ORDER

1. This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs :--

“(i) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by setting aside the impugned enquiry report dated 13.2.2017 (Anx. P/7) submitted by the respondent No.5 and directed the respondent to appoint the petitioner in the post of the patwari, district-umariya, in the interest of justice.

(ii) To grant any other relief which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. It is the case of petitioner that an advertisement was issued on 6.2.2012 for appointment on the post of Patwari. The petitioner also applied for examination and submitted online application form with all relevant documents along with his caste certificate. By letter dated 5.7.2014, respondent No.4 granted permission to some of the candidates for new training session under which the petitioner was also selected from District Umariya as per marks obtained by him and accordingly by letter dated 9.7.2014, the respondent No.4 directed the petitioner to remain present in the new training session.

3. By letter dated 16.8.2016, the result of Patwari examination was declared and the petitioner was selected. Thereafter, by letter dated 21.12.2016 written by Deputy Collector on behalf of Collector, District Umariya sought instructions from Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement by mentioning that although the petitioner had appeared in the Patwari examination held in the year 2012 but he was declared unsuccessful and subsequently the petitioner got selected in Patwari examination conducted in the year, 2016. The Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement by its letter dated 16.3.2017 written to Collector, Land Records reminded that as per the rules there is a provision for grant of three opportunities to appear in the Patwari examination and the petitioner had appeared in the yearly examination conducted in the year, 2016 and he was declared successful by result dated 16.8.2016 and it was also directed that power regarding appointment of Patwari lies with the Collector and even the documents have been submitted before office of Collector, therefore the Collector should take an action at his own level.

4. It appears that some complaints were made with regard to the authenticity of the domicile certificate relied upon by the petitioner. Therefore, the Deputy Collector by his letter dated 1.1.2015, which was addressed to the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement informed that there are some complaint with regard to place of resident of petitioner, therefore the Deputy Collector by his letter dated 1.1.2015, which was sent on behalf of Collector, District Umariya to Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement informed that the complaint with regard to the fact that petitioner is not permanent resident of Umariya is false. Thereafter, a complaint was made to SDO, Pali, District Umariya by Jitendra Singh Paraste by alleging that petitioner had appeared in the examination on the basis of a forged caste certificate as a result the complainant could not get selected and accordingly, the SDO, Sohagpur District Shahdol by his report dated 13.2.2017 held that petitioner had obtained a forged caste certificate to the effect that he belongs to cast ‘Agariya’ (Scheduled Tribe) whereas he belongs to ‘Vishwakarma’ caste and therefore it was proposed that a criminal action may also be taken against petitioner. The aforesaid letter was addressed to Collector, Shahdol. The said letter sent by SDO, Sohagpur, District Shahdol to Collector, District Shahdol is under challenge.

5. A solitary ground has been raised by the counsel for petitioner that in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241, the jurisdiction lies with the Higher Power Caste Scrutiny Committee and not with the SDO. Therefore the report submitt