IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the time frames provided in the government orders for caste verification are directory, not mandatory, and an appeal can only be maintainable against a decision of a committee.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Vipul Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel on behalf of the respondents.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a B.Sc. graduate and after his graduation applied for his caste certificate through online portal vide application No.211470030073241 before the Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar, Firozabad on 21.5.2021. It has been submitted that the said application was rejected by means of order dated 25.5.2021.

3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tehsildar the petitioner filed an application before District Level Caste Scrutiny Verification Committee on 16.6.2021. It is stated that the said application was filed in terms of the Government Order dated 28.2.2011 where it is provided that the said verification of the caste be done within fifteen days. The petitioner waited for fifteen days and on expiry of the said period as the application was not decided he approached the Divisional Level Caste Verification Committee vide application dated 21.7.2021. It is submitted that as per the Government Order dated 27.1.2011 clause 5 provides for thirty days’ time to decide the application preferred against the order of District Level Caste Verification Committee but it is stated that despite expiry of a period of one month the application was not decided by Divisional Level committee. After waiting for two months the petitioner approached the State Level Caste Verification Committee by filing application on 30.9.2021. It is submitted that as per the Government Order dated 5.1.1996 under sub clause 5 of of clause 6 two months’ time has been provided to the State Level to decide application. It is further submitted that even after expiry of two months’ time no order was passed by the State Level Caste Verification and in these circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court by filing writ petition bearing Writ A No.875 of 2024 which was disposed of vide order dated 6.2.2024 directing the State Level Caste Verification Committee to decide the application of the petitioner within a period of ten days from the date a certified copy of the is submitted to them. It is in compliance of the order of this Court passed in Writ A No.875 of 2024 that the State Level Committee has rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that the said appeal is not in accordance with the rules in as much as there is no decision taken by the District Level Committee against which the application has been filed and, therefore, held that such an application was not maintainable.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order dated 14.2.2024 has submitted that the time period prescribed in various government orders which have been passed in pursuance of the judgment and order of Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others (1994) 6 SCC 241 is mandatory and once the time period has expired and no decision is passed on the application preferred by the aggrieved person then he will have the right of approaching higher forum and accordingly submits that the State Level Committee should have dealt with the case of the petitioner on merits. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that during pendency of the appeal before the State Level Committee a vigilance report was also obtained as per the direction of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Madhuri Patil (supra) and the said report was submitted on 28.4.2022. It is further submitted that once Vigilance Cell report was brought on record the matter ought to have been decided on merits and accordingly remanding the matter back to the District Level Committee by means of the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary and requires interference.

5. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition. It has been submitted that the appeal preferred by the petitioner has n