Chattisgarh High Court
Sandhya Kotriwar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 November, 2023
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:30915
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 4326 of 2016
Order reserved on 11th August, 2023
Order delivered on 10th November, 2023
Sandhya Kotriwar D/o Late Shri Babu Rao Kotriwar, Aged About 58
Years Occupation Assistant Grade Il, O/o Assistant Commissioner,
Tribal Welfare Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh R/o S.T. Boys Hostel
Premises Malvi Nagar, Durg, 5 th Building, P.S. Malvi Nagar, District
Durg Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Tribal
Welfare Mantralaya, Mahandi Bhawan, P.S. Mandir Hasaud, Raipur
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Uchcha Stariya Jatipramanpatra Chhanbin Samiti, In the matter Of
Scrutiny Of S.C./ST. Caste Certificate Scheduled Caste In Research
And Training Institute Throug Its Secretary Pandit Deendayal
Upadhyay Nagar, Sector 4, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. The Commissioner, Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe
Development Block 4, Bhutal, Indravati Bhawna, Naya Raipur District :
Raipur,Chhattisgarh
4. The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Durg, Distirct
Durg Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Mr. Anil Singh Rajput, Advocate For Respondents/State ; Ms Binu Sharma, PL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J CAV Order
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 27.06.2016 (Annexure P1) passed by respondent-2, cancelling her Caste Certificate and her termination letter dated 16.08.2016 (Annexure P2), passed by respondent-3.
2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by petitioner, are that petitioner belongs to Tribal Community, known as "Chhattri". Petitioner Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:30915 is Scheduled Tribe (ST) as per notification issued under Clause (1) of Article 342 of the Constitution of India. "Chhattri" Community is duly registered under the Chhattisgarh Society Registration Act, 1973.
"Chhattri" is not a sub-tribe of any other registered Scheduled Tribe under the Constitution, much less "Kunwar". However, School education of petitioner was completed in the State of Chhattisgarh. After due enquiry and after having been satisfied that the petitioner is "Chhattri" Tribe, the competent authority issued a Caste certificate in her favour on 16.08.1983 and 22.10.1984, vide Annexure P3. On 31.08.1989, petitioner was appointed on the post of LDC vide Annexure P4. From the details given above, petitioner and her family being part and parcel of "Chhattri" Samaj, duly registered Meru Chhattri Samaj, Bhopal has issued a certificate in favour of petitioner. Somebody having animosity with her brother, namely, Chandra Shekhar, made a complaint to the High Level Scrutiny Committee, Bhopal in respect of her brother. The said complaint was transferred to the State of Chhattisgarh for being dealt with by Anusuchit Jati Tatha Janjati Uchcha Stariya Chhanbin Samiti, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur. In pursuance of the notice given by respondent- 2, brother of petitioner submitted a detailed reply along with documents to respondent-2. Thereafter, vide order dated 29.02.2012, respondent-2 cancelled his Caste Certificate and he was terminated from the service vide order dated 26.03.2012. Brother of the petitioner, filed a writ petition before this Court, registered as WPS- 1195 of 2012 and this Court vide order dated 08.04.2013 (Annexure Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:30915 P5), maintained the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Samiti but quashed the termination order passed by the department.
3. Being aggrieved with order dated 08.04.2013, State of Chhattisgarh filed writ appeal-361 of 2013, and brother of petitioner also filed writ appeal-388 of 2013, which were dismissed by this Court vide order dated 26.11.2013 (Annexure P6). Thereafter, brother of petitioner was reinstated in the service vide order dated 16.10.2014 (Annexure P7). On 16.06.2016 Caste Scrutiny Committee gave notice (Annexure P8) to brother of the petitioner to appear before the Samiti on 27.06.2016. On the said date, he appeared before the Committee and filed reply along with supporting documents. Thereafter, respondent No.2 passed impugned order stating that Caste Certificate of brother of petitioner was cancelled by the respondent authorities, therefore, petitioner's Caste Certificate also cancelled vide order dated 27.06.2016 (Annexure P1), and in compliance of order passed by respondent-2, respondent-3 passed termination order dated 16.08.2016 (Annexure P2) against the petitioner. Hence this petition for the following reliefs:
10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ in nature of mandamus allowing the present petitioner and directing the respondent bank to produce the entire record relating to the case of the petitioner.
