IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S.C. DAS, J.
Sri Ashok Das S/o Sri Promode Chandra Das – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tripura, Represented by the Commissioner & Secretary, Department of Welfare for Scheduled Caste & OBC – Respondent
WP (C) No. 275 of 2011
Decided On : 22-09-2016
Caste Status Certificate - Jurisdiction of Scrutiny Committee - Tripura Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Reservation Act, 1991, Rules of 1992 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The judgment discusses the jurisdiction of the State Level Scrutiny Committee (SLSC) in canceling a caste status certificate under the Tripura Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Reservation Act, 1991 and Rules of 1992. It interprets Rule 4, Rule 6, and Rule 7A to establish the authority of the SLSC to inquire into and cancel caste status certificates, independent of the appointing authority. The judgment also references legal principles established in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others, (1994) 6 SCC 241, Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of A.P. v. Laveti Giri and Another, (1995) 4 SCC 32, and Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham and Others, (2012) 1 SCC 333, emphasizing the burden of proof on the claimant of social status and the importance of strict implementation of reservation provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the cancellation of their caste status certificate by the State Level Scrutiny Committee (SLSC) and the show cause notice issued by the Member-Secretary. The petitioner argued that the SLSC had no jurisdiction to entertain the inquiry against them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the SLSC had the authority to inquire into and cancel caste status certificates, independent of the appointing authority. It dismissed the writ petition, stating that there was no jurisdictional infirmity of SLSC in the present case.
Issues: The main issue was the jurisdiction of the SLSC to cancel the caste status certificate without a reference from the appointing authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the Tripura Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Reservation Act, 1991 and Rules of 1992 to establish the authority of the SLSC to inquire into and cancel caste status certificates, independent of the appointing authority.
Final Decision: The writ petition was found to be devoid of merit and was dismissed. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.
1. By filing this writ petition the petitioner challenged show cause notice issued by the Member-Secretary (Director for Welfare of SCs & OBCs, Tripura) dated 22.07.2010 (Annexure-P2 to the writ petition) and order dated 21.05.2011 (Annexure-P6 to the writ petition) issued by the State Level Scrutiny Committee (for short, SLSC) in respect of caste status certificate of the petitioner and prayed for setting aside and/or quashing the same.
2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. Somik Deb for the petitioner and learned Addl. G.A., Mr. S. Chakraborty for the respondents.
3. In the writ petition the petitioner questioned the cancellation order passed by the SLSC on different grounds but at the time of hearing learned counsel, Mr. Deb insisted the writ petition only on one point that the impugned order of the SLSC is void since the SLSC has no jurisdiction to entertain the inquiry against the petitioner and the law does not permit the SLSC to take up any such inquiry.
4. It is not in dispute that a caste status certificate was issued in the name of the petitioner by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Belonia in the year 1990 certifying that the petitioner belonged to ‘Mahishya Das’ community which is recognized as a Scheduled Caste community in the State of Tripura. A copy of that caste certificate is annexed as Annexure-P1 to the writ petition.
5. The Member-Secretary (Director for Welfare of Scheduled Castes & OBC, Tripura) issued a show cause notice to the petitioner dated 22.07.2010 asking him to show cause as to why that certificate should not be cancelled and following that show cause notice the petitioner submitted show cause reply and thereafter an inquiry was conducted and after inquiry the SLSC passed the impugned order dated 21.05.2011 and thereby arrived at a finding that the petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Castes community and therefore directed cancellation of the caste certificate issued in the name of the petitioner.
6. It is the candid submission of learned counsel, Mr. Deb that the Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Reservation Act, 1991 prescribes the facility of reservation in respect of appointment/promotion in the services and posts as well as in respect of admission, etc. in the educational institutions or other institutions. Such caste status certificate is issued by a competent authority and that competent authority is defined in Rule 3 of the Tripura Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Reservation Rules, 1992(for short, Rules of 1992). Rule 4 prescribes the power of verification of the caste status certificate and only the authority which has been prescribed in Rule 4, according to Mr. Deb, has the power to initiate verification of a caste status certificate and the SLSC cannot by itself take up verification of a caste status certificate based on any complaint or otherwise. According to Mr. Deb, if the SLSC alone is authorized to take up sou motu verification of caste status certificate for cancellation, the provision contained in Rule 4 shall be otiose and will be of no use. According to Mr. Deb, once a verification matter is referred to the SCSC they can proceed with the inquiry for such verification, and unless it is referred by the appropriate authority as mentioned in Rule 4, the SLSC cannot usurp the power of verification for the purpose of cancellation or otherwise, of a caste status certificate and thereby cancel such a certificate. Since in the present case, the SLSC was not authorized by the appropriate authority as mentioned in Rule 4, the order of cancellation passed by the SLSC is beyond jurisdiction and hence it is liable to be interfered and set aside.
7. Learned Addl. G.A., Mr. Chakraborty on the other hand has submitted that Rule 4 only prescribes the provision for verification of caste status certificate by the appointing authority or any other authority who is suppo
Dayaram vs. Sudhir Batham and Others
Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of A.P. vs. Laveti Giri and Another
Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.