Chattisgarh High Court
Ramashish Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 February, 2026
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal
1
2026:CGHC:8454
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 834 of 2020
1 - Ramashish Singh S/o Late Bhagirathi Singh, Aged About 61
Years, And 11 Months, R/o Kedarpur, Near Pahuna Shop,
Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster
Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital
Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2 - High Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee Chhattisgarh
Raipur, Through Its President, High Level Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Chhattisgarh, Raipur Chhattisgarh.,
3 - High Level Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee Chhattisgarh
Raipur, Through Its Secretary, High Level Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Chhattisgarh Raipur Chhattisgarh.,
4 - Commissioner Tribal Welfare Block 4d, Ground Floor,
Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.,
5 - Member Secretary Cum Director High Level Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Chhattisgarh Raipur Chhattisgarh.,
6 - Commissioner Surguja Division, Surguja, Ambikapur, District
Surguja Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Sr. Advocate with Shri Kabir Kalwani, Advocate.
Digitally signed by KRISHNA KRISHNA KUMAR KUMAR BARVE BARVE Date:
2026.02.19 16:10:55 +0530 2 For : Shri Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate. Respondent(s) Hon'ble Justice Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 17/02/2026 :
1. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein seeks to challenge the legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 7.9.2019 (Annexure-P/1) by which the petitioner's caste has been revoked by the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee under Section 7 of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes & Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013 (henceforth 'the Act, 2013').
2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop.
3. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Second Grade Clerk by the Collector, Surguja, vide order dated 18.1.1982 and thereafter he was promoted on the post of Assistant Grade-II. The petitioner was further promoted on the post of Auditor and vide order dated 22.3.2018, he was promoted on the post of Superintendent, Land Records. During his tenure, a caste certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner stating that he belongs to 'Gond' community. The said certificate was 3 verified by the District Level Certificates Verification Committee under Section 6 of the Act, 2013. The said Committee issued a certificate (Annexure-P/8) stating that the petitioner belongs to the ST community, after due enquiry under Section 6 of the Act, 2013. However, the said Committee did not refer the matter to the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee for further scrutiny. The information concerning the social status of the petitioner was communicated to the Deputy Commissioner, office of Commissioner, vide letter dated 12.7.2017 stating that the verification certificate has been issued on 17.7.2014. As such, the certificate dated 17.7.2014 on the basis of social status certificate dated 6.6.2014 has attained finality. In the meanwhile, during the pendency of said enquiry before the District Level Certificates Verification Committee, one Kunj Bihari Singh Paikra, President, Sarv Adivasi Samaj, Surguja made a complaint to the Commissioner, Surguja Division that the petitioner is not a member of the ST community, as he has obtained the said certificate by means of fraud and is getting the benefit of reservation, on the basis of which the Commissioner has got it enquired from the Collector and issued a memo on 24th March, 2014 to the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee for enquiry regarding the caste of the petitioner. Accordingly, an enquiry was 4 conducted and on 7.9.2019 an order has been passed holding that the petitioner is not a member of the ST Community and the certificates dated 30.6.1976 and 6.6.2014 have been revoked, leading to filing of the present Writ Petition.
4. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee has no power and jurisdiction to pass order to verify the petitioner's caste, as the District Level Certificates Verification Committee has already verified it and a communication has also been issued to the employer and, therefore, by virtue of Section 7 of the Act, 2013, the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee can enquire into the social status of Government servant only if it is referred by the District Level Certificates Verification Committee under Section 6 or by the State Government, and the Commissioner, who has referred the matter to the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee vide Annexure-R/2 is not the State Government and, therefore, the order (Annexure-P/1) is without jurisdiction and without any authority of law and the same is liable to be quashed.
5. On the other hand, Shri Rahul Tamaskar, learned State Counsel would support the impugned order and submits that the impugned order has been passed after due enquiry in 5 accordance with the Act, 2013 and the Rules framed thereunder, as such, the order impugned deserves to be maintained.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.
