Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Santosh Kumari & Ors vs Ut Of J&K & Ors on 19 September, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on: 09.09.2025
Pronounced on: 19.09.2025
Case No.:- WP(C) No. 903/2023
CM No. 2151/2023
Santosh Kumari & ors
.....Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. B.R. Manhas, Advocate.
Vs
UT of J&K & ors.
..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG for R-1, 3 to 7.
Mr. Raghubir Singh, Advocate for R-8.
Coram: HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioners, through the medium of the present petition, have challenged two separate orders dated 12.03.2022 passed by respondent No. 6 whereby caste certificates issued in favour of the petitioners No. 1 and 2 have been cancelled. Challenge has also been thrown to order dated 12.03.2022 passed by respondent No. 6 whereby order dated 01.04.2015 in respect of mutation No. 226 sehat qom/correction of caste has been set aside. Besides this, the petitioners have challenged orders dated 12.04.2022 and 10.05.2022 passed by respondent No. 6 whereby petitioners No. 1 and 2 have 2 WP(C) No. 903/2023 been disqualified as Sarpanch/Panch for Panchayat Halqa, Bhajnowa (SC), tehsil Nowshera district Rajouri. Further direction upon respondents to allow the petitioners No. 1 and 2 to function as Sarpanch/Panch for the aforesaid Panchayat Halqa has also been sought.
2. As per case of the petitioners, the family of the petitioner No. 1 originally belonged to Scheduled Caste (Basith) and the same stood recorded in the revenue record of village Chai, tehsil Bhimber district Mirpur (now in POK). After partition in 1947, petitioner No. 1 along with his family settled in village Bhajnowa, tehsil Nowshera district Rajouri. It has been submitted that in misal haqiat of village Chai, tehsil Bhimber district Mirpur for the year 1986-87 BK (1929-30 AD), caste of great grandfather of the petitioner No. 1, namely, Sh. Gopi was shown as 'Basith' and the same was repeated in the case of caste of grandfather of the petitioner No. 1, namely, Sh. Channa Mal and father of the petitioner No. 1-Sh. Nand Lal.
3. Regarding petitioners No. 2 and 3, it has been submitted that they were residing in village Khamba, tehsil Bhimber, district Mirpur (now in POK) and in their case also, in misal haqiat of village Khamba for the year 1986-87 BK (1929-30 AD), the caste of father of the petitioners No. 2 and 3 was entered as 3 WP(C) No. 903/2023 'Basith'. Even in mutation of inheritance attested in favour of the petitioners No. 2 and 3, after the death of their father, in respect of estate comprised in khasra No. 233, khewat No. 6 and khata No. 453 of village khamba, caste of the family members of the petitioner No. 2 has been shown as 'Basith'.
4. According to the petitioners, in terms of the Constitution (J&K) Schedule Caste Order No. 1956 issued vide SRO No. 3135-A dated 22.12.1956, thirteen castes have been mentioned in the Schedule and the caste 'Basith' figures at serial No. 2 in the said Schedule. Since petitioner No. 1 belonged to Basith caste, which was declared as Scheduled Caste in terms of aforesaid order of 1956, category certificate in favour of the petitioner No. 1 was issued on 28.09.1979. Similarly, category certificate in favour of the petitioner No. 2 was issued on 16.01.1975.
5. On the basis of the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner No. 2, he was appointed as Teacher on 15.09.1978 as a Scheduled Caste candidate and thereafter he received promotions as Master and then Headmaster on the basis of being a member of Scheduled Caste category. Petitioner No. 2 is stated to have ultimately superannuated on the post of Zonal Education Officer on 28.02.2013. After his retirement, petitioner No. 2 is stated to have contested the election for the 4 WP(C) No. 903/2023 post of panch for Ward No. 1, Panchayat Halqa Bhajnowa, Tehsil Nowshera District Rajouri, which is a reserved constituency. Petitioner No. 1 also contested election for the post of Sarpanch on the same constituency and both were declared elected in the election held in the year 2018.
6. It has been submitted that pursuant to communication No. 303-07 dated 01.02.1955, which was issued under the directions of the then Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, it was communicated by Deputy Settlement Commissioner and Land Reforms Officer that Rajputs in Rajouri area, who claim to be 'Vashisht Rajputs' should be recorded as such in the revenue documents. As a result of this communication, confusion was created and even the 'Basith' Scheduled Caste community in Nowshera area was entered in the revenue record as 'Vashisht Rajput'.