10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari in quash the circular dated 18.05.2007 issued by the respondent bank and also Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:30915 quash the latter dated 04.05.2012 (Annexure P/12) issued by the respondent bank.
10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to consider and provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner and lieu of his father who died while in service, in accordance with the provision of the scheme of compassionate appointment as it existed of the death of the petitioner's father Ramadhin Gaikwad on 01.10.1997.
10.4 Any other relief/relief's which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be allowed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the order passed in WPS No.1195 of 2012, petition filed by brother of the petitioner but the respondent authorities without any proper enquiry, cancelled the Caste Certificate of petitioner. Petitioner completed more than 26 years of service therefore, as per law laid down by Hon'bnle Apex Court in case of State of Maharashtra Vs Milind and others reported in (2001) 1 SCC 4, the employees should not be ousted from the service after rendering long period of service. Impugned order is also contrary to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in which it was clearly stated that it is not open to State Governments or courts or tribunals or any other authority to modify, amend or alter the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in the notification issued under clause(1) of Article 342 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that it is not the ground of respondent-2 that the Caste Certificate was obtained by the petitioner by any fraud or manipulation, therefore, orders passed by the respondent authorities Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:30915 are erroneous, frivolous and against the law, which are liable to be set aside. He placed reliance in case of Chandra Shekhar Kotriwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh and others (WPS-1195 of 2012), decided by this Court on 08.04.2013, and Writ Appeal-361 of 2013 filed by the State.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents/State strongly opposes the prayer of petitioner and submits that petitioner is wrongly gaining the benefit of reservation and the Caste Scrutiny Committee after verifying all the facts, cancelled her Caste Certificate, and respondent-3 passed impugned order for termination of services of the petitioner in accordance with law. Hence, petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
6. Heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and perused material available on record.
7. In WPS-1195 of 2012, which was filed by petitioner's brother, this Court observed in paragraphs-13 & 14 and held thus:
"13. Be that as it may, it is found that the orders passed by the Committee, by which the Caste Certificates of the petitioners have been cancelled, do not suffer from any perversity or illegality and, as such, no interference is warranted, as the said orders were passed after following the guidelines, as laid down by the Supreme Court as well as this Court in umpteen number of cases.
14. For the reasons mentioned herein above, the orders passed by the Committee are just and proper and do not warrant any interference of this Court. However, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 26.03.2012 (page 396 of the paper book of WP(S) No.1195 of Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:30915 2012) is quashed. The petitioner- Chandra Shekhar Kotriwar be reinstated in service forthwith. No dismissal order be passed in respect of Anurag Lal. It is further made clear that both the petitioners are not entitled to any further benefits on the basis of their claim of being Scheduled Tribe, which was rejected by the Committee."
8. In Writ Appeal No.361/2013 filed by the State and in Writ Appeal- 388 /2013 Division Bench of this Court in paragraphs-16 and 24 of the judgment, held thus:
"16. After going through the above principles, and applying them to the facts of of the appellant's case, we find that a caste certificate was granted to the appellant in the year 1978, on which, he got service in the year in the year 1983. A complaint was made and his caste certificate was cancelled on 29.02.2012 on the ground that it was a wrong caste certificate issued in favour of the appellant holding that he belongs to Chattri Scheduled Tribe mentioned against serial No. 20 of the concerned Order. There are no allegations of fraud against the appellant and the contents of the order of the Committee would show that since the appellant failed to prove by way of affinity test that he was belonging to the Chattri Scheduled Tribe, therefore, the caste certificate was wrongly issued to him. Thus the case of the appellant was distinguishable from those cases in which either an allegation of fraud was made or a finding of fraud or deception in any manner was recorded.
