Tripura High Court
Smt. Pratima Sarkar vs The State Of Tripura on 22 March, 2022
Author: Arindam Lodh
Bench: Arindam Lodh
Page 1 of 46
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) NO.461 OF 2021
Smt. Pratima Sarkar,
W/o Sri Uttam Majumder,
Daughter of Late Monoranjan Sarkar,
Resident of Village & PO-Chandrapur,
P.S. Radhakishorepur, Sub-Division-Udaipur,
District-Gomati Tripura.
........... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Commissioner & Secretary to the
Education(School) Department,
Government of Tripura, having his office at
New Secretariat Complex, Gorkhabasti, Agartala,
P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex,
Sub-Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura.
2. The Commissioner & Secretary to the
Education(School) Department,
Government of Tripura, having his office at
New Secretariat Complex, Gorkhabasti, Agartala,
P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex,
Sub-Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura.
3. The State Level Scrutiny Committee,
Represented by its Member Secretary,
Directorate of Welfare of Scheduled Castes,
having his office at Pandit Nehru Complex,
P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex,
Sub-Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura.
4. The Member Secretary,
State Level Scrutiny Committee,
Directorate of Welfare of Scheduled Castes,
having his office at Pandit Nehru Complex,
P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex,
Sub-Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura.
5. The Director of Elementary Education,
Government of Tripura, having his office at
Office Lane, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,
District-West Tripura, Pin-799 001.
Page 2 of 46
6. The Director of Welfare of Scheduled Castes,
Government of Tripura, having his office at
Pandit Nehru Complex, P.O. Kunjaban,
P.S. New Capital Complex,
Sub-Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura.
7. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Udaipur, having his office at Udaipur,
P.O. & P.S. Radhakishorepur,
Sub-Division-Udaipur, District-Gomati Tripura.
8. The Director of Vigilance,
State Level Special Vigilance Cell,
General Administration(AR) Department,
Government of Tripura, having his office at
P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex,
Sub-Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura.
9. Md. Firuj Miah, Inquiring Officer,
State Level Special Vigilance Cell, Agartala, present
posting-not known.
10. The Inspector of Schools,
Government of Tripura, Udaipur, having his office at
Udaipur, P.O. & P.S. Radhakishorepur,
Sub-Division-Udaipur, District-Gomati Tripura.
........... Respondent(s)
WP(C) NO.462 OF 2021 Sri Gouranga Chandra Sarkar, S/O Late Monoranjan Sarkar, Resident of Village-Dhwajanagar, P.O. Gokulpur, P.S. Radhakishorepur, Sub-Division-Udaipur, District-Gomati Tripura.
Presently, residing at North Joynagar, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District-West Tripura.
........... Petitioner(s) Versus
1. The State of Tripura, Represented by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Fisheries Department, Government of Tripura, having his office at Page 3 of 46 New Secretariat Complex, Gorkhabasti, Agartala, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, Sub-Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura.
2. The Commissioner & Secretary to the Fisheries Department, Government of Tripura, having his office at New Secretariat Complex, Gorkhabasti, Agartala, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, Sub-Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura.
3. The State Level Scrutiny Committee, Represented by its Member Secretary, Directorate of Welfare of Scheduled Castes, having his office at Pandit Nehru Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, Sub-Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura.
4. The Member Secretary, State Level Scrutiny Committee, Directorate of Welfare of Scheduled Castes, having his office at Pandit Nehru Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, Sub-Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura.
5. The Director of Fisheries, Government of Tripura, having his office at Pandit Nehru Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, Sub-Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura.
6. The Director of Welfare of Scheduled Castes, Government of Tripura, having his office at Pandit Nehru Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, Sub-Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura.
7. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur, having his office at Udaipur, P.O. & P.S. Radhakishorepur, Sub-Division-Udaipur, District-Gomati Tripura.
8. The Director of Vigilance, State Level Special Vigilance Cell, General Administration(AR) Department, Government of Tripura, having his office at Page 4 of 46 P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, Sub-Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura.
9. Md. Firuj Miah, Inquiring Officer, State Level Special Vigilance Cell, Agartala, present posting-not known.
........... Respondent(s) WP(C) NO.465 OF 2021 Sri Kartik Sarkar, S/O Late Monoranjan Sarkar, Resident of Village-Dhwajanagar, P.O. Gokulpur, P.S. Radhakishorepur, Sub-Division-Udaipur, District-Gomati Tripura.
........... Petitioner(s) Versus
1. The State of Tripura, Represented by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Home Department, Government of Tripura, having his office at New Secretariat Complex, Gorkhabasti, Agartala, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, Sub-Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura.
2. The Commissioner & Secretary to the Home Department, Government of Tripura, having his office at New Secretariat Complex, Gorkhabasti, Agartala, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, Sub-Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura.
3. The State Level Scrutiny Committee, Represented by its Member Secretary, Directorate of Welfare of Scheduled Castes, having his office at Pandit Nehru Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, Sub-Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura.
4. The Member Secretary, State Level Scrutiny Committee, Directorate of Welfare of Scheduled Castes, having his office at Pandit Nehru Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, Sub-Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura.
5. The Director General of Police, Page 5 of 46 Government of Tripura, having his office at Akhaura Road, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District-West Tripura.
6. The Director of Welfare of Scheduled Castes, Government of Tripura, having his office at Pandit Nehru Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, Sub-Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura.
7. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur, having his office at Udaipur, P.O. & P.S. Radhakishorepur, Sub-Division-Udaipur, District-Gomati Tripura.
8. The Director of Vigilance, State Level Special Vigilance Cell, General Administration(AR) Department, Government of Tripura, having his office at P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, Sub-Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura.
9. Md. Firuj Miah, Inquiring Officer, State Level Special Vigilance Cell, Agartala, present posting-now known.
10. The Superintendent of Police(Communication), Government of Tripura, having his office at Agartala, District-West Tripura.
........... Respondent(s) BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Somik Deb, Sr. Advocate Mr. K. Debnath, Advocate Mr. Abir Baran, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Addl. G.A. Date of hearing : 08.11.2021 Date of delivery of judgment & order : 22.03.2022 Whether fit for reporting : YES Page 6 of 46 JUDGMENT & ORDER Common question of law and facts is involved in all these writ petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and on the prayer of learned counsel of both sides, all the writ petitions were taken up together and were heard analogously and this common judgment shall govern all the cases. Since all the petitioners are full-blooded brothers and sister and the impugned orders in these writ petitions are related to cancellation of their caste status certificates followed by termination of their services, for the sake of convenience and for ends of justice, WP(C) No.461 of 2021 is taken up as lead case.
2. Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. K. Debnath and Mr. Abir Baran, learned counsels appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Mangal Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents.
3. By way of filing these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought for the following relief(s)[WP(C) No.461 of 2021]:
(i) Issue Rule, calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a writ of Certeori and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued, quashing/setting aside the impugned Orders dated Page 7 of 46 19.10.2016, 29.11.2016 & 15.05.2021(Annexures-15, 16 & 23 respectively supra);
(ii) Issue Rule, calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued, mandating/commending them, to forthwith revoke/rescind the impugned Orders dated 19.10.2016, 29.11.2016 & 15.05.2021(Annexures-15, 16 & 23 respectively supra), and thereupon, forthwith restore the Scheduled Caste Certificate of the petitioner, and re-instate her in service, with all admissible consequential benefits;
(iii) Call for the records, appertaining to this writ petition;
(iv) After hearing the parties, be pleased to make the Rule absolute in terms of (i) & (ii) above;
(v) Costs of and incidental to this proceeding;
(vi) Any other Relief(s) as to this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper;"
4. A short factual panorama, sans unnecessary details, of the present writ petitions, is recapitulated.
5. The father of the petitioner, namely, Monoranjan Sarkar(now deceased) was originally a resident of Comilla District of the erstwhile East Pakistan(now Bangladesh) and he belonged to "Namasudra" Community. In the year 1962 he migrated to the State of Tripura and got settled in South Tripura District(now Gomati District), Tripura.Page 8 of 46
5.1. In the year 1981, the petitioner of WP(C) No.461 of 2021, Smt. Pratima Sarkar was admitted in Bara Bhaiya S.B. School at Class-I and in the admission register the caste status of the petitioner was declared and recorded as „Scheduled Caste‟. On her passing Madhyamik examination in the year 1997, she was appointed to the post of Under Graduate Teacher under the Directorate of Elementary Education, Government of Tripura against the quota, reserved for the Scheduled Caste community.
5.2. The petitioner of WP(C) No.462 of 2021, Sri Gouranga Chandra Sarkar was born on 05.01.1969 and subsequently got admitted to Bara Bhaiya S.B. School at Class-I and in the admission register of the said school the name of the petitioner was recorded as a student, belonging to the „Scheduled Caste' community. Thereafter, the petitioner was admitted in Kirit Bikram Institution, Udaipur at Class-VII wherein also his caste status was recorded as „Scheduled Caste' and from that school he passed Madhyamik and Higher Secondary examinations in the year 1986 and 1989 respectively. After passing Higher Secondary examination he got admitted to MBB College, Agartala in the year 1989 wherein also his caste status was recorded as „Scheduled Caste' and from that college he completed his B.Sc.(Hons.) course. Thereafter, he was selected for one year training in fisheries under the Inland Fisheries Page 9 of 46 Training Centre at Barackpur, West Bengal as a „Scheduled Caste' candidate. After successful completion of the training course thereof, on 27.11.1995 the petitioner was appointed to the post of Fishery Officer under the Fisheries Department, Government of Tripura, through the Tripura Public Service Commission against the quota reserved for the „Scheduled Caste' category candidates and subsequently in the year 2007 he was promoted to the post of Superintendent of Fisheries by the said Fishery Department.
5.3. The petitioner of WP(C) No.465 of 2021, Sri Kartik Sarkar was born on 15.03.1968 at West Khupilong and got admitted to Bara Bhaiya S.B. School at Class-I. The name of the petitioner in the admission register of the school was declared and recorded as student, belonging to „Scheduled Caste'. After completion of his studies upto Class-VIII he got admitted in Kirit Bikram Institute, Udaipur at Class-IX as a member belonging to „Scheduled Caste' wherefrom he passed Madhyamik and Higher Secondary examinations in the year 1988 and 1992 respectively. Thereafter, he got admitted to Udaipur Degree College, Udaipur for pursing his B.A. course as a member belonging to „Scheduled Caste' category. Subsequently, in the year 1989 he was appointed to the post of Police Constable under the Home Department, Government of Tripura against the quota reserved for the „Scheduled Caste' category and at a later stage, he was Page 10 of 46 promoted to the post of Wireless Operator(ASI) by the said Home Department.
6. After the lapse of a considerable period of time, the Member Secretary, State Level Scrutiny Committee("SLSC", for short), Directorate of Welfare for Scheduled Castes, issued show cause notice dated 24.04.2008 upon all the petitioners stating that the petitioners did not belong to the „Scheduled Castes' community and as to why their caste status certificates would not be cancelled. They were directed to submit their representations.
7. In response to the show cause notices, the petitioners submitted representations inter alia contending that all of their brothers and sisters(two brothers and five sisters) were recognized as members, belonging to the „Scheduled Castes', "Namadsudra" community and also contended that the Vigilance Officer who allegedly conducted the inquiry neither visited their house nor examined the witnesses in their presence.
8. Thereafter, the Member Secretary, SLSC vide letter dated 23.04.2010 directed the petitioners to appear before the SLSC on 04.05.2010 along with supporting documents and witnesses they would like to rely upon, but, on that day the witnesses produced by the petitioners were not examined and Page 11 of 46 the matter was deferred by the SLSC and after elapse of five years therefrom, the Member Secretary, SLSC again issued a letter dated 16.10.2015 to the petitioners and directed them to appear before the SLSC on 31.10.2015 for submission of evidence in support of their caste status. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners appeared before the SLSC and submitted 19 documents[18 documents in respect of the petitioner of WP(C) No.465 of 2021)] alongwith their respective representation dated 31.10.2015.
9. It is the contention of the petitioners that on completion of the proceedings, the Member Secretary, SLSC in a capricious and whimsical manner, without application of mind, passed the impugned order dated 19.10.2016, cancelling the „Scheduled Caste' certificates of the petitioners and further directed them to return their original caste certificates to the Directorate of Welfare of Scheduled Castes, Government of Tripura.
10. In furtherance of the said impugned order dated 19.10.2016, the Director of Elementary Education, Government of Tripura issued an order dated 29.11.2016, whereby the petitioner of WP(C) No.461 of 2021, Smt. Pratima Sarkar was terminated from service with immediate effect. Page 12 of 46
10.1. Similarly, the Deputy Secretary, Fisheries Department, Government of Tripura by the impugned order dated 28.10.2016 terminated the service of the petitioner of WP(C) No.462 of 2021, Sri Gouranga Chandra Sarkar, with immediate effect.
10.2. Likewise, the service of the petitioner of WP(C) No.465 of 2021, Sri Kartik Sarkar was also terminated by the impugned order dated 25.10.2017 issued by the Superintendent of Police (Communication), Tripura.