7. In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to reproduce Sections 6 & 7 of the Act, 2013. Section 6 reads as under:-
"6. District Level Certificates Verification Committee and its powers.-
(1) There shall be a District Level Certificates Verification Committee with such composition as may be prescribed for verification of Social Status Certificate issued by the Competent Authority under Section 4, as may be notified by the State Government having jurisdiction over one or more districts.
(2) A district Level Certificates Verification Committee shall on its own motion or on receipt of any information or reference made to it, in regard to Social Status Certificate(s) issued by the competent Authority, verify such Certificate(s) in the manner as may be prescribed :
Provided that the reference made to the District Level Certificates Verification Committee by an employer, an Educational Institution, a Local Authority, the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, for verification of Social Status Certificate(s), shall be in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, and it shall be the duty of the District Certificates Verification Committee or report its findings 6 to the employer, the Educational Institution, the Local Authority, the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the reference.
(3) Where there is prima-facie reason to believe that the Social Status Certificate(s) have been wrongfully or fraudulently obtained, the District Level Certificates Verification Committee shall refer all information and relevant documents along with record of its findings to the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee :
Provided that where the District Level Certificates Verification Committee arrives at an adverse finding, it shall not refer the case to High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee unless a reasonable opportunity of being heard is given to the person, whose Social Status Certificate is disputed.
(4) The District Level Certificates Verification Committee shall follow such procedure for verification of Social Status Certificate and adhere to such time limit for reference to the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee under sub-section (3) of this Section, as may be prescribed."
8. A careful perusal of Section 6 would show that there shall be a District Level Certificates Verification Committee, which is empowered to verify the certificate and by virtue of sub- section (3), where there is prima facie reason to believe that the social status certificate has been obtained wrongfully or fraudulently, the District Level Certificates Verification Committee shall refer all information and relevant documents 7 along with record of its findings to the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee.
9. Similarly, Section 7 of the Act, 2013 reads as under:-
"7. High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee.- (1) The State Government shall constitute, by notification in the Official Gazette, one or more High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee or Committees, for conducting enquiry into Social Status Certificate(s) referred to it by District Level Certificates Verification Committee under Section 6 or by the State Government, and it shall be the duty of the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee to examine the report of the District Level Certificates Verification Committee and to proceed in this matter as prescribed under Chapter IV of this Act.
(2) The High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed :
Provided that where the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee decides to arrive at an adverse finding, it shall not do so unless a reasonable opportunity of being heard is given to the person whose Social Status Certificate is disputed."
10. From perusal of the provisions contained under Section 7(1) of the Act, 2013, it is explicit that the State Government shall constitute one or more High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee or Committees for conducting enquiry into Social Status Certificate(s) referred to it by District Level Certificates Verification Committee under Section 6 or by the State 8 Government. As such, the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee has power and jurisdiction to verify the social status certificate(s) only when reference is made either by the District Level Certificates Verification Committee under Section 6 or by the State Government.
11. The State is defined under Section 2(p) of the Act, 2013, which reads as under:-
"2(p). "State" means the State of
Chhattisgarh."
12. It is not in dispute that the District Level Certificates Verification Committee has not referred the matter to the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee under Section 7 on finding that the social status certificate of the petitioner was wrongfully or fraudulently obtained and, therefore, the only question would be whether the Commissioner, who has referred the matter to the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee, can be said to be the State Government within the meaning of Section 2(p) of the Act, 2013.
13. In this regard, definition of 'State' mentioned in Section 2(p) of the Act, 2013 needs to be noticed, according to which, State means the State of Chhattisgarh. Section 2(42) of the Chhattisgarh General Clauses Act, 1957 defines State Government as under:-
9
"42. "State Government" or "Government"
means the Government of the State of Chhattisgarh."
14. It is well settled that all executive actions of the Government of a State, by virtue of Article 166 (1) of the Constitution of India are expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor of the State, and the orders made and executed in the name of Governor of a State are required to be authenticated in such manner as may be specified in the rules to be made by the Governor. Likewise, Article 166 (3) lays down as under:-
"166 (3). The Governor shall make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government of the State, and for the allocation among Ministers of the said business insofar as it is not business with respect to which the Governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his discretion."
