Chattisgarh High Court
Manish Mishra vs Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati ... on 9 May, 2024
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:17088
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
W.P.(C) No. 751 of 2018
Sharad Chandra Patra, aged about 49 years S/o Shri Kanhai Prasad
Patra, Manager (Accounts), Chhattisgarh Samvad, Raipur (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Jan Jati Ayog, Through Secretary, 61,
Jalvihar Colony, Raipur (C.G.)
2. Chhattisgarh Samvad, A Registered Society, Incorporated to aid
Department of Public Relation, Chotapara, Near Mahila Police Station
Raipur (C.G.)
3. Chhattisgarh Anusuchit Janjati Shaskiya Sevak Vikas Sangh, P-6,
Green Paradise, Vishalnagar, Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.)
---- Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Mr. Adil Minhaj, Mr. A.K. Samantray and Ms. Payal Jain, Advocates For CG Rajya Anusuchit Janjati : Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, Ayog Advocate For Chhattisgarh Samvad : Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate And W.P.(C) No. 651 of 2018 Chhattisgarh Samvad, A Registered Society, Incorporated to aid Department of Public Relation, Chotapara, Near Mahila Police Station Raipur Through Officer in Charge Hiralal Dewangan, Aged 43 years, S/o Late Punaram Dewangan, General Manager, Chhattisgarh Samvad, Raipur (C.G.)
---- Petitioner Versus
1. Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Jan Jati Ayog, Through Secretary, 61, Jalvihar Colony, Raipur (C.G.)
2. Smt. Geetanjali Netam, Assistant Editor, Chhattisgarh Samvad, House No. 7, Yash Vihar Colony, Motinagar Boriya Road, Raipur (C.G.)
3. Chhattisgarh Anusuchit Janjati Shaskiya Sevak Vikas Sangh, P-6, Green Paradise, Vishalnagar, Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:17088 2
---- Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocates
For CG Rajya Anusuchit Janjati : Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha,
Ayog Advocate
And
W.P.(C) No. 758 of 2018
Manish Mishra, aged about 47 years S/o Late Shri B.P. Mishra, Dy. General Manager (Advertising and Marketing), Chhattisgarh Samvad, Raipur (C.G.)
---- Petitioner Versus
1. Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Jan Jati Ayog, Through Secretary, 61, Jalvihar Colony, Raipur (C.G.)
2. Chhattisgarh Samvad, A Registered Society, Incorporated to aid Department of Public Relation, Chotapara, Near Mahila Police Station Raipur (C.G.)
3. Chhattisgarh Anusuchit Janjati Shaskiya Sevak Vikas Sangh, P-6, Green Paradise, Vishalnagar, Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.)
---- Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Mr. Adil Minhaj, Mr. A.K.
Samantray and Ms. Payal Jain,
Advocates
For CG Rajya Anusuchit Janjati : Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha,
Ayog Advocate
For Chhattisgarh Samvad : Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate
And
W.P.(C) No. 937 of 2018
Sabyasachi Kar, Aged about 47 years, S/o Late Shri Sisir Kar, R/o House No. 69, Street No. 3, Sector-1, Professor Colony, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
---- Petitioner Versus
1. Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Jan Jati Ayog, Through Secretary, 61, Jalvihar Colony, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:17088 3
2. Chhattisgarh Samvad, A Registered Society, Incorporated to aid Department of Public Relation, Chotapara, Near Mahila Police Station Raipur (C.G.)
3. Chhattisgarh Anusuchit Janjati Shaskiya Sevak Vikas Sangh, P-6, Green Paradise, Vishalnagar, Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.)
---- Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Mr. Aniket Verma, Advocate
holding the brief of Mr. Jitendra
Pali, Advocate
For CG Rajya Anusuchit Janjati : Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha,
Ayog Advocate
For Chhattisgarh Samvad : Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge Order On Board 09.05.2024
1. The petitioners have filed these petitions seeking the following reliefs:-
WPC No. 751 of 2018"10. Wherefore Petitioner begs for and craves indulgence of this Hon'ble Court to be pleased to allow this petition with consequential relief, quashing the impugned proceedings in Prakaran Kramank 234 / 2017 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit JanJati Ayog, Raipur (intimated vide notice dated 15/02/18, Annexure - P/1); and the Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass such other orders as may be deemed fit."WPC No. 651 of 2018
"10. Wherefore Petitioner begs for and craves indulgence of this Hon'ble Court to be pleased to allow this petition with consequential relief, quashing the impugned notice / Order dated 15/02/18 passed by Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit JanJati Ayog in Prakaran Kramank 234 / 2017 (Annexure - P/1) and consequently quashing the entire proceedings envisaged in Prakaran Kramank 234 / 2017 of Chhattisgarh Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:17088 4 Rajya Anushuchit JanJati Ayog, Raipur; and the Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass such other orders as may be deemed fit."WPC No. 758 of 2018
"10. Wherefore Petitioner begs for and craves indulgence of this Hon'ble Court to be pleased to allow this petition with consequential relief, quashing the impugned proceedings in Prakaran Kramank 234 / 2017 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit JanJati Ayog, Raipur (intimated vide notice dated 15/02/18, Annexure - P/1); and the Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass such other orders as may be deemed fit."WPC No. 937 of 2018
"10.i. To kindly quash the impugned proceedings in Case No. 234/2017 initiated by the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit JanJati Ayog, Raipur and intimated vide notice dated 21/03/18, ANNEXURE - P/1.
10.ii. Any other order that may be deemed fit and just may also kindly be made including cost of the petition."
2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioners of WPC No. 751/2018 and WPC No. 758 /2018 belong to general category and are an employee of Chhattisgarh Samvad, which is a registered society.
Notices were issued to the above stated petitioners by Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit JanJati Ayog on 15.02.2018 & 21.03.2018 to appear with records pertaining to their educational qualifications, recruitment, regularization and promotion. The petitioners have challenged the proceedings initiated by Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit JanJati Ayog.
3. Mr. Adil Minhaj, Raja Sharma and Mr. Aniket Verma, learned counsels for the respective petitioners would submit that Chhattisgarh Rajya Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:17088 5 Anusuchit JanJati Ayog has no jurisdiction to inquire into educational qualifications, recruitment, regularization and promotion of the employee. It is also argued that Article 338-A of the Constitution of India and Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit JanJati Ayog, Adhiniyam 1995 empower the Ayog to inquire the matter of deprivation of rights and safeguards to a person belonging to scheduled tribe and no random inquiry can be conducted. They would further submit that the issue is no more res integra and Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 512/2017 parties being Rajju Lal Dhruw vs. Chhattisgahr State Power Generation Co. Ltd and connected matters has already decided the issue.
4. On the other hand, Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, learned counsel appearing for Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit JanJati Ayog would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Adil Minhaj, Raja Sharma and Mr. Aniket Verma.
5. In the matter of Rajju Lal Dhruw (supra), the Hon'ble Division Bench in paras- 7, 10, 11, 12 held as under:-
"7. The primary aspect to be looked into is with regard to the circumstances under which the 'Ayog' was constituted as per the Section 3 of the Act, 1995. The said Act was enacted by the legislature of the State of Madhya Pradesh in the year 1995, which was to constitute a 'State Commission' for the 'Scheduled Tribes' and to provide for the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The authority concerned was to be constituted in terms of Section 3 of the Act, 1995 and the same has been constituted and notified. The scheme of the Act, 1995 further deals with the terms and conditions of service of the 'Chairperson' and 'Members'; officers and other employees of the Commission; salaries and allowances, vacancies etc.; the procedure to be regulated by Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:17088 6 the Commission; accounts & audit; annual report and also the rule making power of the State as mentioned under Section 17 of the Act, 1995. The relevant provisions for deciding the present 'lis' are; Sections 9 & 10 of the Act, 1995. Section 9 deals with the functions of the Commission, whereas Section 10 deals with the powers of the Commission. For convenience of reference, we find it appropriate to extract both the Sections, as given below:-
"9. Functions of the Commission. - (1) It shall be the function of the Commission -
(a) to act as watch-dog Commission for the protection afforded to the members of the Scheduled Tribes under the Constitution and under any other law for the time being in force;
(b) to recommend to the State Government to take steps to add particular tribes or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950;
(c) to watch the proper and timely implementation of programmes meant for welfare of Scheduled Tribes and to suggest improvement in such programmes of the State Government or any other body or authority responsible for such programmes;
(d) to tender advice regarding reservation for Scheduled Tribes in public services and admission in educational institutions;
(e) to perform such other functions as may be assigned to it by the State Government.
