Chattisgarh High Court
Pravin Nimje vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 October, 2024
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1 / 16
2024:CGHC:40903-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 637 of 2024
1 - Pravin Nimje S/o Shri Phoolchand Nimje Aged About 45
Years Posted As Assistant Grade Ii, General Administration
Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Naya Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Scheduled
Caste And Scheduled Tribes Development Depsrtment,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 1).
2 - The Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Administration General Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 2). 3 - Caste Certificate High Level Scrutiny Committee, Through Its Member Secretary - Cum - Commissioner, Tribal And Scheduled Caste Development, Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University Campus, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 3). 4 - Government Of India, Ministry Of Personnel, Public Grievances And Pension, Department Of Personnel And Training, New Delhi. (Respondent No. 4).
... Respondents
2 / 16
For Appellant : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate
For Res./State : Mr. Y. S. Thakur, Additional Advocate
General
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
Per Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
17.10.2024.
1. Heard Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Y. S. Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the State.
2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1070 of 2013 (Pravin Nimje Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others) by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner.
3. By way of this writ appeal filed under Section 2 (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006), appellant has sought for the following relief:-
" It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant appeal, set aside the impugned judgment dated 30.08.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 1070/2013 and grant relief by issuing appropriate writ/order/direction as this Hon'ble Court may deemed fit and proper under the facts and 3 / 16 circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice."
4. Brief facts, necessary for the disposal of this appeal, are that the petitioner completed his primary education at Janpad Primary School, Mehandivada, Tehsil Waraseoni, District Balaghat (M.P.). He completed his higher education at Bhopal, M.P. He applied for a social status certificate showing himself as a member of the Scheduled Tribe, Caste 'Halba' before the Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Huzur, District Bhopal. A Revenue Case No. 3273/B-121/97-98 was registered and on 25.07.1998 such certificate was issued. On the basis of the social status certificate, the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Grade-III in the reserved category for Scheduled Tribe in the General Administration Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh and he was appointed on 27.02.1999. After the reorganisation of the State of Madhya Pradesh and the creation of the State of Chhattisgarh, the services of the petitioner were allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh vide order dated 23.10.2000. The petitioner joined his services in the State of Chhattisgarh and thereafter he was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II vide order dated 23.02.2004.
A letter was issued to the petitioner by respondent No. 3 to fill up the proforma and submit the documents with regard to revenue records of his father/his grandfather, his educational certificates and other documents showing his caste. On 14.02.2006, the petitioner replied to that letter and made a request to supply a copy of the complaint.
4 / 16
A complaint was received by the Commissioner, Tribal and Scheduled Caste Development, Raipur and an investigation was initiated on the social status certificate of the petitioner. In this regard, a notice was issued to the petitioner by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Waraseoni, District Balaghat to remain present on 16.02.2006. The petitioner filed a reply to the notice and submitted the relevant documents on 20.02.2006. On 06.11.2006, the petitioner requested respondent No. 3 to supply relevant documents and the necessary information.
The petitioner was asked to remain present before respondent No. 3 on 06.11.2006 at 12 noon to put forth his defence along with necessary documents. The petitioner filed a detailed reply wherein it was stated that the relevant documents and information were not supplied to him. It was also stated that in the census of 1891, 25262 persons of 'Halba' tribes were found in that locality.
Respondent No. 3 vide order dated 11.12.2006 on the basis of the report of Vigilance Cell, the Superintendent of Police, Balaghat wherein the caste of the petitioner was found as "Koshti", cancelled the caste certificate and also directed the department to cancel his appointment.
The petitioner had challenged the order dated 11.12.2006 by filing W.P.(S) No. 4147/2007 which was decided along with the petitions of a similar nature on 19.08.2010 wherein the order passed by respondent No. 3 was 5 / 16 cancelled and the Committee was directed to follow the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Addl.
Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, (1994) 6 SCC 241 and Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Laveti Giri and Another, (1995) 4 SCC 32. Respondent No. 3 again issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 15.12.2012 and directed him to produce the documents prior to the year 1950 to establish that he belongs to the 'Halba' caste under the Scheduled Tribes category. The reply was filed to the show cause notice on 12.01.2012 along with the relevant documents. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Committee on 01.05.2012 to produce documents prior to the year 1950. The petitioner filed a detailed reply to that notice on 18.05.2012 along with the relevant documents and a request was also made to exempt his appearance on 01.05.2012 on account of some personal difficulty.
The petitioner was again directed to appear before respondent No. 3 on 12.06.2012. The petitioner filed a reply to the said notice along with the relevant documents and, a copy of the statement of villagers recorded by the Vigilance Cell on 28.09.2011. Respondent No. 3 vide order dated 18.06.2012 passed the order vide Annexure P/1 and cancelled the social status certificate of the petitioner.
It is also pleaded by the petitioner that the Circular was 6 / 16 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh on 07 th March 2011 to the effect that the persons belonging to "Halba"/"Koshti", who were appointed against the vacancy for Scheduled Tribe on the basis of certificate issued to them by the competent authority, and their appointment had become final on or before 28.11.2000, shall not be affected. In this regard, a Circular was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi on 10.08.2010 and by the State of Madhya Pradesh on 07.03.2011 and by the State of Chhattisgarh on 01.10.2011.
5. Being aggrieved & dissatisfied the orders passed by the Caste Certificate High Level Scrutiny Committee as well as a prayer to issue a direction to the respondent authority to consider the circular dated 01.10.2011, the appellant / petitioner therein, preferred writ petition before the learned Single Judge bearing Writ Petition (S) No. 1070 of 2013.
6. On the basis of pleadings of the petitioners and the respondents and the arguments of the petitioner and the respondents the Learned Single Judge, vide impugned order dated 30.08.2024, by examining the records observed that iIn the present case, in the earlier round of litigation, the order of the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee was cancelled as the investigation was conducted by Superintendent of Police, Balaghat contrary to the law laid down in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). Thereafter, the task of investigation 7 / 16 was handed over to Vigilance Cell of the State of Chhattisgarh and a proper inquiry was conducted which has not been refuted or doubted by the petitioner. The Vigilance Cell collected the documentary as well as the oral evidence and recorded a finding that the petitioner does not belong to the "Halba" tribe. Therefore, the law laid down in the matter of Smt. Vidya Kumbhare Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in Writ Petition(C) No. 95 of 2021 which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 475 of 2024 vide order dated 30.07.2024 is of no help to the petitioner.
By referring the matter of Smt. Ganga Goyal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ petition No. 2508 of 2006 dated 27.07.2010 the learned Single Judge opined that the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee has not committed any error of law in passing the order impugned (Annexure P/1) dated 18.06.2012.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered that the order passed by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee cancelling the Social Status Certificate of the petitioner had serious civil consequences since it uprooted the petitioner and his entire family from his community and this made him a stranger to the said community, despite the fact that the petitioner was intrinsically connected to the 'Halba"
community and therefore, while passing the said order the 8 / 16 scrutiny Committee was required to have ensure adequate opportunity to the petitioner to defend his social status by having adduced his witnesses as also by having cross- examined the witnesses whose testimony was recorded by the vigilance cell and subsequently relied upon why the scrutiny committee for passing the impugned order. He would also submit that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered that it is not the case against the petitioner that the petitioner obtained employment based upon a forged certificate or that the petitioner obtained the social caste status certificate based upon false or forged documents. In fact, in various documents pertaining to the father and the forefathers of the petitioner, reference to 'Halba' and 'Koshti' is found which makes it evident that both ;Halba' and 'Halba-Koshti' were referred in a highly generic context and the petitioner cannot be penalised for the same by alleging that the petitioner does not belong to the scheduled tribe community. He would further refer to a circular dated 07.07.1959 issued by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, enabling issuance of social status certificate of schedule tribe to members belonging to the 'Koshti' community. He would further submit that the learned Single Judge has not considered the fact that the petitioner having been appointed on 27.02.1999, have already put in more than 25 years of service and is presently above 45 years of age, which makes him disentitled to appear for any competitive examination, having become overage (age bar). 