7. Respondent No. 8 filed an appeal in terms of Section 17 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Act, 2004 (hereinafter to be referred to as „Act of 2004‟) seeking cancellation of caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner No. 2 on the grounds, inter alia, that petitioner No. 2 belongs to 'Vashisht Rajput' community, which is not included in the Scheduled Caste category. Another appeal was preferred by respondent 5 WP(C) No. 903/2023 No. 8 in respect of caste certificate dated 28.09.1979 issued in favour of the petitioner No. 1 on similar grounds.
8. Respondent No. 6, by virtue of two separated orders dated 12.03.2022, allowed both the appeals and directed cancellation of caste certificates issued in favour of the petitioners No. 1 and 2. Once the caste certificates issued in favour of the petitioners No. 1 and 2 were cancelled, respondent No. 6, vide order dated 12.04.2022, disqualified petitioner No. 1 from holding the post of Sarpanch of Panchayat Halqa Bhajnowa with immediate effect and it was further provided that her disqualification shall continue for a further period of six years. A similar order was issued by respondent No. 6 in respect of petitioner No. 2 on 10.05.2022 on the ground that caste certificate issued in his favour stands cancelled.
9. Another order came to be passed by respondent No. 6 on 12.03.2022 whereby appeal filed by respondent No. 8 against order dated 01.04.2015 passed by Tehsildar, Nowshera on mutation No. 226 (sehat qom/correction of caste) was also allowed and the said mutation, changing caste of the petitioners No. 2 and 3 from 'Vashisht Rajput' to 'Basith', was set aside.
6 WP(C) No. 903/2023
10. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid impugned orders on the grounds that respondent No. 6 had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the appeals against the caste certificates issued in favour of the petitioners No. 1 and 2 as, in terms of provisions contained in the Act of 2004, the appellate authority is the Deputy Commissioner and not the Additional Deputy Commissioner. It has been further contended that appeal, at the instance of respondent no. 8, is not maintainable as the remedy of appeal, in terms of the provisions of the aforesaid Act, is available only against an order of rejection of application for issuance of caste certificate. It has been further contended that respondent No. 6 has fallen into grave error by entertaining the appeal of respondent No. 8 after more than forty years without there being any explanation for delay.
11. On merits of claim of the petitioners is that they belong to the Scheduled Caste category (Basith community). It has been submitted that prior to the issuance of communication dated 01.02.1955, whereby instructions were issued that Rajputs in Rajouri area, who claim to be 'Vashisht Rajputs', should be recorded as such in village papers, the caste of the petitioners and their predecessors was being recorded as 'Basith' and not 'Vashisht Rajput'. It has been submitted that on account of mis-interpretation of communication dated 01.02.1955, the 7 WP(C) No. 903/2023 caste of the petitioners and their predecessors has been recorded as 'Vashisht Rajput', which is not factually correct. It is being contended that caste is static, which is determined by birth and it could not have been changed in any circumstances whatsoever. Therefore, even if the caste of the petitioners and their forefathers has been changed in the revenue papers pursuant to communication dated 01.02.1955, the same would have no effect on the claim of the petitioners being members of 'Basith' community.
12. It has been further contended that with regard to erroneous recording of members of 'Basith' community as 'Vashisht Rajputs' after the year 1955 pursuant to communication dated 01.02.1955, representations were made by the members of 'Basith' community of district Rajouri to Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri for correction in their caste from 'Vashisht Rajput' to 'Basith' in the revenue records. The Government, vide Order No. 65-Rev (S) of 2017 dated 09.03.2017, in order to ascertain the genuineness of the claim projected by the members of 'Basith' community appointed an Enquiry Officer for undertaking an extensive exercise in this regard. It has been submitted that pursuant to said Government Order, a report dated 20.04.2018 has been furnished by the Enquiry Officer in which a recommendation has been made that request of 'Basith' community is genuine 8 WP(C) No. 903/2023 and deserves consideration for correction of their castes as 'Basith' in the revenue record.
13. On the basis of aforesaid contentions, it is being urged that even on merits, the caste certificates issued in favour of the petitioners could not have been cancelled and the consequent disqualification orders issued against petitioners No. 1 and 2 and quashment of sehat qom/correction of caste order in respect of petitioners No. 2 and 3 could not have been passed.