11. The petitioners had obtained copy of the ROR of Matabari Gram Panchayat issued in the year 1995 through RTI, wherefrom it manifests that the cousin of late Monoranjan Sarkar(father of the petitioners), namely late Haran Sarkar and his other family members have been recorded as members belonging to the Scheduled Caste community.
12. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19.10.2016 cancelling the Scheduled Caste certificates of the petitioners and the impugned orders of termination, the petitioners filed writ petitions before this Court, numbered as WP(C) No.170 of 2017, WP(C) No.1225 of 2016 and WP(C) No.1240 of 2016 respectively, which were disposed of by this Court by a common judgment and order dated 31.07.2017, inter alia recording as under:
Page 13 of 46
"38. On overall assessment, this Court is of the view that these RORs do not stand out as the corroborative evidence in support of the caste status of Manoranjan Sarkar as claimed by the petitioners. Those entries are in realm of serious doubt. The primary evidence such as the public records, records of the school etc. could have been produced by the petitioners. The burden lies completely on the person against whom the complaint is lodged regarding his status and to prove that he belonged to the said caste for which he was claiming the status. This court is constrained to observe on cumulative reading of the evidence that the petitioners have miserably failed to discharge that burden. On the contrary, the evidence that has been taken into consideration by the SLSC has established that the petitioners do not belong to the SC community. In this regard, it is to be noted that the report of the BDO, Tepania Block is contrary to the RORs and hence the SLSC has rightly kept it out of their consideration. So far the procedural fairness and observance of the principle of natural justice are concerned, on scrutiny of the proceeding records, this Court finds the sufficient opportunities have been extended to the petitioners to prove their status, but they failed to do so. ......".
13. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 31.07.2017, the petitioners filed intra-court appeals being numbered as WA No.43 of 2017, WA No.40 of 2017 and WA No.39 of 2017. The petitioners also introduced some documents by way of filing an application for adducing additional Page 14 of 46 evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which was allowed. The Division Bench of this Court by a common judgment and order dated 14.12.2020 disposed of the appeals with the following observations and directions:
"[8] The petitioners would produce these additional documents which are allowed to be brought on record in these respective writ appeals along with an affidavit before SLSC within a period of 4(four) weeks from today. SLSC shall carryout fresh inquiry and pass a fresh order with respect to the petitioners' caste status after taking into account such additional documents that may be produced by the petitioners and after carrying such further inquiry as found necessary. It is clarified that other than those documents which the petitioners have been allowed to produce in these writ appeals, they would not be allowed to produce any other documents before SLSC. SLSC shall pass a fresh order within 6(six) months of the date of receipt of the affidavit and additional documents from the petitioners.
[9] The question of reinstatement of the petitioners would depend on the outcome of the fresh exercise that the SLSL shall undertake. If, eventually SLSC confirms the petitioners' caste status as belonging to Scheduled Caste members, the termination orders would stand revoked. On the other hand, if the SLSC were to reiterate its previous conclusions holding that the caste certificates were not genuine that petitioners' termination from Government service would continue to operate. Even if, the SLSC were to hold in favour of the petitioners and consequently they would stand reinstated in service, till such order is passed Page 15 of 46 by the SLSC the petitioners will not be entitled to any back wages for the entire intervening period. This is so because the petitioners must take the blame for not producing documents which were within their possession all throughout the inquiry and before the Single Judge also. The Government exchequer cannot be burdened with payment of ideal wages. However, if SLSC does not pass any order within 6(six) months, as stipulated, it would be open for the petitioners to demand wages from that date onwards in case they are eventually reinstated in Government service. The petitioners would of course be entitled to continuity of service in case of their reinstatements.
[10] With these observations and directions, the writ appeals are disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of."
14. It is the contention of the petitioners that in compliance of the judgment and order dated 14.12.2020 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, they appeared before SLSC and submitted all documents as sought for and though the petitioners succeeded in proving their school documents as genuine and authentic, but without acceding therewith, the SLSC in a fanciful manner had passed the impugned order dated 15.05.2021 re-affirming its earlier decision regarding cancellation of the Scheduled Caste certificates of the petitioners.
Page 16 of 46
15. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned orders of cancellation of Scheduled Caste certificates of the petitioners dated 19.10.2016 and the orders of termination from service of the petitioners dated 29.11.2016, 28.10.2016 and 25.102017 respectively and the impugned order 15.05.2021, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions praying for the relief(s) as afore-stated.
16. Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior counsel submitted that none of the relevant documents had been properly appreciated by the SLSC. Learned senior counsel urged this Court that the admission registers and the school leaving certificates had been disregarded by the SLSC most arbitrarily. More importantly, the SLSC had failed to appreciate the fact that the caste certificates issued in favour of other near relatives of the petitioners were not disturbed by any authority and they have been privileged of their caste certificates. Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel contended that the vigilance report could not be the sole basis to determine the caste status of a person. Learned senior counsel tried to persuade this Court that Rule 7A(6) of the Tripura Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Reservation Rules, 1992(here-in-after referred to as "Rules, 1992") statutorily mandates the SLSC, to complete the proceedings, within a period, not exceeding to two months, but in the instant Page 17 of 46 case, it took more than seven years to conclude the initial proceedings in question, due to reasons, solely attributable to the respondents.
17. On the other hand, Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. representing the State of Tripura submitted that the SLSC had cancelled the Scheduled Caste certificates issued in favour of the petitioners considering all relevant documents since the petitioners had failed to substantiate their claim that they belonged to Scheduled Caste(Namasudra) community.