9 / 16 The petitioner has already put in a substantial length of service and therefore, with the entire family to support out of his service, terminating the services of the petitioner on account of the finding that the petitioner belongs to the Koshti community and not Halba community would lead to serious threat to the livelihood of the entire family on account of no fault on the part of the petitioner.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in passing the impugned order, as earlier the social status certificate of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 11.12.2006, which was assailed in WPC No. 4147 of 2007 and the order dated 11.12.2006 was set aside directing therein the vigilance Cell to enquire into the matter stated that pursuant to the order passed in WPC No. 4147 of 2007, the Vigilance Cell visited the village Mehandivada, Tehsil Waraseoni, District Balaghat(M.P.) examined the documents and recorded the statements of the witnesses and submitted a report. He would also submit that according to the report of Vigilance Cell the caste of the father and forefather of the petitioner is Koshti. The witnesses as well as the document clearly shows that the caste of the father and forefather of the petitioner is Koshti, whereas the caste certificate of the petitioner belongs to Halba. It is also stated that as per the revenue record and statement of the Patwari of the village Mehandivada, namely- Mansha Ram Patle, the social status 10 / 16 certificate of the petitioner does not show as a member of Halba tribe, therefore, there is no scope for any interference with the impugned order and, therefore, the writ appeal filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
10 It is the admitted facts of the case that the petitioner was born and brought up at Village Mehandivada, Tehsil Waraseoni, District Balaghat (M.P.). After his primary education at Village Mehandivada, Tehsil Waraseoni, District Balaghat. He went to Bhopal (M.P.) to complete his higher education, where he applied for a social status certificate and the temporary social status certificate was issued on 25.07.1998 showing the petitioner as a member of "Halba" community, Scheduled Tribes category. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Grade-III on 27.02.1999 against reserved vacancy for Scheduled Tribes in the General Administration Department, State of Madhya Pradesh. After reorganization of the State of Madhya Pradhya the services of the petitioner were allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh on 23.10.2000 and he was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II.
A complaint was made and the inquiry was initiated by the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee on the caste certificate issued to the petitioner. And the caste certificate was cancelled vide order dated 11.12.2006. The petitioner 11 / 16 preferred W.P.(S) No. 4147/2007 contending that cancellation of the caste Certificate by the Caste Scrutiny Committee on the basis of report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Balaghat is contrary to the judgment passed passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra); and vide order dated 19.08.2010, the writ petition was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the Committee to pass an order afresh strictly in accordance with settled law. Pursuant to the order passed 19.08.2010 in WPS No. 4147/2007 of this Court, the matter was referred to the Vigilance Cell constituted according to the directions issued in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) and the matter was thoroughly investigated by the said Committee and thereafter report was submitted before respondent No. 3. The petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to file a reply and submit relevant documents and thereafter final order was passed on 18.06.2012 whereby the caste certificate was cancelled and the recommendation was made to take appropriate action for cancellation of the appointment. From a perusal of the record it appears that the vizilance cell investigated the matter and submit its report, from which it is very clear that the petitioner himself shown as a permanent resident of Village Mehandivada, Tehsil Waraseoni, District- Balaghat (M.P.) where his father and forefathers were residing and in the services book the petitioner has shown his permanent address Village Mehandivada, Tehsil Waraseoni, 12 / 16 District- Balaghat (M.P.). The Vigilance Cell after due proclamation, recorded the statement of witnesses at Village Panchayat Building, Mehandivada. The village Patwari namely, Mansha Ram Patley, aged about 58 years has stated that in the revenue records of Village Mehandivada, the "Halba" caste is not recorded against the name of the petitioner and his father and forefathers in revenue records. He has further stated that the majority of the population at Village Mehandivada belongs to the caste Koshti, Marar and Muslim who fall under other backward classes category and their profession is cloth- weaving. The Patwari has further stated that the residents of Village Mehandivada used surnames - 'Koshti', 'Dekate', 'Nimje', 'Khumbhare', 'Nadanwar', 