15. Article 166 of the Constitution of India was considered by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Bihar Vs. Kripalu Shankar 1 and it has been held that the functioning of Government in a State is governed by Article 166 of the Constitution and the same lays down that there shall be a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head, to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions except where he is required to exercise his functions 1 (1987) 3 SCC 34 10 under the Constitution, in his discretion. It was held in paras- 14 & 15 as under:-
"14. Now, the functioning of Government in a State is governed by Article 166 of the Constitution, which lays down that there shall be a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head, to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions except where he is required to exercise his functions under the Constitution, in his dis- cretion. Article 166 provides for the conduct of Government business.
15. Articles 166(1) requires that all executive action of the State Government shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor. This clause relates to cases where the executive action has to be expressed in the shape of a formal order or notification. It prescribes the mode in which an executive action has to be expressed. Noting by an official in the departmental file will not, therefore, come within this article nor even noting by a Minister. Every executive decision need not be as laid down under Article 166(1) but when it takes the form of an order it has to comply with Article 166(1). Article 166(2) states that orders and other instruments made and executed under Article 166(1), shall be authenticated in the manner prescribed. While clause (1) relates to the mode of expression, clause (2) lays down the manner in which the order is to be authenticated and clause (3) relates to the making of the rules by the Governor for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government. A study of this article, therefore, makes it clear that the notings in a file get culminated into an order affecting right of parties only when it reaches the head of the department and is expressed in the name of the Governor, authenticated in the manner provided in Article 166(2)."11
16. The principle of law laid down in the matter of Kripalu Shankar (Supra) has been followed by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Jaipur Development Authority and Others Vs. Vijay Kumar Data and Another2 in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that unless an order is expressed in the name of the President or the Governor and is authenticated in the manner prescribed by the rules, the same cannot be treated as an order made on behalf of the Government.
17. In Gullapalli Nageshwar Rao Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation3 the Supreme Court has held that a State Government means the Governor. The executive power of State vests in the Governor; it is exercised by him directly or by officers & subordinate to him in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. The Ministers headed by the Chief Minister advise him in exercise of his functions.
18. Coming to the facts of the present case, in view of the definition of the State under Section 2(p) of the Act, 2013 as also under Section 2(42) of the Chhattisgarh General Clauses Act, 1957 and the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matters of Kripalu 2 (2011) 12 SCC 94 3 AIR 1959 SC 308 12 Shankar, Jaipur Development Authority & Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (Supra), it is evident that the reference was made by the Commissioner, Surguja Division on 24th March, 2014 pursuant to the complaint made by one Kunj Bihari Singh Paikra, President, Sarv Adivasi Samaj, Surguja regarding social status of the petitioner after enquiring from the Collector, Surguja. It is not the case of the State that the matter has been referred to the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee by the State Government. It is the Commissioner, Surguja Division, who on his own directed the Collector to verify the complaint and got it verified from the Collector and thereafter referred the matter to the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee for verification and as such, it cannot be said that the matter was referred by the State Government within the meaning of Section 2(p) of the Act, 2013. Therefore, the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee has no jurisdiction to enquire into the social status certificate of the petitioner, as neither the matter was referred by the District Level Certificates Verification Committee under Section 6 of the Act, 2013 nor by the State Government. The matter was referred by the officer of the State i.e. the Commissioner, Surguja Division, who was absolutely incompetent to refer the matter within the meaning of Section 7 (1) of the Act, 2013. 13
The reference is to be made by the competent authority i.e. District Level Certificates Verification Committee under Section 6 or by the State Government, as Section 7(1) of the Act, 2013 does not confer jurisdiction on the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee to conduct enquiry regarding social status certificate of a Government servant on reference made by the Commissioner, as such the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee had no jurisdiction to enquire into the social status certificate of the petitioner.
19. For the foregoing, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 7.9.2019 (Annexure-P/1) and the notice dated 29.1.2020 issued by the Commissioner (Annexure-P/2) deserve to be and are hereby quashed.
20. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Barve