ORAL JUDGMENT

Date:19.06.2013

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 03.11.2021 passed by the Circle OfÏcer, Barsoi, Katihar, whereby and whereunder the caste certificate issued to the petitioner, declaring him to be belonging to the Pradhan caste, has been cancelled.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised a short legal issue for consideration of this Court to the effect that after passing of the judgment by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development & Others, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241, the Caste Scrutiny Committees of various States are only empowered to scrutinize the caste certificate issued with respect to the Scheduled Castes /Scheduled Tribes / Backward Classes and as far as the State of Bihar is concerned, Bihar State Caste Scrutiny Committee has been constituted long back, for making enquiry with respect to caste certificates, granted to the Scheduled Castes /Scheduled Tribes / Backward Classes/ Extremely Backward Classes, as such, the Circle OfÏcer, Barsoi, Katihar was not competent to enquire into the genuineness of the Caste Certificate, issued vide certificate dated 08.03.2016. In this regard, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 21.06.2022, passed in CWJC No.19084 of 2021 (Baidhnath Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), relevant paragraphs whereof being paragraphs no.

9 to 13 are reproduced herein below:-

“9. It would be pertinent to note here that subsequently some modification was made in the constitution of the committee referred to above vide judgment reported in (1997) 5 SCC 437 (Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others).

10. In Farzana Sabaff vs. the State of Bihar & Ors.since reported in 2014 (3) BBCJ 631, a dispute relating to disqualification on the ground of invalid caste certificate came before this Court. It would be manifest from the perusal of the Para-11 of the judgment of the said case that in the counter afÏdavit the State had admitted that a committee was duly constituted pursuant to the direction no.4 given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). Para 11 of the judgment in Farzana Sabaff (supra) is extracted hereunder for ready reference:

“11. Counter afÏdavits have been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and also the respondent no. 4 defending the impugned order passed by the Collector. On the issue of constitution of scrutiny committee, raised by the petitioner during earlier hearings, a counter afÏdavit was also filed on behalf of the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar stating that the State Government in compliance of the direction of the Apex Court contained in Civil Appeal No. 5854 of 1994 (Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Scheduled Tribes), has already constituted a Directorate/Committee dealing with the cases of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes vide memo no. 3887 dated 08.11.2007 However, on a question being asked to learned Additional Advocate General No. 11 as to whether a Committee of Directorate formed for concerned purpose for scrutiny of the certificate with respect to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes would be able to verify the certificate granted to the Backward Classes or Extremely Backward Classes, an apparent lacunae appeared and adjournment was sought for rectification specially in view of the direction no. 4 given by the Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) that for scrutiny of Backward Classes certificate the committee would have to be constituted consisting an Additional or Joint Secretary or any ofÏcer higher in rank of the Director of the department concerned, the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal (sic) Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, has not been included in the committee. Thereafter, a supplementary counter afÏdavit has been filed on behalf