Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Vidya Gonnade (Dekate) vs Union Of India on 11 March, 2026
1
JAT
Digitally
RAGHVENDRA signed by
RAGHVENDRA
JAT
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 4154 of 2019
1 - Smt. Vidya Gonnade (Dekate) W/o. Shri Pundlik Dekate Aged About
57 Years Occupation Service, Working As Administrative Officer, Life
Insurance Corporation Of India, Raipur Road, Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs,
Department Of Personal And Training, Government Of India, North
Block, New Delhi, 110001.
2 - Life Insurance Corporation Of India Through Its Chairman, Jeevan
Bima Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400021.
3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Government Of
Chhattisgarh, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492002, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
4 - Manager Personal And Industrial Relations, Life Insurence
Corporation Of India, Divisional Office, 'jeevan Prakash' Jeevan Bima
2
Marg, Post Box No. 10, Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
5 - High Power Certification Scrutiny Commitee Through Its Member
Secretary- Cum-Director, Office Of Commissioner, Scheduled Castes
And Scheduled Tribe Development, Block 4d, Ground Floor, Indravati
Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Divy Jha, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.S. Marhas, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A.q For Respondents No. 2 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf &4 of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/03/2026
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-
"10.1 Call for the entire records from the possession of respondents, especially Respondent No.5 for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
10.2 This Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 23/08/2019 (Annexure P-1) by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari.
10.3 This Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass such other 3 orders as it may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner against the respondents.
10.4 This Hon'ble Court be pleased to award costs of the proceedings."
2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner is a native of Pawani, situated in District Bhandara, which formed part of the erstwhile Central Provinces and Berar as on 06.09.1950. She completed her Bachelor of Arts degree in the year 1982 and, thereafter, in 1989, was duly selected through a properly conducted selection process for appointment as an Assistant in the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Subsequently, with due permission from her employer, she pursued and successfully completed her LL.B. degree in the year 1994. At present, she is serving as an Administrative Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation at Mahasamund. The petitioner genuinely belongs to the "Halba" community, which is recognized as a Scheduled Tribe under the Presidential Order of 1950 applicable to the erstwhile Central Provinces and Berar, including District Bhandara (now in the State of Maharashtra) as well as Raipur (now in the State of Chhattisgarh). In recognition of her caste status, a valid caste certificate was issued to her by the Collector, Raipur on 20.03.1977. Since the petitioner belongs to the Halba community originating from District Bhandara, which was part of the Central Provinces and Berar as on the cut-off date of 06.09.1950, 4 Respondent No. 5, namely the Chhattisgarh High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee, lacked the jurisdiction to inquire into or adjudicate upon the validity of her caste certificate, particularly when the petitioner is not originally a resident of the State of Chhattisgarh. Nevertheless, acting upon a purported complaint made by an unrelated and interested third party, namely the Chhattisgarh Adivasi Vikas Parishad, the said Committee initiated an inquiry which failed to arrive at any conclusive determination regarding the petitioner's caste status. Despite the absence of any definitive finding, the Committee proceeded to cancel the caste certificate dated 20.03.1977 solely on the untenable ground that the petitioner could not produce documentary evidence predating 06.09.1950. In doing so, the Committee failed to examine or determine whether the issuing authority was competent to grant such certificate, thereby rendering the inquiry arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. In fact, any verification of the petitioner's caste status, if at all warranted, could have been undertaken only by the competent scrutiny authorities of the State of Madhya Pradesh or, at best, the State of Maharashtra. The Respondent No. 5 Committee ought to have duly considered that the petitioner is an original resident of the erstwhile Central Provinces and Berar and that her father was in service with the Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Raipur, and thus no adverse inference could be drawn regarding her caste status. Consequently, the impugned order dated 5 23.08.2019 (Annexure P-1) is wholly without jurisdiction, illegal, and unsustainable in law. Furthermore, in the absence of any finding that the caste certificate was obtained fraudulently or by misrepresentation, the Committee had no authority to cancel the same. The impugned order is thus patently arbitrary and violative of the petitioner's fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution of India, and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee has committed a manifest error of law in rejecting the petitioner's caste certificate merely on the ground that the expression "Koshti" was appended to "Halba,"
without there being any cogent evidence on record to establish that the petitioner had made any misrepresentation or acted mala fide to fraudulently obtain the said certificate. It is further contended that the Presidential Order of 1950, for the first time, specified the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and that the petitioner's forefathers originally belonged to the State of Maharashtra. However, upon the coming into force of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 on 01.11.1956, various regions, including areas inhabited by members of the Halba community, were reorganized and brought within the territorial jurisdiction of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, where the petitioner's family continued to reside thereafter. Subsequently, with the enactment of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, 6 such residents became part of the newly formed State of Chhattisgarh. Thus, although the Halba-Koshti community may have originally been associated with the State of Maharashtra, by virtue of statutory reorganization, they came to be recognized