Chattisgarh High Court
Shrawan Kumar Nandanwar vs State Of C.G. And Ors on 21 December, 2023
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 4649 of 2010
Order reserved on : 27/09/2023
Order passed on :21/12/2023
Shrawan Kumar Nandanwar, S/o Late Urkurya Nandanwar, Aged
about 49 years, Occupation- Service, Working as Senior
Sericulture Inspector, Government Kosa Seed Center, Parsoda,
District- Kanker Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Government of
Chhattisgarh, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
Development Department, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
2. Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Rural
Industries, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
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.
4. Collector, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Marhas, Advocate
For Respondents/State : Ms. Meena Shastri, Addl. A.G.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
CAV Order
1. The challenge in the instant petition is to the order dated 02.08.2010 passed by respondent No.3 whereby it is directed by the Caste Certificate High Level Scrutiny Committee to terminate 2 the services of the petitioner. The challenge is also against the illegal and arbitrary proceedings carried out by respondent No.3 whereby the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing and also to present his case on account of not supplying the documents relating to investigation done against him.
2. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner genuinely belongs to "Halba" Tribe which is a Scheduled Tribe. It is pertinent to mention here that "Halba"/"Halbi" is a Scheduled Tribe of the State of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh. The Halba Tribe, which is an origin of Nagpur plain, is found in the central India, in the States of Maharashtra (Southern), Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and some parts of Orissa. The petitioner obtained his primary education from Government Medium School, Mehandivada, Balaghat and the progress card of class 5th and 7th issued by the Principal of Government Medium School, Mehandivada, District Balaghat showed that the petitioner belongs to "Halba" Tribe which is a Scheduled Tribe. A copy of the Mark Sheet is being filed as Annexure P/2 & P/3. The Tahsildar of Tahsil Chhuikhadan issued the caste certificate in favour of present petitioner on 12.12.1983 and the copy of Caste Certificate is being filed as Annexure P/4.
3. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Sericulture Inspector at Ambikapur and joined on 11.09.1989 on permanent basis. In the year 1998, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Sericulture Inspector and posted at District Mandala. Upon constitution of the State of Chhattisgarh, the petitioner was allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh in the year 2002 and posted in Koriya, Ambikapur and thereafter posted in District Kanker. On 03.11.1999, a notice was issued by Assistant Director, Sericulture Department to the petitioner regarding the verification of Caste Certificate which was submitted at the time of appointment. In response to that notice, on 26.11.1999, the petitioner submitted the detailed reply to the notice dated 03.11.1999. Copies of notice dated 03.11.1999 and reply dated 26.11.1999 are filed as 3 Annexure P/5 & P/6 respectively.
4. Again on 22.03.2001, the office of District Chief, District Mandala issued notice regarding clarification of the caste as well as domicile certificate. In response to the notice dated 22.03.2001, the petitioner made detailed clarification letter to said authority regarding the residence as well as the caste of the petitioner. Copies of the notice dated 22.03.2001 and clarification letter are filed as Annexure P/7 & P/8 respectively. On 17.09.2004, the notice was issued by Directorate of Rural Industry, Chhattisgarh, Sericulture Sector asking the petitioner to submit all the relevant documents within 7 days in this office for valid caste certificate. A copy of notice dated 17.09.2004 is annexed as Annexure P/9. Reply to that, the present petitioner again submitted the reply and asked for some time to submit the relevant documents before the authority. A copy of letter dated 25.10.2004 is filed herewith as Annexure P/10. Thereafter, on 25.05.2005, the petitioner gave all the detail of his land and submitted all the documents belonging to his land before the said authority. A copy of all the relevant documents is filed herewith as Annexure P/11. On 12.08.2005, the respondent authority asked the petitioner to remain present before Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Tribe Commission Raipur on 27.08 2005 to put forth his defence along with necessary documents with regard to his caste. A copy of notice dated 12.08.2005 is filed as Annexure P/12. In response to that, the petitioner was present before the authority with all the necessary documents with regard to his caste and submitted to the said authority.
5. On 16.03.2006, the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee issued a show-cause-notice to the petitioner asking him to submit all the documents regarding his caste before the committee within 15 days. A copy of notice dated 16.03.2006 is annexed as Annexure P/13. The petitioner submitted his reply along with all the documents to Respondent No. 3 on 02.05.2006. The petitioner was asked to remain present before High Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee on 7.9.2009 to put forth his defense along 4 with necessary document with regard to his caste certificate. The copy of notice dated 10.08.2009 is annexed as Annexure P/15. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the letter written by the Respondent No. 3 on 10.08.2009 mentioning that he was not supplied the relevant documents and information which was necessary for him to submit a proper reply. The copy of reply along with all the documents submitted by the petitioner on 07.09.2009 is filed herewith as Annexure P/16. However, the respondent No.3 did not consider the same and passed the impugned order recommending his termination. Hence, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:-
10.1 To call for the entire records pertaining to the enquiry made by the respondent No.3 and all the other documents pertaining to the case of the petitioners from the respondents for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
10.2 To quash impugned order dated 02/08/2010 (Annexure P-1) communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 05/08/2010 as also the letter dated 05/08/2010.