24. (i) Writ Appeals No. 388/2013 & 361/2013 filed by appellant (Chandra Shekhar Kotriwar and State of Chhattisgarh & Others both are dismissed and protection granted against the ouster, with all other directions, by the writ Court is upheld."
Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:30915
9. The SLP filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Copies of order sheets of SLP(C)-8748 of 2014 are on record.
10. In the impugned order dated 27.06.2016, respondent-2 in paragraphs-11 and 12 held as under:
"11- tkfr izek.k&i= mPp Lrjh; Nkuchu lfefr NRrhlx<+] jk;iqj ds }kjk dq- la/;k dksVªhokj ds tkfr izek.k&i= dh tkap ds lanHkZ esa izLrqr tkap izfrosnu esa dq- la/;k dksVªhokj ds laca/k esa vafre iSjk esa ys[k fd;k x;k gS fd vc rd dh tkap vUos"k.k ls /kkjd dq- la/;k dksV ªhokj firk Jh ckcqjko ds firk@iwoZt ds lkekftd Lrj v/;;u ,oa miyC/k nLrkostksa ds vk/kkj ij 'p=h'] vuqlwfpr tutkfr ugha gSA dq- la/;k dksVªhokj ds }kjk fnukad 27-06-2016 dks mifLFkr gksdj vkosnu i= ds lkFk 10 nLrkost izLrqr fd;s x;s gSa ftlesa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; NRrhlx<+ }kjk ;kfpdk dz- 1195@2012] esa fnukad 8 vizSy 2013 dks ikfjr vkns'k dh Nk;kizfr layXu dh xbZ gS] tks muds HkkbZ Jh pUnz'ks[kj dksVªhokj ds laca/ k esa gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k ds iSjk 13 ,oa 14 esa lfefr }kjk ikfjr vkns'k dks gLr{ksi ;ksX; ugha ekuk x;k rFkk muds HkkbZ dks lsok esa iqu% fy;s tkus vkns'k fn;k x;k gS] ijarq mUgsa Hkfo"; ds fy, vuqlwfpr tutkfr ugha ekuk x;k gSA 12- vr% mijksDr ikfjr vkns'k ls Loeso Li"V gS fd dq- la/;k dksVªhokj ds HkkbZ Jh pUnz'ks[kj dksVªhokj dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa lfefr }kjk muds HkkbZ Jh pUnz'ks[kj dksVªhokj dks vuqlwfpr tutkfr N=h ugha ekuus laca/kh vkns'k dks Lohdkj dj mUgsa vuqlwfpr tutkfr dk Lohdkj ugha fd;k gSA vr% dq- la/;k dksVªhokj dks ftyk la;kstd] vkfnetkfr dY;k.k foHkkx chtkiqj ls fnukad 22-10- 1984 ,oa ftyk la;kstd] vkfnetkfr dY;k.k] narsokM+k ls fnukad 18-08-1983 (ineqnzk foghu) dks tkjh 'p=h' vuqlwfpr tutkfr dk tkfr izek.k i= N- x- 'kklu }kjk tkjh N-x- vuqlwfpr tkfr] vuqlwfpr tutkfr vkSj vU; fiNM+k oxZ (lkekftd izkfLFkfr izek.khdj.k dk fofueu) vf/kfu;e 2013 ds mifu;e 23 (2) ,oa (5) esa fd;s x;s izko/kku vuqlkj fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA"
Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:30915
11. This Court vide order dated 08.04.2013, passed in WPS- 1195 of 2012, quashed the termination order of Chandra Shekhar (brother of petitioner), relying upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, mainly in case of State of Maharashtra (supra). In this case also, it is not disputed that petitioner is in service since 31.01.1989.
12. In light of order passed by this court in WPS-1195 of 2012, in case of Chandra Shekhar Kotriwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh and others, impugned termination order (Annexure P2) by which petitioner was terminated from her service, is set aside and she is reinstated with all consequential benefits. It is made clear that petitioner is not entitled for any other benefit on the basis of her claim being Scheduled Tribe, which was rejected by the Caste Scrutiny Committee.
13. With above observation and direction, the petition is partly allowed.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) JUDGE padma