2026:CGHC:8607 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2927 of 2011 Shankar Kumar Sonwani, S/o Late Shri Mehettar Ram Sonwani, aged about

54 years, Manager, Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Pandri, Raipur, Permanent Resident of village – Lamkeni. Post -

Khorpa, PS-Abhanpur, District - Raipur (CG), Presently resident of D-78, Guru Ghasidas Colony, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (CHHATTISGARH)

… Petitioner -Versus-

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes Welfare, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CHHATTISGARH)

2. Jati Praman Patra Uchha Stariya Chhanbin Samiti, Adim Jati Anusandhan evam Prashikshan Kendra, Pt. Deendayal Upadhayay Nagar, Sector - 4, Raipur (CG)-492010

3. Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation, Through its Managing Director, Pandri, Raipur, District - Raipur (CG)

...Respondents WPC No. 633 of 2012 VED PRAKASH Mrigendra Jyoti Sonwani, son of Shri Shankar Sonwani, aged about 27 years, DEWANGAN resident of D-78. Guru Ghasidas Colony, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (CG)

Digitally signed b P y R A V K E A D SH … Petitioner DEWANGAN Date: 2026.04.08

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Welfare Department, Govt. of C.G., D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur.

2. High Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Scheduled Tribes Investigation & Training Centre, through its Member & Joint Director, Dindayal Nagar, Upadhyay Nagar, Sector-4, Raipur.

… Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate For Respondents/State : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate and Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Panel Lawyer For Respondent/CSIDC : Mr. Ayaz Naved, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal

Order on Board

17/02/2026

1. Since both these writ petitions arise out of substantially similar facts and involve an identical question of law relating to the determination of caste status and validity of orders passed by the High-Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.

2. Writ Petition (S) No. 2927 of 2011 has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 02.05.2011, communicated vide letter dated 11.05.2011, whereby the Scrutiny Committee has held that the petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Caste (Satnami) and has wrongly availed such status, whereas Writ Petition (C) No. 633 of 2012 has been filed by the petitioner therein assailing the order dated 22.11.2011 (communicated on 26.11.2011)

passed by the same authority, cancelling his caste certificate of Satnami caste on similar grounds. As the controversy in both the petitions centers around the correctness of the findings recorded by the Scrutiny Committee, the applicability of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in caste verification matters, and alleged violation of principles of natural justice, both the matters are being adjudicated together for the sake of convenience and to avoid conflicting findings.

Facts in Writ Petition (S) No. 2927 of 2011

3. The petitioner was appointed on 10.11.1987 in Madhya Pradesh Laghu Udyog Nigam Limited (now Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation) after applying on 23.02.1987, wherein he had declared his caste as Satnami (Harijan). The appointment order did not stipulate that the appointment was made against any post reserved for Scheduled Caste.

******* The petitioner’s case is that though his father was originally born in Gond tribe, he was excommunicated from the Gond community due to his relationship with a Satnami woman (mother of the petitioner). Thereafter, his father adopted Satnam Panth, started living as a Satnami, and completely relinquished the customs, traditions, and social ties of the Gond community. Consequently, the petitioner, his siblings, and family members have always been treated and have lived as me