10.3 Any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be given in favour of the petitioner against the respondents.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the authorities is violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner and hence warrants interference of this Court. The enquiry/investigation carried out by the respondent authorities is incomplete and without giving a sufficient opportunity of hearing, the petitioner is sought to be terminated from his service. The respondent High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee acted in an absolutely arbitrary and high handed manner de hors the 5 directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil. The respondent committee failed to comply with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court thereby causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. The impugned order is therefore bad in law and deserves to be quashed. The petitioner was never granted any opportunity to verify and examine the material collected by the vigilance cell and placed before the respondents on the basis of which, the impugned order was passed. The whole procedure adopted by the respondents is contrary to the principles of natural justice and is in gross violation of the rule of law. The findings recorded by the respondent committee are highly perverse. The gross illegalities committed by the respondents shall vitiate the whole process adopted by the respondents and shall be fatal to the same. The opinion of the committee should be based on sociological, ethnological and anthological accounts and not on the basis of constitution of India.
The committee ought to have allowed the petitioner to lead oral evidence as well as to establish the facts. In olden days, particularly in respect of tribe, it could not be expected of them that they would be promptly possessed all kinds of documentary evidence in support of their castes. However, it would not mean that a person is not a tribe. Merely because some records are not available it does not warrant any adverse inference.
7. The respondent authorities failed to see that the reply and documents connected therewith, filed by the petitioner show that he belongs to the Halba tribe. The respondent authorities failed to understand the true tenor of the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Madhuri Patil, Dudhnath Prasad, and Milind Katware. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
8. Reliance has been placed on this Court's order dated 14.02.2017 passed in WA No. 531 of 2016 in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh and others Vs. Dinesh Kumar Sonkusre and other connected matters reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Chh 168.
69. Learned counsel for the respondents/State strongly opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the High Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee (in short "Committee") for verification of caste certificate, has been constituted in compliance of the orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter Ku. Madhuri Patil & others Vs. Additional Commissioner. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the candidate must verify his caste certificate from the said Committee within a period of 6 months from the date of joining in service or admission. As per the guidelines of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the candidates should require to submit their ethnological/ancestral records prior to the year 1950 in order to prove his/her caste which comes in SC/ST/OBC category. According to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the guidelines issued by the Government of India with regard to verification of caste certificate, the candidates are required to submit records/documents in support of their caste certificate relating to existing State in which the father and fore-fathers of the candidates have been residing prior to the year 1950. It is an established position of law as enumerated in various judgments cited by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the burden lies upon the person claiming benefit from issuance of caste certificate.
10.In this case, on a complaint received against the petitioner regarding obtaining appointment on the post of Junior Sericulture Inspector by producing false caste certificate of Scheduled Tribe, an inquiry was conducted in accordance with the directions and guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court and circular issued by the State Government, General Administration Department. It is submitted that the petitioner had obtained a caste certificate with respect to "Halba" caste which comes under the Scheduled Tribe category from the Tahsildar, Rajnandgaon and on this basis he obtained appointment on the reserved post of Junior Sericulture Inspector which was reserved for schedule tribe category. On 16/03/2006 a show-cause-notice was issued to the petitioner by 7 respondent No. 3 directing him to produce records for verification of his caste certificate, but the petitioner failed to produce any document/record prior to the year 1950 in reference to "Halba" caste.
11.As per the vigilance report, the caste of the petitioner has been mentioned as Halba in the school admission register and occupation of his father is mentioned as Bunkar. The Samiti had directed the petitioner to produce records/documents relating to his father/forefather prior to the year 1950 in support of verification of his caste certificate. Pursuant to which, the petitioner appeared before the Committee and submitted his uncle's birth certificate and vanshawali of his family. In the birth certificate, name of the father of the petitioner was mentioned as Bisan and in the vanshawali submitted by the petitioner his uncle's name was mentioned as Bisan S/o. Karya. On account of some doubtful situation, the aforesaid documents were forwarded to Vigilance Inspector and as per the vigilance report, it was found that the birth certificate of the petitioner' uncle namely Bisan S/o. Karya relating to year 1928 was obtained by the Collectorate, Balaghat (M.P.). As per the said record, it was revealed that there is no entry in the register regarding birth of the child i.e. Bisan. As per the vigilance report, it is clear that in the aforesaid register of Collectorate, Balaghat, the caste "Halba" has been mentioned in the another ink and the same is different to that of the birth certificate submitted by the petitioner. It was also found that, in the village Bagadmara, Thana & Tahsil - Kirnapur, District- Balaghat (M.P.) nobody recognized Karya S/o. Bisan or Bisan S/o Karya. During enquiry, the petitioner was afforded full opportunity of hearing to establish that he belongs to Halba scheduled tribe. As per circular No. BC12025/2 -76 / SCT - 1 dated 22/03/1977 issued by Govt. of India, Home Department, the Revenue Officer of particular district is not a competent authority to issue caste certificate to the petitioner belonging to another district.
