ petition. The issuance of said certificate is not in dispute by the parties.

2. The said ‘Kharwar’ caste has been declared as Scheduled Tribe by the U.P. Government Notification of 2002. On the basis of such caste certificate, vide appointment letter dated 1.3.2007, the petitioner was appointed as a driver in the C.R.P.F on 3.9.2009, the Commandant of the C.R.P.F Battalion sent communication for verification of the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. The then Tehsildar verified the issuance of the caste certificate in favour of the petitioner, but besides this, on his own, he sent a communication to the Principal Secretary, Samaj Kalyan, Uttar Pradesh on 12.10.2009 to the effect that the caste certificate, certifying the caste of the petitioner as of ‘Kharwar’ was wrongly issued. According to the Tehsildar, the petitioner belongs to ‘Kamkar’ or ‘Kahar’ caste, which is a backward caste. The Tehsildar recommended that the Caste Scrutiny Committee may examine the matter. On the basis of such communication, the Caste Scrutiny Committee has passed the impugned order dated 28.8.2012 cancelling the caste certificate of the petitioner after holding that the petitioner belongs to Kamkar/Kahar caste. Challenging the said order, this writ petition has been filed.

3. We have heard Sri Nikhil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the record. Pleadings between the parties have been exchanged and with consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.

4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is primarily that the Tehsildar was required to only verify the issuance of the caste certificate in favour of the petitioner and once it was found that the caste certificate was issued by the office of the Tehsildar, he had no power or jurisdiction to call for a review of the caste certificate, that too without there being any complaint regarding issuance of such certificate. According to the petitioner, the Tehsildar could not have initiated a de novo inquiry into the matter without there being any material or complaint in that regard filed before him. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 28.8.2012 has been passed by the caste scrutiny committee on surmises and conjunctures, without considering the case of the petitioner and the document submitted by him.

5. Learned Standing Counsel has, however, submitted that the Caste Scrutiny Committee was well within its jurisdiction to re-examine the caste certificate which was issued in favour of the petitioner and after having found that the caste certificate issued in the year 2007 was wrongly issued by the Tehsildar, the same has been cancelled, which is fully justified in law.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the record, we are of the opinion that the cancellation of the caste certificate by the Caste Scrutiny Committee cannot be justified in law.

In the communication of the Tehsildar dated 12.10.2009, it is nowhere mentioned that there was any complaint with regard to the issuance of the caste certificate in favour of the petitioner. By the communication of the Commandant of C.R.P.F dated 3.9.2009, the Tehsildar was required to only verify the issuance of the caste certificate and not its correctness. Once the Tehsildar had verified the issuance of the said certificate, it had no power or jurisdiction to provide for review of the issuance of the said caste certificate or recommend for its cancellation, specially when there was no complaint by any authority or person with r