as residents of Madhya Pradesh and later Chhattisgarh, where the Halba community is duly recognized as a Scheduled Tribe. It is argued that the Chhattisgarh High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee lacked jurisdiction to re-examine a caste certificate validly issued by the competent authority of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh prior to the year 2000. Further, it is submitted that the Presidential Order, as amended by notification dated 18.09.1976, removed earlier area restrictions, thereby entitling members of Scheduled Tribes existing and residing in the respective territories as on 06.09.1950 to claim the benefit of reservation in all successor States carved out pursuant to the reorganization of States. The learned counsel emphasizes that there is absolutely no material on record to suggest that the petitioner obtained the caste certificate by fraud or misrepresentation, and moreover, the certificate was neither duly verified by the District Level Certificate Verification Committee nor properly referred to the High Power Scrutiny Committee in accordance with established procedure, thereby vitiating the entire process on account of procedural irregularity. It is further contended that the mandatory procedure laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhuri Patil has not been 7 followed, and that the evidence collected during the inquiry, in fact, supports the petitioner's claim but has been arbitrarily disregarded by the Committee. In sum and substance, the rejection of the petitioner's caste claim solely on the premise that her forefathers were originally residents of Maharashtra is legally untenable, as the case pertains not to voluntary migration but to statutory territorial reorganization, whereby members of the Halba-Koshti community were deemed residents of the successor States. Therefore, once such reorganization took effect, the petitioner's caste status remained valid and enforceable within Madhya Pradesh and thereafter in Chhattisgarh. Consequently, the impugned order is contrary to law, suffers from jurisdictional error and procedural impropriety, and is therefore liable to be quashed and set aside.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 and 4 submits that the petitioner has failed to satisfactorily establish that she belongs to the Halba-Koshti caste, and, therefore, the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee has acted well within its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order declaring that the petitioner does not belong to the said caste. It is further contended that the Committee, after due consideration of the material available on record, has rendered a detailed and reasoned order based on proper appreciation of evidence and applicable legal principles, and as such, the same does not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or procedural infirmity warranting interference 8 by this Hon'ble Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the impugned order has been duly supported as having been passed strictly in accordance with law, after proper verification of records and thorough analysis of the material on record. It is contended that the petitioner has failed to establish, by any credible or bona fide evidence, that she belongs to the Halba caste, and in the absence of such proof, the findings recorded by the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee are fully justified. It is further submitted that the Committee has rightly held that mere migration from one State to another does not entitle a person to claim the benefits of Scheduled Tribe status in the latter State, and, therefore, no illegality or infirmity can be attributed to the impugned order.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2023) 16 SCC 415, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"7. He relied upon a decision of the Bombay High Court in Apoorva v. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 1 [Apoorva v. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 1, 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 1053 : (2010) 6 Mah LJ 401] . He 9 submitted that if an applicant successfully establishes his caste claim on the basis of documents relating to the pre-Constitution period or documents having probative value or a caste validity certificate granted to his blood relative, it is not necessary to apply the affinity test. In short, his submission is that the affinity test is not a litmus test. He submitted that the view taken by this Court in Anand [Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claims, (2012) 1 SCC 113 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 44 : (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 43] is based on the interpretation of the 2000 Act and the ST Rules. He pointed out that Vijakumar case [Vijakumar v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 14 SCC 489 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 590] has been decided by this Court before the ST Rules came into force. He would urge that there are no reasons recorded in the decision to suggest that the affinity test in every case is mandatory. The learned counsel pressed into service a decision of this Court in District Collector v. Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid [District Collector v. Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid, (2019) 10 SCC 166 : (2019) 2 SCC (L&S) 792] . He pointed out that this Court clearly stated that vigilance cell's assistance is not required to be taken in every case but only when the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the documents 10 produced by the applicant. He also pointed out that an applicant who is a member of a Scheduled Tribe and who has been staying in an urban area may not be conversant with the traits, characteristics, ceremonies, and deities of the tribe. The learned Senior Counsel also relied upon a decision of the Bombay High Court in Chhaya v. Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claims [Chhaya v. Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claims, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2107] dated 1-8-2018, which holds that in view of the decision of this Court in Anand [Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claims, (2012) 1 SCC 113 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 44 : (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 43] , the impugned judgment in Shilpa Vishnu Thakur [Shilpa Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 705 : (2009) 3 Mah LJ 995] stands impliedly overruled. He would, therefore, submit that the impugned judgment calls for modification and it must be held that the affinity test is not of paramount importance while deciding a caste claim in accordance with the 2000 Act and the ST Rules.