(2) The advice of the Commission shall, ordinarily be binding upon the State Government, where, however, the Government does not accept the advice, it shall record its reason therefor."
Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:17088 7
10. Powers of the Commission. - The Commission shall, while performing its functions under sub-section (1) of Section 9, have all the powers of a Civil Court trying a suit and in particular, in respect of the following matters, namely :-
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person from any part of the State and examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of any document;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;
(d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any Court or office;
(e) issuing commissions for the
examination of witnesses and
documents; and
(f) any other matter which may be
prescribed.
10. Coming to the scope of Section 9 of the Act, 1995, particularly Section 9(1)(a), it is only to act as a 'watch-dog' for protection afforded to the members of the Scheduled Tribes under the Constitution and under any other law for the time being in force. It is obviously a general power and if at all there is any instance of encroachment, intrusion or interdiction with regard to constitutional rights, it may be for the Commission to interfere for making or suggesting or recommending appropriate remedial measures. The courses of action to be performed by the Commission is more discernible from the other provisions such as clauses (b), (c), (d) and (e) under Section 9(1) of the Act, 1995. Section 9(1)(b) refers to the functions of the Commission to make recommendations and to take steps to add particular tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.
Similarly, Section 9(1)(c) refers to the functions to suggest improvement in the various welfare programmes or to watch the proper and timely implementation programmes meant for the welfare of the Scheduled Tribes to the State Government or Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:17088 8 such other bodies; Section 9(1)(d) deals with the advisory power vested to the Commission in the given circumstances and Section 9(1)(e) is with regard to such other functions as may be assigned to it by the State Government. The above provisions, in no way, deal with other aspects/disputes; particularly dealing with the service conditions between the employer and the employee, which rather is a forbidden field for the 'Ayog' and it is to be dealt with by such other appropriate authorities
11. Coming to the powers of the Commission under Section 10 of the Act, 1995, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent-Company, it is only with regard to regulation of the procedure, while exercising the functions under Section 9(1) of the Act, 1995. The power of a civil Court which can be used for summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person or witnesses and on examining on oath; requiring the discovery and production of any document, receiving evidence or affidavits, requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any Court or office; issuing commission for examining witnesses and documents and any other matter which may be prescribed, is only to promote and give effect to the various functions conferred upon the Commission under Section 9(1) of the Act, 1995 and it can never be used for any purpose beyond the said extent. We find considerable force in the said submission as well.
12. Coming to the case law, we find that an exhaustive analysis has been made by the learned Single Judge in this regard, after making reference to the functions of the Commission under Section 9 of the Act, 1995. The learned Single Judge has referred to the verdicts passed by the Supreme Court in Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women and another, (2010) 8 SCC 633, State Bank of Patiala v. Vinesh Kumar Bhasin, (2010) 4 SC 368, Collector, Bilaspur v. Ajit P.K. Jogi and others, (2011) 10 SCC 357, Madhuri Patil v. Commr., Tribal Development (1994) 6 SCC 241, All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and St Employees' Welfare Association and others v. Union of India and others, (1996) 6 SCC 606 and a decision rendered by the Delhi High Court in the matter of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Lal Chand and others, W.P.(C)No. 5468/2011 decided on 17-9-2013 to arrive at a conclusion that it was never a case for the 'Ayog' to have entertained Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:17088 9 Annexure-P/3 complaint by virtue of specific nature of the grievance projected therein and it was accordingly, that the challenge was upheld and the proceedings were set aside. We do not find any tenable ground to disagree with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge.
6. Taking into consideration the fact of the present case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Rajju Lal Dhruw (supra) and connected matters, in the opinion of this Court, notice dated 15.02.2018 & 21.03.2018 and pursuant proceedings are not sustainable in the eyes of law and same are hereby quashed.
7. Consequently, the petitions are disposed of.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti