Chattisgarh High Court
Santosh Kumar Bhaskar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 March, 2024
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:7971
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 842 of 2020
Santosh Kumar Bhaskar, Aged About - 54 Years, S/o- Shri Johan Ram
Bhaskar, Occupation - Service - Attendant (Coil Binder), W.R. Mill,
Packeting Section, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai District - Durg (Chhattisgarh),
R/o - Village and Post - Badgaon, Tehsil- Daundilohara, District - Balod
(Chhattisgarh)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes Development Department, Naya Raipur, Mantralaya,
District - Raipur (C.G.).
2. General Manager, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.).
3. High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee through its Member Secretary-
Cum Director, Tribal and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
Development, Office at Block-4D, Ground Floor, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar,
District Raipur (C.G.).
4. Collector, Durg, District Durg (Chhattisgarh).
---- Respondents
(Cause Title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For Res./State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Chetan Singh Chauhan, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06.03.2024
1. The petitioner in the present petition has assailed the order dated 25.01.2020 passed by the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee whereby the social status certificate of the petitioner of caste 'Mahar' (Scheduled Caste) has been cancelled.
Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:7971 2
2. Essential facts leading to filing the instant petition are that the Social Status Report of Scheduled Caste, particularly, 'Mahar' caste was issued in favour of the petitioner on 18.09.1984 by the Deputy Collector, District Durg, who was the then competent authority to issue Social Status Report. The petitioner was appointed as Attendant (Coil Binder), W.R. Mill, Packeting Section, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) by virtue of the said Social Status Report. A complaint was made by one Dinesh Baghel against various persons including the petitioner to the effect that they had obtained employment in the Bhilai Steel Plant on the basis of a forged caste certificate. An enquiry was conducted by the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, in which, it was found that the petitioner does not belong to the 'Mahar' caste, thereafter, the social status report issued to the petitioner was forwarded to the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee for due verification on 06.02.2013. Respondent No. 3 called a report from Vigilance Cell and Research Assistant, Tribal Research Institute, Raipur in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Ku. Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner Tribal Development and another reported in 1994 (6) SCC
241. Vigilance Cell submitted its report on 22.04.2017 and found the caste of the Petitioner as "Mahra" whereas the Research Assistant submitted its report on 28.01.2019 on the basis of the affinity test i.e. after verifying the knowledge of the petitioner about deities of the community, customs, rituals, mode of marriage, and death ceremonies etc. in respect of that particular Scheduled Tribe and came to the conclusion that customs and rituals adopted by the petitioner and his family members are identical to that of 'Mahar' caste. Respondent No. 3 on the basis of the vigilance report alone of the Vigilance Cell came to the conclusion that the petitioner does not belong to the 'Mahar' caste and cancelled his social status report.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the affinity test conducted by the Research Assistant, it was categorically found that the culture, rituals and customs of the petitioner and his family are identical to the caste Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:7971 3 of the 'Mahar' community. He would further submit that respondent No. 3 without taking into consideration the affinity report submitted by the Research Assistant came to the conclusion that the petitioner does not belong to the 'Mahar' caste only on the basis of the report submitted by Vigilance Cell. He would further argue that in the Birth and Death Register of the year 1943, the caste of the father of the petitioner is shown as "Mahar". It is further submitted that Vigilance Cell superficially enquired into the matter whereas the Research Assistant conducted a detailed enquiry before recording a finding with regard to caste of the petitioner. He would next submit that respondent No. 3 did not follow the provisions enumerated in Rule 20 of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Rules, 2013 while passing the impugned order and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra & others reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 326.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State while opposing the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner would submit that due enquiry was conducted by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, as the reports were called from the Vigilance Cell as well as from the Research Assistant with regard to the caste of the petitioner. He would further submit that in the revenue records of the year 1930-31, the caste of the forefathers of the petitioner is shown as 'Mahra'. He would further argue that in the school admission register of the grandfather of the petitioner; his caste is shown as 'Bayan'. He would also submit that from the report submitted by the Vigilance Cell and the documents appended therewith, it was apparent that the petitioner belongs to the 'Bayan Mahra' caste and, therefore, the right decision was taken by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee. He submits that records of the High Power Scrutiny Committee is available with him.
Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:7971 4
5. Mr. Chetan Singh Chauhan, counsel for respondent No. 2 would submit that respondent No. 2 is the appointing authority and on the basis of the social status report produced by the petitioner, he was appointed in the Bhilai Steel Plant.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
7. From the perusal of the records and the documents annexed to this petition, it is quite vivid that a social status report was issued in favour of the petitioner showing him as a member of 'Mahar' caste and the said certificate was issued by the Deputy Collector, Durg on 18.09.1984. A complaint was made by one Dinesh Baghel against various persons including the petitioner to the effect that they obtained employment in the Bhilai Steel Plant on the basis of a forged caste certificate. An enquiry was conducted by the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, in which, it was found that the petitioner does not belong to 'Mahar' Caste, thereafter, the matter was referred to High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee for due verification on 06.02.2013. Following the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme in the matter of Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra) and subsequent judgments; two reports were called by the Committee i.e. one from the Vigilance Cell and another from the Research Assistant. Vigilance Cell submitted its report on the basis of documentary evidence on 22.04.2017 and according to this report, the petitioner belongs to the 'Bayan Mahra' caste, which is not notified as a Scheduled Caste, whereas, the Research Assistant submitted its report on 28.01.2019 after collecting information from all sources and it was opined that custom, culture and tradition of the petitioner and his family are identical to 'Mahar' caste.