15. Under Section 9, the competent authority, appellate authority and Scrutiny Committee have been granted powers of civil court under the Code of Civil 11 Procedure, 1908 of summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath, requiring the discovery and production of any documents, receiving evidence on affidavits, requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or office and issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents. However, the nature and extent of the inquiry which is required to be made by the competent authority and by the Scrutiny Committee differ. The 2000 Act has introduced a two- tier system for the verification of caste claims. In view of the express language used by sub-section (2) of Section 4, the caste certificate issued by the competent authority does not conclusively establish the caste claim of the applicant. The person to whom the caste certificate is granted by the competent authority cannot claim that his caste status has been established. The caste certificate issued by the competent authority becomes conclusive evidence of the caste stated therein only after a detailed enquiry as contemplated by the 2000 Act and rules framed thereunder is made by the Scrutiny Committee and the certificate is validated. Therefore, when an application made under Section 3 for the grant of a caste certificate is considered by the competent 12 authority, very detailed scrutiny of material produced by the applicant is not contemplated. What is contemplated is prima facie satisfaction of the genuineness of the caste claim and on the basis of such satisfaction that a caste certificate as contemplated by sub-section (1) of Section 4 can be issued. Therefore, sub-section (1) of Section 4 specifically requires the competent authority to record reasons for rejecting the application but there is no such requirement incorporated of giving reasons while granting a caste certificate. However, the Caste Scrutiny Committee is expected to record reasons both for validating and not validating the caste certificate. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 4 of the ST Rules provides that the competent authority shall verify the documents produced by the applicant with the original documents and if satisfied with the correctness of the information, documents and evidence furnished by the applicant, it shall issue a Scheduled Tribe certificate within 15 days from the date of receipt of the application. The time-limit fixed under the said Rule is also a pointer which suggests that the enquiry to be made by the competent authority is a summary enquiry and a detailed enquiry is not contemplated. The mandate of issuing caste certificates within 15 13 days cannot be accomplished if the competent authority is to hold a detailed enquiry on a par with the one which is required to be held by the Scrutiny Committee.
40. Thus, to conclude, we hold that:
40.1. Only when the Scrutiny Committee after holding an enquiry is not satisfied with the material produced by the applicant, the case can be referred to vigilance cell. While referring the case to vigilance cell, the Scrutiny Committee must record brief reasons for coming to the conclusion that it is not satisfied with the material produced by the applicant. Only after a case is referred to the vigilance cell for making enquiry, an occasion for the conduct of affinity test will arise. 40.2. For the reasons which we have recorded, affinity test cannot be conclusive either way. When an affinity test is conducted by the vigilance cell, the result of the test along with all other material on record having probative value will have to be taken into consideration by the Scrutiny Committee for deciding the caste validity claim; and 40.3. In short, affinity test is not a litmus test to decide a caste claim and is not an essential part in the process of the determination of correctness of a caste or tribe claim in every case."14
8. Upon a bare perusal of the record, it is evident that the forefathers of the petitioner were originally residents of the State of Maharashtra (formerly part of the Bombay State). However, pursuant to the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, when the new State of Madhya Pradesh was carved out and certain regions, including those from Nagpur, were reorganized, the area in which the petitioner and her family were residing came to fall within the territorial limits of the State of Madhya Pradesh. Subsequently, upon the enactment of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, the said area became part of the newly formed State of Chhattisgarh, and the petitioner, who was residing therein, was consequently declared a resident of the State of Chhattisgarh. Thus, the present case is not one of migration from one State to another, but rather a consequence of statutory reorganization, whereby the petitioner, originally a resident of the erstwhile Bombay State (now Maharashtra), became a resident of Madhya Pradesh and thereafter of Chhattisgarh. The record further reveals that the forefathers of the petitioner belonged to the Halba community, which is recognized as a Scheduled Tribe under the Presidential Order of 1950. After the reorganization in 1956, while residing in Madhya Pradesh along with her family, the petitioner obtained a caste certificate recognizing her as a member of the Halba community from the competent authority of that State, and following the reorganization in 2000, she continues to be 15 recognized as a resident of Chhattisgarh. It is also apparent from the record that there is no material whatsoever to indicate that the petitioner made any misrepresentation or adopted any fraudulent means in obtaining her caste certificate. The reasons assigned by the Scrutiny Committee for denying her caste status do not appear to be sustainable in law, particularly when such denial is based merely on certain anomalous or incorrect entries, such as the addition of the word "Koshti," which by itself cannot negate her claim. On the contrary, the evidence on record overwhelmingly establishes that both the petitioner and her forefathers belong to the Halba community, a recognized Scheduled Tribe, and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefits attached to such status.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 23.08.2019 is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat