The burden of proving one's caste lies with the individual claiming the status, and procedural laws and the rules of natural justice must be followed in such cases.

1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.3.2015 whereby the State Level Scrutiny Committee (S. C. Welfare) constituted under the Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Reservation Rules, 1992 has directed the petitioner to produce evidence to prove that he is a member of Scheduled Caste.

2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner obtained government employment on the basis of a scheduled caste certificate issued in his favour on 19.9.1997. On 3.12.2000, the said certificate was cancelled by the District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued on 07.4.2001 to the petitioner by his employer as to why his services should not be terminated. The petitioner filed a writ petition being WP(C) 235 of 2001 challenging the legality of the order passed by the District Magistrate cancelling his scheduled caste certificate and the order of the District Magistrate was stayed. Thereafter, on 14.7.2006, the State Level Scrutiny Committee issued fresh show cause notice to the petitioner asking him to show cause why the scheduled caste certificate granted in his favour be not cancelled. However, since the matter was pending in the High Court no further action was taken. The writ petition being WP(C) 235 of 2001 was finally disposed of after a decade in the year 2011 only on the ground that since the State Level Scrutiny Committee had issued notice on the same subject, the order of the District Magistrate had become redundant and, therefore, the State Level Scrutiny Committee may proceed with the matter. This order passed in the writ petition has become final.

3. For reasons best known to the State Level Scrutiny Committee despite the fact that the writ petition was disposed of on 18.11.2011, the State Level Scrutiny Committee kept silent for three long years and a fresh notice was issued to the petitioner on 04.3.2015. The petitioner appeared before the State Level Scrutiny Committee on 10.3.2015 and he also filed an application that the State be first asked to produce its witnesses so that the petitioner could cross-examine them and after the witnesses, if any, are produced by the State, then the petitioner would produce his evidence. This application was rejected by the State Level Scrutiny Committee after making reference to the Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Reservation Act, 1991 and the Rules. The Committee held that since the burden lay upon the petitioner to prove his caste, he must lead his evidence first.

4. I have heard Mr. K N Bhattcharji, learned senior counsel and Mr. S C Das, learned counsel for the petitioner at length. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel is that in an adversarial system, the witnesses of the prosecution must be examined first and only after the prosecution witnesses are examined, then the person who is to suffer and who is in the nature of an accused, can be called upon to submit his evidence.

5. I am not at all in agreement with this submission. The caste of a person is a fact which is best known to the person who claims to belong to a particular caste. This would also be a fact known to his family members. The caste will be proved by leading evidence either documentary or oral to show that the person who claims to be a member of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes actually belongs to this caste. This Court cannot shut its eyes to the hard reality that in Tripura there are innumerable cases of persons belonging to the general category masquerading as persons belonging to the reserved categories only to get the benefit of reservation. When they do so, they deprive those persons who belong to the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes of their legitimate right to employment or seats in educational institution. To meet with the situation, the Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Reservation Act, 1991 has been amended and now very serious consequences have been incorporated,