JUDGMENT :

Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, Om Prakash Tripathi, JJ.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

2. Sri Dr. Arjun Singh, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 6, has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition and submitted that the order impugned is an interlocutory order and the petition is not maintainable against such order. The petitioner should wait for final order to be passed whereafter a statutory remedy of filing appeal will be available before Divisional Level Committee.

3. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 08.06.2022 passed by the respondent no.2 District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others, AIR 1995 SC 94, where the Court has held that for examination of whether a candidate belongs a particular reserved category, the matter should be referred to the Vigilance Cell for conducting the inquiry for which it directed that each Directorate should constitute a Vigilance Cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the claims for reservation, no enquiry by Vigilance Cell has been done.

5. The petitioner had filed an objection to complaint made against her. The District Level Scrutiny Committee should have referred the matter of the petitioner for investigation to Vigilance Cell. The petitioner's objection has been rejected by means of impugned order passed by District Level Scrutiny Committee saying that the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra) have been incorporated in the Government Orders dated 02.07.1994 and 05.01.1996. There being no direction in the two Government Orders for referring the matter for investigation to the Vigilance Cell, the petitioner's objection is misconceived.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in similar case, a coordinate Division Bench of this Court has entertained a petition, namely, Writ-C No.3338 of 2022 (Mohd. Israr Khan vs. State of U.P. and others). The Court has found that the order impugned passed by the District Level Scrutiny Committee was in violation of judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra) and therefore, the Court has entertained the petition and directed the Standing Counsel to seek instructions and stayed the order impugned till the next date of listing.

7. This Court has perused the interim orders dated 06.06.2022, 21.06.2022 and 26.06.2022 passed in said petition. It is apparent that initially this Court had granted time to Standing Counsel to seek instructions as to why the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra) were not followed in such matters. When no instructions were forthcoming, the District Level Committee was restrained from passing a final order till the next listing of the petition.

8. Sri Manish Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents has relied upon a Division Bench judgment in the case of Nasrin Bano vs. State of U.P. and others, M.B. No.36397 of 2018, wherein the order of District Level Scrutiny Committee was challenged by the petitioners and mandamus was sought to the State-respondents to enquire the dispute regarding Caste Certificate through Vigilance Cell as per Government Order dated 05.01.1996 in which guidelines had been framed in the light of a judgment of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra). The Division Bench considered the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Nasrin Bano (Supra) that Scrutiny Committee should have referred the matter to the Vigilance Cell and should not have conducted inquiry through Revenue Officials. The Division Bench in