18. I have considered the submissions of learned counsels appearing for the parties and also have perused the records and relevant documents to determine the question as to whether the decision of the SLSC was based on proper and adequate appreciation of the evidence as adduced on behalf of the petitioners as well as the respondents. For convenience, I have also perused the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in the earlier set of litigations between the present petitioners and the respondents[WP(C) No.170 of 2017, WP(C) No.1225 of 2016 and WP(C) No.1240 of 2016]. At the time of hearing of those writ petitions, the evidentiary value of the entries of the of Register of Ordinary Residents(ROR) in respect of Manoranjan Sarkar and Sri Chandan Sarkar came up for consideration where it was contended by the respondents that: Page 18 of 46
"............the entries are not supported by any primary documentary evidence of worth. For example, all the petitioners studied in the school but they have failed to produce the records of the school or a leaf thereof duly attested by the competent person in support of their claim.[Ref: Running page 199 of WP(C) No.461 of 2021, internal page 30 of the judgment, para 28] Thereafter, the learned Single Judge had observed at para 30 that:
"30. On examination of the provisions of Rule 7(A) of the said Rules and the guidelines provided in the Laveti Giri (supra) this Court finds that those are pari materia and as such the SLSC might consider the documentary evidence such as school records as mentioned in Laveti Giri(supra), if produced by the petitioners." [Ref: Running page 200 of WP(C) No.461 of 2021, internal page 31 of the judgment, para 30] In the concluding para of the judgment, learned Single Judge at para 38 had observed thus:
"38. On overall assessment, this Court is of the view that these RORs do not stand out as the corroborative evidence in support of the caste status of Manoranjan Sarkar as claimed by the petitioners. Those entries are in realm of serious doubt. The primary evidence such as the public records, records of the school etc. could have been produced by the petitioners. The burden lies completely on the person against whom the complaint is lodged regarding his status and to prove that he belonged to the said caste for which he was claiming Page 19 of 46 the status. ................................" [Ref: Running page 205 of WP(C) No.461 of 2021, internal page 36 of the judgment, para 38].
Ultimately, the writ petitions filed by the earlier writ petitioners were dismissed with the material observation that public records, school records, etc. in the instant case would form the foundation as regards to determination of caste status of the petitioners since RORs are found to be not reliable in assessing the caste status of Manoranjan Sarkar, the father of the petitioners. (emphasis supplied)
19. As stated above, intra-court appeals being filed and disposed of and further being permitted the petitioners had produced documents relating to school records before the SLSC for consideration of their claims that they belonged to Scheduled Caste community. It is pertinent to mention that the appellate Court while disposing of those writ appeals vide judgment and order dated 14.12.2020 placed back the matter to the SLSC for fresh findings with respect to the petitioners‟ caste status. The SLSC was directed to make a fresh exercise for establishing the correctness of the documents, the petitioners filed during the pendency of the appeals[Annexure-21, running page 236 of WP(C) No.461 of 2021].
20. It transpires that the petitioner of WP(C) No.461 of 2021, Smt. Pratima Sarkar had submitted the following Page 20 of 46 documents before the appellate Court as additional evidence which were also placed before the SLSC in terms of the direction of the appellate Court:
(i) Admission Register of the year 1986 of Sri Kartik Sarkar(brother of the petitioner), while studying at Kirit Bikram Institute, Udaipur.
(ii) Admission register of the year 1986 of the petitioner, while studying at Udaipur Girls H/S School, Udaipur.
(iii) Attendance Register(SC) of the Boarding House of Kirit Bikram Institute, Udaipur of Sri Gouranga Ch.
Sarkar, w.e.f. 1982 to 1986 and
(iv) Identity Card for stipend /scholarship in the name of the petitioner.
Similar documents were also filed by the petitioner of WP(C) No.462 of 2021, Sri Gouranga Chandra Sarkar and the petitioner of WP(C) No.465 of 2021, Sri Kartik Sarkar.
21. On such furnishing of the above documents available in their school records, the present authorized custodians of the aforesaid documents were called upon to verify the correctness of those documents by way of adducing evidence.
22. OPW5, Sri Dilip Kumar Sarkar being the Headmaster of Kirit Bikram Institute produced the original boarding house attendance register maintained for the year 1982 where the Page 21 of 46 name of Sri Gouranga Chandra Sarkar was found to be recorded at Sl. No.26; original boarding house attendance register relevant to the year 1986 where the name of Sri Gouranga Chandra Sarkar at Sl. No.3 was also found to be recorded and the admission register of Class IX of the year 1986 wherein at Sl. No.21 the name of Sri Kartik Sarkar, the petitioner of WP(C) No.465 of 2021 was recorded. After comparison with the original records produced by the OPW5, the photocopies of those documents produced by the petitioners had been exhibited as Exbt.B, Exbt.C, Exbt.D1 and D2 respectively. Similarly, other documents as produced by the petitioners were also proved after verifying their correctness with the originals which were in custody of the school authorities.
23. On consideration of those documents, the SLSC in its order dated 15.05.2021 had observed thus:
"............. We have examined the documents produced by the OPS Shri Gouranga Chandra Sarkar, Shri Kartik Sarkar, and Smt. Pratima Sarkar and the examination of the OPWs 4, 5 and 6. From examination of the OPW 4 and 5 and the documents exhibited during their examination, it transpires that though in the admission registers the caste of the said OPS had been recorded as SC, the school authority has no SC Certificate of the said OPS or their parent or any other documents supporting their caste status. Though in the written argument the said OPS claimed to have SC Certificate Page 22 of 46 at the time of their admission in those educational institutions, the record speaks that the none of the OPS had SC Certificate in their favour at the time of their admission as SC students in those institutions. Admission year of OP Shri Gouranga Chandra Sarkar was 1982 and his SC Certificate was issued on 26.08.1984(sic 1985 as per record) and admission year of OP Shri Kartik Sarkar was 1986 and his SC Certificate was issued on 05.05.1988 and admission year of OP Smt. Pratima Sarkar was 1986 and her SC Certificate was issued on 08.09.1992(sic 08.01.1992 as per document). Moreover, the very basis of the SC Certificate they have are also under serious question mark as in the ROR of their father, issued on 03.02.2005, the caste status of their father has been recorded as General Category."
24. Ultimately, the SLSC held that recording of caste status in the registers of the school would not in any way form the basis of determining the caste status of the petitioners. The SLSC had further made the following observations in its order dated 15.05.2021:
"Also earlier in this proceeding apart from OPWs produced by the OPS, the OPS also produced one certificate issued by a member of SC Welfare Sub Committee, Matarbari R.D Block, Udaipur, South Tripura, but the said certificate does not contain any date of issuance and moreover the said document is not a public document. OPS failed to produce the issuer of the said certificate before the Committee to prove Page 23 of 46 the genuinity of the said document. Other documents as produced by the OPS i.e Certificate issued by the Udaipur Matsa Jibi Union, Certificate issued by one Rabindra Kr. Das, Certificate issued by Shri Keshab Majumder, MLA, Certificate issued by Shri Partha Das, MLA, Certificate issued by Shri Gopal Chandra Das MLA, Certificate issued by Rati Mohan Jamatia, Certificate issued by Pradhan Paschim Khupilong G.P., Matarbari R.D Block, Certificate issued by Ex Head Master Bara Bhaiya S.B School, Udaipur, South Tripura, Certificate issued by Kirit Bikram Institution, Udaipur not being the public documents cannot be relied upon. The Ops also failed to produce issuer of those certificates before the SLSC to prove the genuinity of those certificate. The inquiry report of Tehshilder Dhwajanagar T.K Udaipur, in respect to the caste status of Gouranga Sarkar, produced before the SLSC by the Ops also reveal that the said report was prepared on the basis of Certificates of MLA and Gaon Pradhan and nowhere in the said report it has been referred anything about the ROR wherein the name of the father of the OPS has been recorded as UR Category."