12. In the instant case, the petitioner obtained caste certificate from 8 Tahsildar, Rajnandgaon (C.G.), whereas he originally belonged to district Balaghat (M.P.). The respondents acted as per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the guidelines issued by the Govt. of India and they have not committed any act of illegality or infirmity. The impugned order dated 02/08/2010 is a detailed order and the same has been passed strictly in accordance with law. The instant petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
13. Reliance has been placed on this Court's order dated 14.02.2017 passed in WA No. 531 of 2016 in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh and others Vs. Dinesh Kumar Sonkusre and other connected matters reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Chh 168.
14. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
15.Both the parties placed reliance on this Court's order dated 14.02.2017 passed in WA No. 531/2016 in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh and others vs. Dinesh Kumar Sonkusre & other connected appeals.
16.Vide order darted 14.02.2017 passed in WA No. 531 of 2016 and other connected matters, this Court observed in paras 41, 42 and 43 as under:-
"41. As far as the present cases are concerned, we are of the view, as already indicated above that these cases are covered by Kavita Solunke (supra), Shalini (supra) and R. Unnikrishnan (supra). The Writ Petitioners in all these cases obtained caste certificates much prior to 2000. In fact, in one case, the caste certificate was obtained as far back as on 01.05.1981. All the Petitioners joined service much prior to 2000. In fact one Petitioner joined on 31.11.1982 and the last Petitioner did so on 16.09.1998. They have completed almost 2-3 decades of service. They obtained the caste certificates at a time when all the persons belonging to "Halba-Koshti" or "Koshti" tribe were being given Scheduled Tribe certificates because of the misconception in the States of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh that "Halba Koshti" and "Koshti" are part and parcel of 9 "Halba" tribe. It was only after the Apex Court delivered judgment in Milind (supra) that the issue was finally resolved.
The Petitioners did not falsely claim that they were "Halbas". The Petitioners are entitled to protection and the learned Single Judge rightly gave them this protection. We accordingly hold that the Petitioners are entitled to be retained in service but with effect from 28.11.2000 they shall be treated to be general category candidates and will not be entitled to claim any benefits of belonging to the Scheduled Tribe.
42. It would be pertinent to mention that the State of Chhattisgarh was formed w.e.f. 01.11.2000 and the judgment in Milind (supra) was rendered on 28.11.2000 and the protection can only be given to those who were actually "Halba-Koshti" or "Koshti" for the State of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh prior to 28.11.2000 and were therefore treated as "Halbas".
43. Having held so, we want to clarify that the notification dated 11.01.2016 is not bad in law. It will however have to be read in the context of the law laid down by the Apex Court in various judgments as explained by us above. This notification may not apply to those Petitioners who have obtained jobs prior to 28.11.2000 provided they have obtained Scheduled Tribe certificate "bona fide" and without suppression or misrepresentation of any facts. In case, a person is not a "Halba Koshti" in relation to State of Madhya Pradesh, then that person is not entitled to any protection of law. If a person has obtained a false certificate by misrepresentation of facts or providing wrong information, then that the person is also not entitled to any protection. It is only those who were actually "Halba Koshti"
or "Koshti" in the State of Madhya Pradesh and being "Halba Koshti" or "Koshti" believed that they were members of "Halba", a Scheduled Tribe and who got jobs prior to 28.11.2000, are entitled to such protection. This protection cannot be extended to all and sundry. To give an example, if "Halba-Koshti" from the State of Maharashtra had shifted to State of Madhya Pradesh, then he would not be "Halba-Koshti" belonging to Madhya Pradesh and as such, his certificate would be totally false and such a person would not be entitled to any protection."10
17.In the present case also, the petitioner obtained caste certificate on 12.12.1983 much prior to the year 2000 and the petitioner also joined service much prior to the year 2000. It is admitted by the respondent authorities that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Sericulture Inspector at Ambikapur on 11.09.1989 and the order passed by respondent No.3 on 02.08.2010 and the same was communicated to the petitioner on 05.08.2010 (Annexure P/1). The petitioner also completed almost 2-3 decades of service and during argument, it was pointed out by both the parties that the petitioner got retired on 31.07.2023.
18.In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the petitioner obtained job prior to 28.11.2000 and Scheduled Tribe certificate obtained by him appears to be "bona fide". He is also protected by the order dated 14.02.2017 of this Court. The committee also opined in para 6 of the impugned order that the petitioner belongs to Koshti caste which does not come under the Scheduled Tribe category. This Court vide order darted 14.02.2017 passed in WA No. 531 of 2016 and other connected matters observed that "It is only those who were actually "Halba Koshti" or "Koshti" in the State of Madhya Pradesh and being "Halba Koshti" or "Koshti" believed that they were members of "Halba", a Scheduled Tribe and who got jobs prior to 28.11.2000, are entitled to such protection."
19.Petitioner has already retired from service on 31.07.2023, hence, it is ordered that the impugned order shall not affect the retiral benefits of the petitioner but the petitioner or his legal heirs will not be entitled to claim any benefits of being Scheduled Tribe.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) Judge Ruchi