8. From a perusal of the order passed by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, it is evident that the Committee considered the report submitted by Vigilance Cell whereas no weightage was given to the affinity report submitted by the Research Assistant and there is no whisper concerning the report submitted by the Research Assistant. The Research Assistant submitted its report based on the Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:7971 5 affinity test. The Research Assistant collected material based on peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deities, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, methods of burial of dead bodies etc., thus, the report submitted by the Research Assistant ought not to have been ignored by respondent No. 3 while cancelling the caste certificate of the petitioner.
9. Rule 20 of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Rule, 2013 provides as under:-
"20. Inquiry of the Case through Vigilance Cell.-(1) The Scrutiny Committee shall forward the Certificate and copies of all relevant documents in cases referred to it by Verification Committee or by the State Government or any other authority in FORM-6A to the Vigilance Cell constituted under Deputy Superintendent of Police; (2) The Deputy Superintendent of Police through subordinate Police Inspector shall inquire into the case and inform Scrutiny Committee accordingly;
(3) Police Inspector of Vigilance Cell shall-
(a) search places of local residence, domicile and general residence of Applicant or the city, town or village of his origin before migration;
(b) ascertain the truth regarding the Social Status as claimed by the Applicant or his parents of his Guardian, as the case may be, on the basis of public documents;
(c) verify the information stated in the application submitted to Verification Committee by the Applicant on the basis of relevant public documents and reliable private documents Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:7971 6
(d) obtain information from Village Kotwar, Village Sarpanch, Halka Patwari, Local Ward Member, Other Public Representatives, Local Gazetted Officers, such local members already having a Certificate and who are knowing well the Applicant and if any of them agrees to record his oral statement then he shall record his statement accordingly or shall request important witnesses to give their statement on oath and in case they agree, shall obtain the affidavit accordingly and give a copy of the same to the witness concerned;
(e) give an opportunity to the Applicant himself and parents of the Applicant and shall record the statement of witnesses indicated by them or shall obtain their affidavits;
(f) if during the examination it is found that the Applicant or any other person has maliciously forged the document, after getting the photocopy of the relevant pages, seize the document with the help of local police and shall seal and send the document to Deputy Superintendent of Police of Vigilance Cell and shall give a receipt and copy, to the authorities having custody of the documents;
(g) submit his report along with all documents to the Deputy Superintendent of Police after competing the investigation (4) Deputy Superintendent of Police, after obtaining necessary permission of the Scrutiny Committee shall send the document seized by the Police Inspector for forensic test and to handwriting expert along with appropriate noting.
(5) The Deputy Superintendent of Police shall submit the Inquiry Report containing his clear opinion regarding social status of the Applicant, Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:7971 7 alongwith documents received from Police Inspector and conclusions of forensic and handwriting expert to the Scrutiny Committee. (6) The Scrutiny Committee shall examine such report and in case it finds any deficiency in the report shall revert the same to the Vigilance Cell after indicating such deficiency and may direct for inquiry on specific issues.
(7) Police Inspector and Deputy Superintendent of Police shall maintain details of above mentioned investigation of the cases in FORM-5H."
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra) while dealing with a similar issue held as under:-
"25. Now, we come to the controversy regarding the affinity test. In clause (5) of Paragraph 15 of the decision in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) it is held that in the case of Scheduled Tribes, the Vigilance Cell will submit a report as regard peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deities, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, methods of burial of dead bodies etc. in respect of the particular caste or tribe. Such particulars ascertained by the Vigilance Cell in respect of a particular Scheduled Tribe are very relevant for the conduct of the affinity test. The Vigilance Cell, while conducting an affinity test, verifies the knowledge of the applicant about deities of the community, customs, rituals, mode of marriage, death ceremonies etc. in respect of that particular Scheduled Tribe. By its very nature, such an affinity test can never be conclusive. If the applicant has stayed in bigger urban areas along with his family for decades or if his family has stayed in such urban areas for decade, the applicant may not have knowledge of the aforesaid facts. It is true that the Vigilance Cell can also question the parents of the applicant. But in a given case, even the parents may be unaware for the reason that for several years they have been staying in bigger urban areas. On the other hand, a person may not belong to the particular tribe, but he may have a good knowledge about the aforesaid aspects. Therefore, Shri Shekhar Naphade, the learned senior counsel, is right when he submitted that the affinity test cannot be applied as a litmus test. We may again note here that question of conduct of the affinity test arises only in those cases where the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the material produced by the applicant.
11. Taking into consideration the facts discussed above and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarkshan Samiti (supra), in the opinion of this Court, respondent No. 3/High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee has committed an error of law in not considering Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:7971 8 the affinity test and the report submitted by the Research Assistant dated 28.01.2019, therefore, the order passed by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 25.01.2020 deserves to be and is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to respondent No. 3 to consider and decide it afresh in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and taking into consideration the affinity test report submitted by the Research Assistant, other reports and the provisions contained under Rule 20 of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Rules, 2013.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge amita