25. From the aforesaid observations and finding of the SLSC, it manifests that the SLSC had again primarily placed its reliance upon the ROR as the basis of determining the caste status of a person ignoring the observations and findings of learned Singled Judge in the earlier round of litigation. I already observed that in earlier round of litigations, it was clearly held Page 24 of 46 by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petitions [WP(C) No.170 of 2017, WP(C) No.1225 of 2016 and WP(C) No.1240 of 2016] that "These RORs do not stand out as the corroborative evidence in support of the caste status of Manoranjan Sarkar as claimed by the petitioners. Those entries are in realm of serious doubt". The learned Single Judge had also emphasized on the school records to form an opinion regarding the foundation of the caste status of a person as these constitute primary evidence[Ref.: Running page 205 of WP(C) No.461 of 2021, internal page 36 of the judgment, para 38]. These observations and findings were not at all interfered by the Hon‟ble Division Bench of this Court while remitted the matter to the SLSC.
26. So, when the disputes relating to the caste certificates of the petitioners were remitted to the SLSC by the Division Bench of this Court in appeal directing the SLSC to decide the matter afresh on the basis of the documents which were produced by the petitioners as additional evidence, it manifests that the SLSC totally ignored the basic principle as emanated from the finding of the learned Single Judge that RORs would not form the basis of determining the caste status of a person, since RORs do not stand out as the corroborative evidence in support of the caste status.
Page 25 of 46
27. Furthermore, the SLSC has committed an error of law in discarding the school records brought on record by the petitioners. The solitary ground as shown to reflect documentary evidence as regards Exbts.B, C, D1 and D2 by the SLSC is that at the time of admission in the respective schools of the petitioners they were not having the caste certificates. In my opinion, this analogy is absolutely uncalled for and merits no consideration, for the reason that it is not mandatory under the Rules, 1992 that at the time of admission to a school, a student must possess the caste status certificate in his favour. What is important, in the opinion of this Court, is the declaration at the very earliest point of time, because the declaration at a later stage may raise eyebrows in the mind of the authorities concerned. As such, this approach of the SLSC in rejecting the caste status is hard to digest in absence of any legal support under the prevalent statute applicable in the State of Tripura, i.e. the "Rules, 1992".
28. As a corollary, in my considered view, the school admission registers and other records as furnished by the petitioners before the SLSC ought to have been considered with greater perspective to determine the caste status of the petitioners as these documents constitute primary evidence and carry much credence having enough probative value in determining one‟s caste certificate. That apart, there was no Page 26 of 46 evidence before the SLSC, who made the entry in the RORs; who erased or manipulated and tampered the remarks in the said RORs regarding the caste status of Manorajan Sarkar, the father of the petitioners. The department concerned has not adduced any evidence to justify that under what circumstances the caste status of the father of the petitioners was recorded as Scheduled Caste qua under what circumstances, and who had erased or manipulated those recording of caste status in the RORs.
29. Furthermore, to re-iterate, the SLSC even failed to take note of the observations of the learned Single Judge in earlier round of litigations[WP(C) No.170 of 2017, WP(C) No.1225 of 2016 and WP(C) No.1240 of 2016] while it was observed thus:
"While observing as such this Court should record that ROR cannot be treated as the primary document for determining someone's caste status. Its recordings are based on certain primary evidence or sometimes merely on the oral statement. Prevalent practice is somehow very loose and even when some entry is changed, no note is provided below the entry that how the entry has been changed. This is the high time while making the entry in the ROR [which is prepared in terms of the Clause (S) read with sub section (2) of Section 320 of the Panchayat Act, 1993 and the memorandum issued time to time thereunder], the authorised officer shall take every steps so that it Page 27 of 46 becomes immune from manipulation or doubtful content." [Ref:- Running page 203 of WP(C) No.461 of 2021, internal page 34 of the judgment, para 33] . The sum and substance of the aforesaid observation is that ROR in no way forms the basis of determining someone‟s caste status. ROR is not a public document and cannot be treated as basic documents to assess the caste status of a person. There is no evidence that before making entry as regards caste status of a person, the copy of caste status certificates are kept on record by the authority concerned in support of recording caste status of a person or to establish the genuinity of such entry. In this circumstance, the entries made in the school records regarding the caste status of persons which were of 1982 relating to Sri Gouranga Chandra Sarkar(the petitioner of WP(C) No.462 of 2021); and of 1986, the admission year of both Sri Kartik Sarkar[the petitioner of WP(C) No.465 of 2021] and Smt. Pratima Sarkar[the petitioner of WP(C) No.461d of 2021] must have greater evidentiary value carrying enough weight and worth of being trusted than that of those entries in the RORs of Sri Gouranga Chandra Sarkar and Manoranjan Sarkar which appeared to be entered after a few decades in the year 2005, and when those were found to be tampered too. If any entry is changed, there must be some note to be provided below such entry so that it becomes immune Page 28 of 46 from manipulation or doubtful content because prevalent practice in maintaining RORs is somehow very loose.
(emphasis supplied)
30. On the basis of the aforesaid principle laid down by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.170 of 2017, WP(C) No.1225 of 2016 and WP(C) No.1240 of 2016, it can easily be held that the change of the entries in the RORs, if not supported by any note by the authorized person to make such change, should not be relied upon in any manner whatsoever. Again, the necessary implication of the aforesaid observation is that any change of entry in the ROR made in violation of Clause(S) read with sub-section(2) of Section 320 of the Panchayat Act, 1993 must have adverse inference which cannot be relied upon.