14. The writ petition has been contested by the official respondents as well as by respondent No. 8 by filing separate replies to the same. In the reply filed by the official respondents, it has been submitted that as per revenue record, the caste of the petitioners has been recorded as 'Vashisht Rajput' and, as such, they were not eligible for Scheduled Caste certificates. It has been submitted that persons belonging to 'Vashisht Rajput' are not included in Scheduled Castes and because the petitioners belong to 'Vashisht Rajput' community, the certificates issued in their favour are fake and the same have been rightly cancelled by respondent No. 6. It has been further submitted that once the Scheduled Caste certificates issued in favour of the petitioners No. 1 and 2 were cancelled, the natural consequence thereof was that they stood disqualified from holding the position of 9 WP(C) No. 903/2023 Sarpanch/Panch in respect of a constituency, which was reserved for Scheduled Castes.
15. Respondent No. 8 in his reply to the writ petition has submitted that an FIR stands already lodged against the petitioners bearing FIR No. 40 of 2021 for offences under sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC read with Section 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act because the petitioners managed fake caste certificates in their favour whereafter they got benefits on the basis of these fake certificates. It has been submitted that respondent No. 8 is a social worker belonging to Scheduled Caste category and he had also contested panchayat election, 2018 for Panchayat Halqa Bhajnowa, tehsil Nowshera district Rajouri, therefore, he had the locus to challenge the caste certificates issued in favour of the petitioners No. 1 and 2. It has been further submitted that the petitioners, in connivance with revenue agency, procured fake caste certificates despite belonging to Rajput community, which does not belong to Scheduled Caste category. It has been submitted that the petitioners are liable to be prosecuted for having managed fake category certificates in their favour and having enjoyed benefits on the basis of the said certificates.
10 WP(C) No. 903/2023
16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case.
17. The first contention that has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioners for challenging the impugned orders whereby caste certificates issued in favour of the petitioners No. 1 and 2 have been cancelled is that appeal against order of grant of caste certificate is not maintainable, therefore, respondent No. 6 could not have entertained the appeal.
18. In the above context, the provision contained in Section 17 of the Act of 2004 are required to be noticed. It reads as under:
"(1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Competent Authority under section 16 may, at any time before the expiry of ninety days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to-
(i) Deputy Commissioner, if the order appealed against is passed by an officer below the rank of Deputy Commissioner in his capacity as Competent Authority;
or.
(ii) Divisional Commissioner, if the order appealed against is passed by Deputy Commissioner in his capacity as Competent Authority.
(2) The appellate authority shall, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the appeal, pass such orders on it as it deems fit.
Provided that no order shall be made against any person without affording him a reasonable opportunity of being heard."
11 WP(C) No. 903/2023
19. From a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it appears that an order of competent authority issued under Section 17 of the Act of 2004 can be assailed by way of an appeal before the appellate authority. However, when we read the provisions of Section 17 of the Act of 2004 in conjunction with Rule 25 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred to as „Rules of 2005‟), it becomes clear that remedy of appeal is available only against an order of rejection of the competent authority. Rule 25 of the Rules of 2005 clearly provides that a person aggrieved by an order of rejection of competent authority may prefer an appeal to the appellate authority under Section 17 of the Act of 2004 meaning thereby that only an order of rejection made by the competent authority is appealable in nature. In the present case, respondent No. 8 has filed an appeal against order of grant of category certificates in favour of the petitioners No. 1 and 2. Thus, such an order is not appealable in nature.
20. There is, however, yet another aspect of the matter, which is required to be noticed. Section 18 of the Act of 2004 vests power of revision suo moto or on the basis of an application made to it with the appellate authority. It reads as under:
"S.18. The appellate authority may, suo moto or on an application made to it, call for the records of the proceedings taken, or orders made, by any competent authority for 12 WP(C) No. 903/2023 purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such proceedings or orders and may pass such orders in reference thereto as it deems fit:
Provided that no order shall be made against any person without affording him a reasonable opportunity of being heard."
21. From a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the appellate authority is also vested with power of revision and there is nothing in the Rules of 2005, which restricts this power of revision in respect of only a particular type of orders passed by the competent authority. It seems that the intention of the legislature to vest the power of revision upon the appellate authority was to deal with the cases of grant of category certificates by the competent authority so that a person, who is aggrieved of grant of caste certificate in favour of another person, is not rendered remediless. Thus, the power of revision can be exercised by the appellate authority even in cases where competent authority has granted a certificate in favour of a person. No limitation period has been prescribed by the legislature for exercise of power of revision whereas, thirty days period has been prescribed as limitation for exercising the appellate power.
