Advocates:
['ARVIND KUMAR DUBEY', '', 'SOURABH DANGI', 'ANUP MAJUMDAR', 'VINOD DESHMUKH', 'VAIBHAV SHUKLA', 'A G CAV', 'ASHUTOSH SINGH KACHHAWAHA', '', 'ANUP MAJUMDAR', 'BASANT DEWANGAN', 'VIMAL KUMAR TONDEY', 'VIVEK VERMA INTERVENER']

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WPS No. 2061 of 2009

• Rakesh Kumar Verma S/o Shri Bhaiya Lal Verma,

Aged about 41 years, In-charge Executive Engineer, Public

Works Department, Champa Division Distt. Jangjir Champa (Cg)

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh , Through the Secretary, Public Works

Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG)

2. State Of C.G. Through The Secretary, General Administration

Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur (CG)

3. The Engineer -In-Chief, Public Works Department Raipur (CG)

4. Chhattisgarh State Schedule Tribe Commission, Through The

Secretary, 61 Jal Vihar Colony, Raipur (CG)

5. Chhattisgarh State High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee,

Through Its Director, Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Nagar Sector-4

Raipur (CG)

6. Shri P.K. Janwade, Engineer -In-Chief Public Works Department

Raipur (CG)

---- Respondent

For Petitioner

Mr. Varun Sharma and Mr. Arvind Dubey,

Advocates

For Respondent /State

Mr. Shashank Thakur, Government Advocate

For Respondent No.4

Ms. Pushpa Diwedi, Advocate on behalf of

Mr. A.S. Kachhwaha, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Order On Board

09/11/2016

1. Heard.

2. Challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India is to the order passed by the High Level Caste Scrutiny

Committee (henceforth “the Committee”) on 10.11.2008

cancelling the petitioner's caste status certi昀椀cate and directing

the Collector, Sagar (MP) to proceed against the petitioner in

accordance with law.

3. The petitioner is presently working as Superintending Engineer

(PWD) in the State of Chhattisgarh. On some complaint being

made against the petitioner, questioning his caste status, the

matter was examined by the Committee, wherein, the

petitioner was a昀昀orded opportunity of hearing to prove that he

belongs to “Korwa” Scheduled Tribe Community. Proceeding

further in the matter, the Committee passed the 昀椀nal order

holding that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court

in the matter of Director of Tribunal Welfare, Government of

Andhra Pradesh Vs. Laveti Giri and another, AIR 1995 SC 1506,

the burden to prove the caste status was on the petitioner,

which he failed to discharge by producing all relevant

documents including the land document prior to 06.09.1950,

when the Presidential order was issued, in which, “Korwa” was

included and noti昀椀ed in the list of Scheduled Tribe. The

petitioner further failed to produce any proof of the fact that

his ancestors belonged and had enjoyed the tribal status of

being members of “Korwa” Tribal Community, therefore, he

having failed to prove his tribal status, the certi昀椀cate issued in

his favour deserves to be cancelled.

4. It is argued by Mr. Varun Sharma and Mr. Arvind Dubey, learned

counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner has not been

a昀昀orded proper opportunity of hearing and the impugned

order has no factual or legal foundation, therefore, it deserves

to be set-aside.

5. Per contra, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Government Advocate

for the State, Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, Advocate on behalf of Mr.

A.S. Kachhwaha, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and Mr.

Vijay Tondey, learned counsel for the interevener, would defend

the impugned order.

6. A reading of the impugned order would indicate that the

petitioner obtained a certi昀椀cate of being a member of “Korwa”

Tribal Community from District Organizer, Tribal Welfare

Department, Sagar (MP) on 01.03.1984. However, before the

Committee, the petitioner did not produce any document, by

which, he can demonstrate that he belongs to “Korwa” Tribal

Community. After issuance of notice by the Commission, the

petitioner submitted his reply, however, subsequently, he did

not appear for personal hearing on 25.08.2008, for which, he

was granted another opportunity to appear on 22.09.2008,

whereon, he appeared but again failed to produce any clinc