(emphasis supplied)
31. Yet another aspect, which the SLSC ought to have been discussed, but not discussed, is that the SLSC has not considered at all the documents produced by the petitioners that their close paternal relatives had been well acknowledged as members of "Namasudra" Scheduled Caste community. The evidence as adduced by the petitioners that Chandan Kr. Sarkar, son of Haran Chandra Chandra Sarkar[page 152 of WP(C) No.461 of 2021], who is the cousin brother of the petitioners is still having the caste certificate, as a member of Scheduled Caste community. The Scheduled Caste certificate in favour of Page 29 of 46 Chandan Kr. Sarkar was issued on 29.01.1987 by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Udaipur, South Tripura. It transpires from the said certificate that Sri Chandan Kr. Sarkar was a resident of village Matabari, Udaipur, South Tripura District and his community was recorded as "Namasudra". Furthermore, Haran Chandra Sarkar is the father of Sri Chandan Kr. Sarkar. That Haran Chandra Sarkar is also found to be a member of "Namasudra" community possessing the caste certificate as Scheduled Caste and the certificate was issued on 14.05.1986. 31.1. It comes to light that Haran Chandra Sarkar, i.e. the father of Chandan Kr. Sarkar is the cousin brother of Manoranjan Sarkar, the father of the petitioners. More importantly and significantly, one of the sisters of the petitioners was given marriage with one Rakhal Krishna Mallik, who is also a member of Scheduled Caste community, which is evident from his S.C. certificate annexed with WP(C) No.462 of 2021. This vital and relevant evidence have been ignored by the SLSC for the reasons best known to it.
31.2. From the evidence of BDO, Tepania R.D. Block recorded by the SLSC on 10.02.2016(Annexure-8 to the writ petition) it appears that BDO, Tepania R.D. Block deposed that ".....as per ROR of the year 1994 at page no.121, Sl. No.52, it is entered that Manoranjan Sarkar belongs to SC Community". Again, he deposed that "In the latest ROR maintained by BDO, Page 30 of 46 Tepania RD Block of ward No.-4 of Paschim Khupilong GP at Page no.64, Sl. No.62/49, it is shown that Manoranjan Sarkar belongs to SC Community."
31.3. From the order dated 10.02.2016, it is further revealed that the SLSC has not believed such evidence of BDO, Tepania R.D. Block, but, surprising to note that the SLSC believed a communication made by SDM, Udaipur dated 27.07.2015 addressing to the Director, S.C. Welfare Department, wherein it was informed that the petitioners were reported to be not belonging to Scheduled Caste community which was based upon the report dated 22.07.2015 of DCM, Killa, Gomati District.
31.4. I am at a loss to understand that, only on the basis of an enquiry made by DCM, Killa and that is also after a lapse of so many years, the SLSC has disbelieved the documents which were of thirty years old pertaining to the recording of caste status of the petitioners as Scheduled Caste. 31.5. From a communication made by one B.C. Bhadra, Deputy Collector & Magistrate, Killa, Gomati District, it appears that the said DC&M had interacted with some persons, namely Haradhan Majumder, Sri Krishna Ch. Debnath, Sri Bishakha Debnath and Sri Santi Mandal, who stated before him that the petitioners were not belonging to the Scheduled Caste community. Now, having taken judicial notice of the names of Page 31 of 46 above persons it is not clear to this Court as to whether the persons who interacted with DC&M, Killa belong to "Namasudra" Scheduled Caste community; to say the least, from their surnames it appears that they do not belong to the members of Scheduled Caste community. More so, DC&M, Killa has made no effort to enquire about their caste status and how they are related to the said caste and further, how long these persons are acquainted with the ancestors/predecessors of the petitioners and in furtherance thereof, whether the said persons originally hailed from the same village wherefrom the predecessors of the petitioners had migrated to West Khupilong village, Udaipur, Tripura.
31.6. On examination of records, I find that PW1, Smt. Anjali Roy(Ghosh) deposed that in the Service Book of Gouranga Chandra Sarkar it was recorded that he belonged to Scheduled Caste community and she has no other personal knowledge about his caste status.
31.7. PW2, Santi Kr. Das deposed before the SLSC that all the petitioners were known to him for the last 55 years who were the residents of their area under the same block. In the year 2005, he was the Chairman of SC Welfare Sub-Committee under Matabari R.D. Block. At that time, he received a complaint from the local people of Khupilong Gram Panchayat that neither Page 32 of 46 the father of the petitioners nor the petitioners were the members of SC community.
31.8. PW3, Firuj Miah who enquired into the matter as Vigilance Officer stated that from the verification of the Panchayat Family Registers he came to know that neither the father of the petitioners nor the petitioners were members of Scheduled Caste community.
31.9. From the above evidence it is impossible to come to a conclusion that such statements are enough to determine and cancel the caste status of any person or persons. However, the evidence of PW2(Santi Kumar Das) needs some discussion. PW2 deposed before the SLSC that during his tenure as Chairman of S.C. Welfare Sub-Committee, Matabari had received complain from some people of Khupilong Gram Panchayat that neither their father nor the petitioners belonged to Scheduled Caste community. Now, on examination of records, I find that previous Chairman, Sri Rabindra Kumar Das and one Member, Sri Rashik Chandra Das of S.C. Welfare Sub-Committee of Matabari R.D. Block had unequivocally certified that the father of the petitioners, a resident of village-Khupilong belonged to "Namasudra" Scheduled Caste community. Gram Pradhan of West Khupilong Gram Panchayat, Matabari R.D. Block by his certificate dated 12.05.2008 had acknowledged the petitioners as Scheduled Caste having Sub-Caste "Namasudra". Similar Page 33 of 46 certificates are also surfaced which were issued by Members of Legislative Assembly belonging to Scheduled Caste community. Many Pradhans of West Khupilong Gram Panchayat also issued similar certificates recognizing the father of the petitioners as well as the petitioners as Scheduled Caste even long back in the year 1983. Even Sri Rabindra Kumar Das, Chairman of S.C. Welfare Sub-Committee recognized the petitioners as members of Scheduled Caste(Namasudra) community by his certificate dated 28.02.2011(Ref: page 100 of the writ petition). To a surprising note these material facts have been ignored by PW2. 31.10. After overall consideration of the deposition of PW2, Santi Kumar Das, it comes to fore that said PW2 only had received a complaint from local people of Khupilong Gram Panchayat that the petitioners were not belonged to Scheduled Caste community. An analysis of the said evidence brings home the fact that the PW2 had never disclosed who were those persons making the complaint and even PW2 during his deposition could not place the copy of the said complaint to examine the veracity of the complains. Even there is no evidence that Sri Das had made any enquiry on receipt of such complain.
31.11. That apart, the Vigilance Officer(PW3) who enquired into the matter also failed to collect the material documents which could substantiate the deposition of PW2. In this situation, Page 34 of 46 according to this Court, the SLSC ought not to have placed any reliance upon the oral testimony of PW2 and in this situation, it would be unsafe for this Court to believe the testimony of PW2 which he deposed before the SLSC. More so, it is also clear that PW2 had never consulted with his predecessors who held the post of Chairman, S.C. Welfare Sub-Committee, Matabari R.D. Block who certified that the petitioners‟ father was well known to them being a member of Scheduled Caste(Namasudra) community.
