The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper verification of caste certificates and the jurisdiction for such verification, as well as the need for a fresh enquiry into the issuance of the caste certificate.

JUDGMENT

MILIND RAMESH PHADKE, J. - The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred being aggrieved by the order dtd. 27/9/2019 (received by the petitioner on 4/10/2019) by which the caste certificate of the petitioner has been declared to be illegal and consequent thereupon, the services of the petitioner have been terminated. The aforesaid order is challenged on the ground that it is without jurisdiction as the order with regard to any caste certificate, whether legal or illegal, can only be passed by a State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development AIR 1995 SC 94.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts which are necessary for adjudication of the present matter are as under:-

<UL>The petitioner who is an Ayurved Medical Officer was appointed on the aforesaid post on 2/7/2016 and is posted in Government Ayurved Hospital/Dispensary, Sirsod, District Shivpuri. A complaint was made against the petitioner by one Ram Prakash Pahariya with regard to his caste "Manjhi" to which the petitioner belongs that the petitioner had submitted a false caste certificate as he does not belong to the aforesaid caste and on the basis of the aforesaid complaint, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 8/4/2019. In the said notice, it was stated that the entry of caste certificate of the petitioner was not found in the register maintained in the office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Lashkar, Gwalior at number 1471/2001-02/B-121 dtd. 25/6/2002 on which it was issued.

3. Vide letter dtd. 1/5/2019, a reply was forwarded by the petitioner. In the reply, it was stated that he was duly selected in the exam conducted by the Public Service Commission as Aurved Medical Officer in the year, 2016 and at the time of verification of the documents, the documents with regard to the caste certificate was also found to be genuine and only on that basis, he was given appointment. It was further stated that the caste certificate was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Lashkar, Gwalior vide case no.2671/2001-02/B-121 dtd. 10/4/2002 after following due process and there is some mistake in getting his caste certificate verified and only on the basis that since there is no entry of the caste certificate issued to the petitioner in the register of the SubDivisional Officer in the office of the Collector, it has held to be a forged document.

4. Thus, he prayed that verification be done once again from the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer of Case No.2671/2001- 02/B-121 dtd. 10/4/2002, but without getting the document verified, the impugned order dtd. 27/9/2019 of his termination from the services has been issued. Hence, the present petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that vide circular dtd. 16/5/2005, the State Government had categorically directed the authorities that in case, caste certificate is found to be suspicious, the matter should be relegated to State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, however, in the present case only on the basis that there was no entry of the caste certificate in the register for the same kept at office of Collector, the certificate was assumed to be a forged document whereas no scrutiny thereof was directed to be conducted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee which vitiates the very order of termination.

6. It was further argued by the counsel for the petitioner that in the impugned order, it has been mentioned that in the register for the year 2001-2002/B-121 the last entry is at serial no.557 whereas the case number which has been mentioned by the petitioner i.e. 2617/2001-02/B-121 is of dtd. 10/4/2002. Thus, it was found that the entry of such a case was not in the register kept with the office of the Collector, thus, the document which has been submitted by the petitioner was a forged document, is not the right criteria for determining the stat