22. In the present case, admittedly respondent No. 8 has filed an appeal against the caste certificates issued in favour of the 13 WP(C) No. 903/2023 petitioners No. 1 and 2. Therefore, the appellate authority could not have exercised the power of appeal while testing the validity of the said certificates but the said authority certainly was vested with power of revision to test the validity of these certificates. Since no limitation is provided for exercising the power of revision, therefore, exercise of revisional powers by the appellate authority after thirty days cannot be questioned. Even if respondent No. 8 has styled his petition before respondent No. 6 as an appeal still then the same could have been treated as revision petition by the appellate authority.
23. In fact, respondent No. 8 had only filed a representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri, which has been treated as appeal by respondent No. 6 instead of treating it as revision petition. A Division Bench of this Court in "Abhishek Khajuria Vs. State of J&K & Ors" 2023 SCC Online J&K 654 has observed that it is not the nomenclature but substance of the application that mattes and is relevant. It has been further held that if the power exercised by the appellate authority is traceable to Section 18 of the Act of 2004, it cannot be said that the order passed by the appellate authority is without jurisdiction for the reason that appellate power was invoked by the applicant, that too, beyond the period of limitation prescribed.
14 WP(C) No. 903/2023
24. In the face of aforesaid position of law, even if the contention of the petitioners that the appeal against the certificates issued in their favour is not maintainable is accepted still then, it was open to the appellate authority to exercise its power of revision despite lapse of more than four decades of issuance of the said certificates as there is no limitation period prescribed for exercising the power of revision.
25. It has also been contended by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that the certificates, which have been cancelled by respondent No. 6 by virtue of the impugned orders, have not been issued under the Act of 2004 as the said Act was not in force at the time when these certificates were issued, therefore, the provisions contained in the Act of 2004, prescribing the manner of cancellation of certificates issued under a previous law cannot be made applicable.
26. In the above context, it is to be noted that as per Section 24 of the Act of 2004, which provides for repeal and saving, any action or order issued under the repealed rules, notifications or orders are deemed to have been taken or issued under the corresponding provisions of Act of 2004 meaning thereby that the certificates, which were issued in favour of the petitioners No. 1 and 2 under the rules or notifications or orders, which were in vogue prior to coming into force of the Act of 2004, are 15 WP(C) No. 903/2023 deemed to have been issued under the provisions of the Act of 2004. Therefore, the provisions relating to appeal or revision as contained in the Act of 2004 would become applicable with respect to orders relating to issuance/rejection of certificates issued prior to coming into effect of Act of 2004. The contention of the learned Senior counsel in this regard is, therefore, not tenable.
27. Another contention that has been raised by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners is that respondent No. 6- Additional Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri is not the authority competent to hear appeals/revisions under Sections 17 and 18 of the Act of 2004. A perusal of the provisions contained in Section 17 of the Act of 2004, which has been quoted hereinbefore, would clearly reveal that Deputy Commissioner is the appellate authority if the order appealed against is passed by an officer below the rank of Deputy Commissioner in his capacity as competent authority and Divisional Commissioner is the appellate authority if the order appealed against is passed by Deputy Commissioner in his capacity as competent authority. Section 17 of the Act of 2004 does not vest power with Additional Deputy Commissioner or any officer other than the Deputy Commissioner or the Divisional Commissioner to act as an appellate authority. 16 WP(C) No. 903/2023
28. The respondents have not placed on record any order or notification issued by the Government whereby the powers under Section 17 of the Act of 2004 vested with the Deputy Commissioner have been conferred upon Additional Deputy Commissioners also. Respondent No. 8 has, along with his reply, placed on record a copy of Notification dated 21.11.2019 issued vide S.O 15 by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir whereby Additional Deputy Commissioner of each district has been conferred the powers of the authority for the purposes of Jammu and Kashmir Panchayati Raj Act, 1989. As is clear from the said Notification, the same has been issued with reference to powers of the authority under Jammu and Kashmir Panchayati Raj Act, 1989 and the rules framed thereunder and not under the Act of 2004 or the rules framed thereunder. Therefore, the said Government order would not come to the rescue of respondents.
29. Since there is nothing on record to show that respondent No. 6-Additonal Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri had been conferred the powers of appellate authority in terms of Section 17 of the Act of 2004, therefore, the impugned orders passed by the said respondent whereby the caste certificates issued in favour of the petitioners No. 1 and 2 have been cancelled are without jurisdiction and hence liable to be set aside. 17 WP(C) No. 903/2023
30. Respondent No. 6 has also passed impugned order dated 12.03.2022 thereby setting aside mutation No. 226 regarding correction of caste of the petitioners No. 2 and 3 in his capacity as Collector, which jurisdiction is vested with him. The challenge to the said order is to be determined on its merits.