31.12. I find further flaw in the process of enquiry of Vigilance Officer when it is found that the Vigilance Officer has collected the documents of Panchayat Residents Register i.e. ROR where the caste status of the petitioners was recorded as General as well as S.C. category, but he has not collected the documents, i.e. the copies of RORs where the caste status of Manoranjan Sarkar had been recorded as Scheduled Caste(SC), which documents were also confirmed by Sanjib Chakma, BDO, Tepania R.D. Block.
31.13. Again, Firuz Miah(PW3) who acted as Vigilance Officer deposed that during his inquiry he examined total five numbers of witnesses and recorded their statements and collected the entry of Panchayat Family Register in which the father of the OPs, i.e. Manoranjan Sarkar had been recorded as a person belonging to General category. As I said earlier, it Page 35 of 46 appears that he has not even examined any members belonging to Scheduled Castes(Namasudra) community. 31.14. Rule 7A(3) of the Rules, 1992 mandates that a vigilance officer, i.e. the investigating officer would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed. He should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the community status of the certificate holder and submit a report to the Director of Vigilance who will verify the correctness of the report and transmit it to the Member-Secretary of the Scrutiny Committee. 31.15. Here, it transpires that PW3 had never examined Manoranjan Sarkar or the petitioners. The Vigilance Officer never tried to discuss the caste issue with other guardians or relatives of the petitioners. The vigilance officer also never examined the school records. He has also not stated in his report that the persons with whom he interacted during his enquiry had enough knowledge of the community status of the petitioners. In the instant case, it is surfaced that the petitioners Page 36 of 46 themselves had produced the documents of their near relatives in proof of their caste status that they belong to Scheduled Castes(Namasudra) community. OPW1, Sri Chandan Sarkar appeared before the SLSC and deposed that he is the cousin brother of the petitioners and his father and the father of the petitioners were also cousin brothers. The petitioners are his brothers and sisters in blood relation. OPW2, Sri Rakhal Krishna Mallik appearing before the SLSC deposed that "his father-in-law i.e. Lt. Monoranjan Sarkar(father of the Ops) belongs to Scheduled Caste community. As they are members of Scheduled Caste Community so, he being a person belong to scheduled caste community married from that family." [Ref.: 319 of the writ petition]. In the opinion of this Court, this evidence at it face value appears to be of enough relevance and significant too to determine the caste status of the petitioners. 31.16. It is pertinent to mention herein that the name of the father of Chandan Sarkar is Haran Chandra Sarkar and both of them are Government employees. The Scheduled Caste certificates issued in favour of Haran Chandra Sarkar annexed with the writ petition was also produced before the SLSC, but has not been considered by the SLSC, which tantamounts non- application of mind by the Scrutiny Committee.
32. Next, I have noticed that both Manoranjan Sarkar and Haran Chandra Sarkar were the residents of Khupilong. It Page 37 of 46 reveals that the Chairman, SC Welfare Sub-Committee as well as the Member, SC Sub-Committee of Matabari R.D. Block have certified that Manorajnan Sarkar was a member of Scheduled Caste community. This document is a record annexed with WP(C) No.461 of 2021. The respondents have not made any attempt to controvert this document neither before this Court nor before the SLSC. In my opinion, the said Chairman and Member of S.C. Welfare Sub-Committee of Matabari R.D. Block have thorough knowledge about the persons residing in their village and the community they belong to. It is also evident from a certificate dated 11.04.1982 issued by one Rabindra Kumar Das, the Secretary, Udaipur Bibhagiya Matsa Jibi Union stating inter alia that Gouranga Chandra Sarkar, one of the petitioners, son of Manoranjan Sarkar, is a member of Scheduled Caste community. This certificate was further authenticated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur, South Tripura. Similar certificates were also issued in favour of the other two petitioners.
33. It is settled principle that the scope of judicial review in matters relating to disputes regarding determination of caste status in exercise of this Court‟s extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India is limited because the Scrutiny Committee itself is empowered to evaluate the evidence placed before it and thus there should be limited Page 38 of 46 interference with the findings of fact. However, it is also equally true that the Court has to see whether the Scrutiny Committee considered all the relevant materials placed before it or has not applied its mind to the relevant facts which have led the Committee ultimately to record the finding. Each case must be considered in the backdrop of its own facts[Madhuri Patil vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241]. The said principle is further re-iterated in Director of Tribal Welfare, Govt. of A.P. vs. Laveti Giri, (1995) 4 SCC 32.
34. Bearing in mind the above principle, I will now sum up the relevant facts and materials which ought to have been considered by the SLSC, but had not been considered at all, which, in my opinion, had vitiated the findings of the SLSC cancelling the caste certificates of the petitioners. Besides, I would like to clarify the procedures as laid down under the Rules, 1992 and the principles necessary to be followed while granting or rejecting the caste certificate, which are as under:
34.1. Vigilance report prepared by concerned Vigilance Officer cannot be relied upon at all in the context of the case. In other words, the Vigilance Officer during his enquiry had proceeded in a manner which was not in consonance with the statutory mandates as envisaged under Rule 7A(3) of the Rules, 1992. At the beginning of his enquiry he ought to have made interactions with the persons who have/had enough knowledge Page 39 of 46 of the community status of the petitioners. The Vigilance Officer should have enquired with the persons who decades back had issued certificates in favour of the petitioners and their father certifying them as members of Scheduled Caste(Namasudra) community. The Vigilance Officer had committed a serious error in not collecting the school records relating to the petitioners.
The Vigilance Officer did not discuss the issue in question neither with the parents or guardians of the petitioners nor with any relatives of the petitioners as a part of affinity test, though the affinity test may not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing the link of the applicants with their community[Ref. Anand vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims & Ors., (2012) 1 SCC 113, (scc p.121, para 22].
34.2. Register of Ordinary Residents(ROR) cannot be treated as the basic document to determine the caste status of a person. It is not a primary evidence.
34.3. In absence of caste certificate in favour of a child at the time of his/her admission in the school, the caste status should be declared. Such declaration may be either oral or supported by documents. In other words, production of caste certificate at the time of taking admission in the school has no statutory support as contemplated under the Tripura Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Reservations Rules, 1992. The first approach of the Vigilance Officer should be to interact with the Page 40 of 46 parents or guardians or the relatives of the candidates claiming caste certificate. Thereafter, it would be obligatory on the Vigilance Officer to interact with the persons who have thorough knowledge about the caste status of the candidates. The name of the persons, their age, their original place of residence(i.e. wherefrom they hail and their recognition in the community should also be reflected in his inquiry report. In preparing the final report, the Vigilance Officer should invariably keep in mind that with the modernization of the society and the contact with other community, the members of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe communities have undergone considerable change in regard to anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies, etc. 34.4. If caste certificate is granted by a competent authority in favour of a candidate or a person on previous occasion, then, it will be the duty and obligation of the Vigilance Officer to enquire from the concerned office under which circumstances and on the basis of which material, the said certificate was issued in favour of such candidate or person. Furthermore, if it is found that those certificates were issued on the basis of an inquiry by the competent authority, then, the Vigilance Officer must verify the said materials to establish the genuinity and authenticity of such documents or statement Page 41 of 46 made by any person/s having knowledge of the community status of such candidate or person, as enumerated in the preceding paragraphs.