'Parate', 'Gonnade' etc. The Sarpanch of Village Mehandivada namely, Kishore Kumbhare, aged 48 years; Basant Rao Kumbhare, aged 60 years; Hemraj Nadanwar, aged 55 years and Keshavrao Parate, aged 56 years have revealed the social status of the villagers and the name of Gotra i.e. Parate, Nimje, Nadanwar, Bavne, Hedau, Patre, Nipane, Barapatre and their profession is cloth-weaving. The Domicile certificate was issued by the Ex-Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Mehandivada namely, Nilamchand Chauhan on 28.02.2006 to the petitioner wherein his caste is mentioned as "Koshti". According to the certificate issued by the Headmaster, Janpad Primary School, Mehandivada, the caste of the father of the petitioner is mentioned as "Koshti" in the School Admission Register at 13 / 16 Serial No. 2209. As per the School Admission Register of the petitioner, his name appears at Serial No. 5344 and his caste is "Koshti" The petitioner appeared before respondent No. 3 on 01.05.2012 and 12.05.2012 and also filed a reply, but he could not produce any document to prove the fact that he belongs to the "Halba" community. It is further found by respondent No. 3 that the Revenue Officer of another district is not competent to issue a social status certificate to a residence of another district without verification of the revenue documents. The respondent No. 3 on the basis of material placed before it by the Vigilance Cell recorded a finding that, the petitioner does not belong to the Scheduled Tribe category, particularly the "Halba" caste and also directed the State Government to take appropriate action.
11. In the matter of Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles @ Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others in Civil Appeal No.(s) 2741-2743 of 2024 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 22 has held as under :
"22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that High Court inadvertently undertook an erroneous exercise of appreciating evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India and swayed itself into a roving inquiry which was not expected as per settled legal position. At the cost of repetition, we again observe that under Rule 13(2)(a) of 2012 Rules, the adjudication on the basis of the documents 14 / 16 falls solely within the domain of Scrutiny Committee based on the inputs received from the Vigilance Cell. The Scrutiny Committee is an expert forum armed with fact finding authority. The High Court ought not to have interfered, especially when Scrutiny Committee had followed the due procedure under Rule 12,17 and 18 of the 2012 Rules and that there was nothing perverse about a finding of fact."
12. Hence, in the present case also the Caste Scrutiny Committee had followed the guidelines enumerated in the case of Madhuri Patil (Supra) and on the basis of material placed before it by the Vigilance Cell recorded a finding that the petitioner does not belong to the Scheduled Tribe category, particularly the "Halba" caste and also directed the State Government to take appropriate action, thus, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant / petitioner therein.
13. As far as the appellant's contention regarding the non- consideration of the fact by the learned Single Judge that the petitioner the petitioner having been appointed on 27.02.1999, have already put in more than 25 years of service and is presently above 45 years of age, is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and Others. Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Others reported in 2017(8) 15 / 16 SCC 731 in paragraph 69.1, 69.3 and 69.4 has observed as under:
"69.1. The directions which were issued by the Constitution Bench of this Court in para 38 of the decision in State of Maharashtra V. Milind, reported in (2001)1 SCC 4 were in pursuance of the powers vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution;
69.2. xxx xxx xxx 69.3. The decisions of this Court in R. Vishwanatha Pillai and in Dattatray which were rendered by benches of three Judges laid down the principle of law that where a benefit is secured by an individual - such as an appointment to a post or admission to an educational institution - on the basis that the candidate belongs to a reserved category for which the benefit is reserved, the invalidation of the caste or tribe claim upon verification would result in the appointment or, as the case may be, the admission being rendered void or non est. 69.4. The exception to the above doctrine was in those cases where this Court exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to render complete justice;
14. Hence, this Court cannot consider and protect the petitioner from any consequential action pursuant to the cancellation of the Caste Certificate if the petitioner is availing the benefit of the said caste certificate and got any employment and the order of protection which the learned counsel for the 16 / 16 petitioner prays from this Court in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, this Court cannot exercise the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, hence, the order passed by learned Single Judge is just and proper. As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid discussion, the writ appeal, being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost (s).
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
amita
Digitally
signed by
AMITA
DUBEY
Date:
2024.10.26
15:32:11
+0530