31. In the above context, it is to be noted that the claim of the petitioners that originally they hailed from villages Chai and Khamba of tehsil Bhimber district Mirpur (now in POK) is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that in the „misal haqiat‟ of villages Chai and Khamba for the year 1986-87 BK (1929-30 AD), the caste of great grandfather of the petitioner No. 1 and father of the petitioners No. 2 and 3 was entered as 'Basith'. The said caste is admittedly included in the Schedule to Order No. 1956 dated 22.12.1956. The record shows that a communication was issued by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir on 01.02.1955 whereby directions were issued that persons, claiming to be 'Vashisht Rajputs' in Rajouri area, should be recorded as such in the village papers.
32. In the impugned orders dated 12.03.2022 whereby the caste certificates of petitioners No. 1 and 2 have been cancelled and even in the impugned order dated 12.03.2022 mutation relating to sehat qom of petitioners No. 2 and 3 has been set 18 WP(C) No. 903/2023 aside, it has been noted that in khasra girdawaris of 1961 and jamabandi of 1969-1970 of village Bhajnowa, the caste of the petitioners has been recorded as 'Vashisht Rajput'. On this basis, respondent No. 6 has come to a conclusion that since Vashisht Rajput is not a Scheduled Caste community as such, the petitioners cannot claim to be belonging to Scheduled Caste category. Respondent No. 6 despite noting the contention of the counsel for the petitioners herein that the petitioners originally belonged to Basith caste, in support of which, they had produced copy of revenue record of village Khamba, has not cared to go into this aspect of the matter so as to enquire the veracity of the said claim of the petitioners.
33. The revenue record produced by the petitioners along with their writ petition, which has not been disputed by the respondents, clearly indicates that predecessors of the petitioners were the residents of Pak Occupied Kashmir (POK) and their caste was recorded as 'Basith'. The contention of the petitioners that due to the confusion created by communication dated 01.02.1955 issued by the Government, caste of the petitioners was erroneously changed into 'Vashisht Rajput' appears to be well founded. In fact, the communication dated 01.02.1955 does not even convey that caste of persons belonging to Basith community should be changed into 'Vashisht Rajput' but it only conveys that caste 19 WP(C) No. 903/2023 of Rajputs of the area should be recorded as 'Vashisht Rajput'. Therefore, there was no occasion for the change of caste of the petitioners and their forefathers from 'Basith' to 'Vashisht Rajput' pursuant to the said communication.
34. The aforesaid aspect of the matter has been agitated by the persons belonging to the 'Basith' community before the Government, which prompted the Government to constitute an enquiry to go into this claim in terms of Government Order dated 09.03.2017. The terms of reference of the Enquiry Officer, as per the said Government order, are reproduced as under:
"i. to ascertain the genesis of recording of Vashist Rajput and Sikhs in the revenue records after 1953 in Nowshera and Kalakote areas of District Rajouri.
ii. to identify the Specific families/individuals/Khewat Darans as have erroneously been recorded as Vashist Rajputs & Sikhs instead of Basith in the revenue records, on the basis of the order of the then Prime Minister of the State of Jammu and Kashmir dated 01.02.1955, whereby it was directed to record the Rajputs of the Rajouri area as Vashist Rajputs.
iii. to prepare a comparative statement clearly identifying Village-wise details of the Assamis, who are established to be belonging to Basith community instead of Vashist Rajputs viz-a-viz the Record-of-Rights/Jamabandis, wherein the proposed rectification is required."20 WP(C) No. 903/2023
35. Pursuant to the aforesaid Government Order, Enquiry Committee headed by Regional Director Survey and Lands Record submitted its report dated 20.04.2018. The Committee submitted its report by concluding as under:
"From the above findings and as corroborated from the Revenue record and other relevant documents, it has emerged that the Caste Basith has been recorded in the Revenue Record prior to year 1953 and there is no mention of Vashisht Rajputs/Basith Rajputs in old Revenue Records prior to year 1953. However, in the subsequent Revenue Records such as Jamabandi/R.O.R etc the caste in most of the cases have been recorded as Vashisht Rajputs and Sikhs in Revenue Records instead of Basith.