34.5. In case, any instance of tampering or manipulation of any words in any of the documents, or particularly in the Register of Ordinary Residents(ROR), then, it must be enquired into, under which circumstances and why those words or remarks are tampered and by whom. In case any words or contents of the RORs are corrected, there must be adequate "note" under the name and seal of the person authorized to make such change showing the reasons thereof.
(emphasis supplied)
35. In the touchstone of the aforesaid broad parameters, I am of the opinion that the claim of the petitioners has not been examined in its proper perspective. The SLSC had given undue importance or stress to some irrelevant materials and ignored the relevant materials. The SLSC has laid much emphasis on the doubtful ROR, and astonishingly, rejected the ROR, which specifically and without any manipulation, reflects the caste status of Manoranjan Sarkar that is the father of the petitioners as "S.C."(Scheduled Caste) which also was affirmed by BDO, Tepania R.D. Block, Sri Sanjib Chakma. The SLSC has erroneously held that since the petitioners could not submit the Scheduled Caste certificates at the time of admission in the Page 42 of 46 school, they should not be treated as Scheduled Caste. The SLSC has failed to read and interpret the spirit of Rule 7A(3) of the Tripura Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Reservation Rules, 1992. The SLSC had relied upon most unreliable evidence of Firuz Miah, PW3(the Vigilance Officer) whose report was based on faulty investigation. What is garnered from the evidence and report of the Vigilance Officer(PW3, Firuz Miah) is that he has never indicated that the documents and information which were collected and gathered by the competent authority before issuing the Scheduled Caste certificates to the petitioners were either false or fabricated. The SLSC had committed serious error of law as well as facts in not taking into consideration applying its mind reasonably to the facts in issue and the most vital evidence emanated from the deposition of Chandan Sarkar(OPW1) and Rakhal Krishna Mallik(OPW2) and the Scheduled Caste certificates issued in favour of them as well as the Scheduled caste certificate issued in favour of Haran Chandra Sarkar, the father of Chandan Sarkar. It appears that the petitioners and the OPW1 are blood related, being Haran Sarkar, the father of OPW1 and Manoranjan Sarkar, the father of the petitioners, are cousin brothers belonging to the same family.
Even, on bare perusal of the order dated 15.05.2021 passed by the SLSC it becomes apparent that the SLSC has not Page 43 of 46 even looked into the evidence let in by OPW1 and OPW2, namely Chandan Sarkar and Rakhal Krishna Mallik respectively and the S.C. certificates issued in favour of them. To re-iterate, Chandan Sarkar is blood related to the petitioners and Rakhal Krishna Sarkar is the brother-in-law of the petitioners(sister‟s husband).
36. Another important aspect which has been overlooked by the SLSC is that the predecessors of the petitioners migrated to West Khupilong village of Tripura, India in the year 1962 from the then East Pakistan, now Bangladesh. From the documents produced by the petitioners and the evidence adduced by them, it comes to fore that the caste status of the petitioners was declared at the very first instance when they got admitted in the school on different dates. The evidence adduced by the paternal relatives of the petitioners aptly proves that they belong to Scheduled Caste(Namasudra) community. The findings of the SLSC while discarding the evidence let in by the petitioners, appeared to be based on some tampered RORs, as well as some irrelevant materials, which hit the conscience of this Court.
Here, I may gainfully refer the case of Anand(supra) where the Hon‟ble Supreme Court had observed thus[SCC pages 121 and 122, para 25]:-
"25. From the documents produced by the appellant, it appears that his near paternal relatives had been regarded as belonging to the "Halbi" Scheduled Tribe. Page 44 of 46 The Vigilance Officer's report does not indicate that the documents produced by the appellant in support of his claim are false. It merely refers to the comments made by the headmaster with reference to the school records of the appellant's father's maternal brother and his aunt, which had been alleged to be tampered with, to change the entry from Koshti Halba to Halba and nothing more. Neither the headmaster was examined, nor any further enquiry was conducted to verify the veracity of the headmaster's statement. It is of some importance to note at this juncture that in similar cases, involving the appellant's first cousin and his paternal uncle, the High Court, while observing non- application of mind by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, had decided a similar claim in their favour."
37. In light of the above principles and discussions made here-in-above, I am convinced that the documentary evidence as well as the oral evidence brought on record by the petitioners and their witnesses were not examined and appreciated in its proper perspective, which leads this Court to hold that the decision of the State Level Scrutiny Committee(SLSC) to cancel and confiscate the caste status certificates of the petitioners is untenable and unwarranted. It is pertinent to mention herein that the SLSC is a statutory body and it is expected that it will apply its mind keeping in view the broad parameters necessary to grant or reject the caste certificates. Mechanical approach should be avoided. Each and every details as are available in the Page 45 of 46 records must be dealt with following the doctrine of fairness and fair play because its decision may give undue advantage to a wrong person and also may lead a genuine candidate to perish.
38. As a sequel, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed with the following consequential orders/directions:-
(i) The order of cancellation and confiscation dated 15.05.2021 directing the petitioners to return their Scheduled Caste certificates to the office of the Director for Welfare of Scheduled Castes stands set aside and quashed.
(ii) It is held that the petitioners have established their claim for "Namasudra", Scheduled Caste community.
(iii) The Scheduled Caste certificates granted in favour of the petitioners stand restored and these are treated to be valid in the eye of law for all purposes.
(iv) The petitioners shall be re-instated in service within a period of two weeks from the date the respondents and the employers of the petitioners shall receive a copy of this order.
(v) The termination orders issued by the respective employers upon the petitioners also stand quashed having no force in the eye of law.
(vi) It is further directed that the petitioners shall not be entitled to any back wages.
Page 46 of 46
(vii) It is made clear that the petitioners shall be entitled to all service benefits including seniority and intervening promotions, if any; and
(viii) The pay and allowances of the petitioners shall be fixed notionally for the purpose of their pensions.
39. The instant writ petitions are disposed of with the above observations and directions.
JUDGE