Single Bench quashed an order rejecting a social status certificate. The petitioner was directed to proceed per Supreme Court guidelines on caste verification.
The impugned order dated 29-8-2005 is quashed; the Committee is directed to proceed as per Supreme Court decisions and this Court's ruling in Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
s'.^ c?
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR
rCHHATTISGARH^
W.P.NO^S^/ OF 2005
PETITIONER /' Mrs. Reena Masih, W/o Ishwari
Masih,aged about 42 years,
Occupation -Service, presently
Working as Staff Nurse in the
c^
Regional Leprosy Training and
Research Institute(controlled
.^^>
^X<'"7./<"
0?->^9"' By Govt. of India), Lalpur,Tah.
& Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
./•^^' ^^•^ >'7
.%•^•'' .^
^'^^^'
^^ VERSUS
RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh through
Secretary, Department of Tribal
Welfare, Mantralaya,Dau Kalyan
Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G)
/ 2. Uchha Stariya Chhanbin Samiti,
^rr^ ^^ (in the matter of scrutinyof
fc\ SC/ST Caste Certificate) through
^'.^ >-^ * Its Secretary, Ravi Shankar
y^
Vishwavidyalaya Parisar,
..lt ^ i;-'
Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
, 3. Commissioner, Adim Jati tatha
Anusuchit Jati Vikas, Ravi
Shankar Vishwavidyalaya
Parisar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN
IINATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS. PROHIBITION AND
JJOTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS, DIRECTION OR
)1 DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR ORDERS:
The petitioner, above-named, most respectfully submits as under:
^_
Fro4,^i.o' ^^'• y
.Mrecter^ ae®i^^al&@?r^ay traiNL,B@ & iBatit^itc^ I<§l$tur, District tatour CC.G.)',
1
-'v /V A
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION N0.4881 OF 2005
PETITIONER Mrs. Reena Masih
Versus
RESPONDENTS
State of Chhattisgarh & Others
. (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India)
Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J.
Present:Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate for the respondent No.4.
ORDER (ORAL)
(Passed on this 4th day of February, 2011)
1 (1994)68cc241
2 (1995)48cc 32 3WP (S) No.3338 of 2007 (decided on 19-8-2010)
'^
^f^^.
^/:,rS^
% "^ssy^"^,;<' ^"vj
aspects of the matter and after considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in umpteen number of cases, in para 26 of the judgment and order, has made certain clarifications for verification of the caste certificate.
/y :^'
In view offoregoing, the impugned order dated 29-8-2005 (Annexure P/1) is quashed. The Committee is directed to proceed in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Madhuri Patil (supra) & Laveti Giri (supra) and further explained by this Court in Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria (supra) and other connected matters, as early as possible.
No order asto costs.
Sd/-
Gowri
Satish K. Agnihotri Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's social status certificate should be quashed due to non-compliance with Supreme Court guidelines
Whether the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee was directed to verify caste status in accordance with Supreme Court and High Court precedents
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and othersRelied on¶19
(2005) 5 SCC 445 · Who else cites this
Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of A.P. v. Laveti Giri and AnotherRelied on¶19
(2005) 4 SCC 488 · Who else cites this
Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria v. State of Chhattisgarh & OthersApplied¶19
WP (S) No.3338 of 2007
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mrs. Reena Masih
State of Chhattisgarh
Uchha Stariya Chhanbin Samiti
Commissioner, Adim Jati tatha Anusuchit Jati Vikas
Satish K. Agnihotri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
