Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CHH) 12555
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, J
Raj Wasnik – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPC/2581/2016
Shri Raza Ali, Advocate; Ms Upasana Mehta, Govt. Advocate
The verification of caste certificates must adhere to statutory guidelines and principles of natural justice, including the right to cross-examine witnesses.
Headnote:(A) Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013 - Sections 6, 7, and 15 - Caste certificate verification - The petitioner challenged the cancellation of his caste certificate, asserting his Scheduled Caste status based on residency and family history. The Committee's order was found to violate principles of natural justice and statutory guidelines. (Paras 1-19)
(B) Natural Justice - The Committee failed to provide the petitioner an opportunity for cross-examination and to present evidence, violating procedural fairness. (Paras 14-16)
(C) Legislative Compliance - The verification process did not adhere to the Act, 2013 and Rules, 2013, necessitating a remand for proper procedure. (Paras 10-12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, appointed as an Attendant Grade II, sought restoration of his caste certificate, which was cancelled due to lack of pre-1950 documentation.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remitted for proper verification under the Act, 2013 and Rules, 2013.
Issues: Whether the Committee followed the statutory procedure for caste verification and upheld the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the Committee must adhere to the statutory framework and provide fair hearing opportunities, including cross-examination rights.
Result: Writ petition allowed, order quashed, and matter remitted for verification.
Order on Board
11-12-2024
1. By the present petition, the petitioner is questioning the order dated 08/07/2016 (Annexure – P/1) passed by the respondent no.2 and also seeking a direction towards the respondent authorities to restore the caste certificate dated 3-9-2003 (Annexure - P/6) issued by the respondent No.3.
2. (i) The facts of the case, as projected in the present writ petition, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Attendant Grade II in Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board on contract basis for a period of one year against the post reserved for Scheduled Caste. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed against the sanctioned and vacant post on 08/03/2016. According to him, he has completed his studies from Durg Chhattisgarh and he is residing in the territory of Chhattisgarh since his birth, which is evident from the domicile certificate Annexure P-5. The petitioner applied for caste certificate before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg on the ground that he born in Chhattisgarh; his father is working in BSNL Since 1973; and he belongs to Mahar community, which is a Scheduled caste. The SDO after considering the facts, issued the caste certificate on 03/09/2003 (Annexure P-6). Prior to that, the Naib Tehsildar, Durg, issued the caste certificate to the petitioner on 01/10/1996 (Annexure – P/9).
(ii) During the service of the petitioner in CSEB, against the post reserved for Scheduled caste, on the direction of the department, the petitioner moved an application before the respondent No.2 for verification of his caste certificate. Along with the said application, the petitioner submitted several documents to establish the fact that he belongs to Scheduled caste (Mahar) and he is the resident of the State of Chhattisgarh. On the basis of the said application of the petitioner, the Vigilance Inspector conducted an enquiry and submitted a report stating that in the year, 1957 the grandfather of the petitioner migrated from Nagpur to Durg, thereafter, the petitioner’s father and grandmother joined the grandfather in the year 1958-59 i.e. after independence and no document relating to caste of the petitioner prior to 1950 has been produced. After considering the report submitted by the Vigilance Cell, the respondent No.2 passed the order impugned observing that since the petitioner has not produced any document relating to his caste prior to 1950, he is not entitled to get the caste certificate from the State of Chhattisgarh. Thus, this petition.
3. (A) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the order passed by the respondent No.2 is illegal and contrary to the circular dated 27/06/2007 issued by the State Government, in which, bona fide resident has been defined. He would further submit that the petitioner had not concealed any fact and his caste is mentioned in the list of Scheduled caste of State of Chhattisgarh. Since the father of the petitioner was working under the Central Government and, as such, the petitioner is covered under the definition of bona fide resident of Chhattisgarh. He would also submit that the petitioner has not committed any fraud nor made any misrepresentation. He would submit that without considering the well settled principles of law and without considering the circulars issued by the State Government, the respondent No.2 passed the impugned order in an illegal and arbitrary manner, which is not at all sustainable in the eyes of law.
(B) According to the petitioner, the respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order in contravention to the circular dated 30/03/2013 and has directly entertained the application instead of referring it to the District Committee. He would submit that on 01/10/1996, the Naib Tehsildar issued the caste certificate in favour of the petitioner and later on, after verification of the facts, the SDM issued certificate to the petitioner.
(C) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that once the legislation