Moreover, the committee has also considered the following evidence/documentary material on the subject are as under:
a) Revenue records prior to 1953, wherein the caste of the community recorded as "Basith" not "Basith Rajput".
b) Judgments of Hon‟ble Supreme Court on the subject matter.
c) J&K Schedule Castes Order, 1956 being issued under article 342 (1) and Clause (2) Article 342 of the Constitution.
d) Status of enrollment of Vashisht Rajput/Basith in Socio Economic Caste Census, 2011 and Census, 2011 conducted by the Government of India.
e) Custom, rituals and traditions adopted by Vashisht Rajput and Basith Community.
f) The recommendations already made by Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri and Regional Director Survey and land Records, Rajouri in the subject matter, which was subsequently recommended by Divisional Commissioner, 21 WP(C) No. 903/2023 Jammu and Financial Commissioner, Revenue as already referred above.
In view of the above facts, the committee recommends that the request of the Basith Community is genuine and deserves consideration for grant of sanction of competent authority for correction of their caste as Basith in the revenue record."
36. It appears that a number of communications have been issued by Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri to Divisional Commissioner, Jammu for correcting the revenue record to the extent of rectifying the caste of persons belonging to 'Basith' community. These documents clearly go on to show that recording of caste of the petitioners as 'Vashisht Rajput' after the year 1953 is clearly erroneous. There is ample material on record to show that the caste of the petitioners originally was 'Basith' and not 'Vashisht Rajput'.
37. The issue whether caste of a person can undergo change came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of "Mohammad Sadique Vs. Darbara Singh Guru" (2016) 11 SCC 617. While analyzing the aforesaid issue, the Supreme Court discussed as to what „caste‟ actually means. Paras 43 and 44 of the said judgment are relevant to the context and the same are reproduced as under:
22 WP(C) No. 903/2023
"43. Before further discussion we think it just and proper to understand what "caste" actually means. The word "caste"
is defined in Encyclopedia Americana, Vol. 5, as under:
"Caste: Caste is a largely static, exclusive social class, membership in which is determined by birth and involves particular customary restrictions and privileges. The word derives from the Portuguese "casta", meaning „breed‟, „race‟, or „kind‟ and was first used to denote the Hindu social classification on the Indian subcontinent. While this remains the basic connotation, the word „caste‟ is also used to describe in whole or in part social systems that emerged at various times in other parts of the world...."
44. According to Webster Comprehensive Dictionary (International Edn), „caste‟ in relation to Hinduism means - any of the four social divisions namely Brahmin (Priests), Khshatriya (Warriers), Vaishya (agriculturists & traders) and Shudras (servants)."
38. In the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court has held that a person can change his religion and faith but not the caste to which he belongs as the caste has linkage to birth. It was further observed that a caste is determined by birth and it cannot be changed even by conversion into a different religion and it would remain static if such person decides to re- convert.
39. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, once it is shown that the petitioners were born in a family belonging to 'Basith' community, they would continue to be the members of the said community for all times to 23 WP(C) No. 903/2023 come. Even if their caste may have been changed erroneously as 'Vashisht Rajput', their status as members of 'Basith' community would not get changed and they would continue to be the members of the Scheduled Caste community. Therefore, even on merits, respondent No. 6 could not have cancelled the caste certificates of the petitioners and set aside the mutation of caste without undertaking a proper enquiry. The said orders are, therefore, not sustainable in law.
40. Once the orders relating to cancellation of caste certificates in favour of petitioners No. 1 and 2 become unsustainable in law, the consequent orders, disqualifying them from holding the position of Sarpanch/Panch in a constituency reserved for Scheduled Caste community, cannot stand. The same are also, therefore, liable to be set aside.
41. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 12.03.2022 passed by respondent No. 6 whereby caste certificates in favour of the petitioners No. 1 and 2 have been cancelled and mutation of sehat qom/correction of caste in favour of the petitioners No. 2 and 3 have been set aside, are quashed. Orders dated 12.04.2022 and 10.05.2022 whereby petitioners No. 1 and 2 respectively have been disqualified as Sarpanch/Panch for Panchayat Halqa Bhajnowa (Scheduled Caste), tehsil Nowshera district 24 WP(C) No. 903/2023 Rajouri are also quashed and a direction is issued to the official respondents to allow the petitioners No. 1 and 2 to perform their duties as Sarpanch/Panch respectively for the aforesaid constituency provided the term of the Panchayat has not come to an end.
42. Disposed of accordingly.
(SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 19.09.2025 Naresh/Secy.
Whether order is speaking: Yes Whether order is reportable: Yes Naresh Kumar 2025.09.19 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document