Allowed

Mulchand Kanwar (Dead) Through Lrs., v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC23 Nov 2023WPS/2586/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the termination of a government school principal's services due to alleged forgery of a caste certificate. Holding that only the Scrutiny Committee constituted under Madhuri Patil can verify caste status, the court set aside the termination order and directed authorities to refer the matter for verification while granting consequential benefits t

What did the court decide?

Quashed the termination order and enquiry report; remanded matter to Caste Scrutiny Committee for verification; granted consequential monetary benefits to legal heirs.

Mulchand Kanwar (Dead) Through Lrs., Vs State Of… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

AFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Order Reserved on : 25/08/2023

¶5

Order passed on : 23/11/2023

¶6

WPS No. 2586 of 2016

¶7

Smt. Shirin Kawar W/o Mulchand Kawar, aged about 53 years old, R/o Village Bundeli, Tehsil Pithora, District Mahasamund (CG)

¶8

Lakish (Mulraj) Kawar S/o Mulchand Kawar, aged about 25 years old, R/o Village bundeli, Tehsil Pithora, District Mahasamund (CG)

¶9

Ujjwalta Kuwar S/o Mulchand Kawar, aged about 23 years old R/o Village bundeli, Tehsil Pithora, Distt. Mahasamund (CG)

¶10

---- Petitioners

¶11

Versus

¶12

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur.

¶13

Collector, Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

District Education Officer, Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pithora, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

Schedule Caste Research and Training Institute, Caste Certificate High Powered Committee, Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar, Sector-04, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶17

---- Respondents

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Dangi, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, P.L.

¶19

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J

¶20

CAV ORDER

¶21

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has

¶22

¶23

been filed by the petitioner Mulchand Kawar challenging the order dated 31.5.2016 passed by respondent No.3 terminating his services on the ground of submission of forged caste certificate; the enquiry report dated 17.11.2015 and the order dated 22.12.2015 of CG State Scheduled Tribe Commission recommending termination of petitioner’s services (Annexure P/1).

¶24

Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the writ petition, are that the petitioner Mulchand Kawar was appointed on 12.11.1987 on the post of UDT and at the time of termination, he was holding the post of Principal, Govt. School, Khediago, Block Division Pithora, Distt. Mahasamund. Upon a complaint made by one Lav Kumar on 19.8.2015 against the petitioner that he has obtained government job on the basis of fake caste certificate, an enquiry was conducted into the matter by Sub Divisional Officer, Renenue, Pithoura. In his enquiry report, the SDO held that the petitioner has forged his caste certificate as in the Missal record of his ancestors, his caste is shown as Christianity.

¶25

Based on the said enquiry report, CG Scheduled Tribe Commission vide impugned order dated 22.12.2015 directed respondent No.1 to take action against the petitioner and consequently, vide impugned order dated 31.5.2016 respondent No.3/DEO, Mahasamund terminated the services of the petitioner under Clause 10(9) of CG Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 with immediate effect. This petition was filed by the original petitioner Mulchand Kawar for the following relief:

¶26

¶27

I. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the termination order dated 31.05.2016, inquiry report dated 17.11.2015 and order dated 22.12.2015 (Annexure P/1).

¶28

II. May kindly be pleased to direct the authorities to verify the caste certificate of the petitioner before reaching to a conclusion about petitioner’s cast.

¶29

III. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems, fit in the facts and circumstances may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.”

¶30

During pendency of this petition, the petitioner Mulchand Kawar passed away on 8.11.2020 and to carry forward the instant litigation, his legal heirs filed an application (IA No.05/2021) which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 6.1.2022 and accordingly, the present petitioners were brought on record for contesting this petition. The petitioners pray that after termination of the impugned orders, they be given the benefit of pay, salary and allowances and other retiral dues of the deceased petitioners.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that CG State Tribe Commission was enacted under the provisions of MP Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog Adhiniyam, 1995 and as per Section 9 of the said Act, no such power or authority has been vested upon the said Commission to look into validity and legality of the caste certificates. In fact, as per CG Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013 it is only High Power Certificate Scrutiny Committee which is empowered to conduct an enquiry into the verification of caste certificate and pass orders on

¶32

¶33

the validity of the caste certificate. It is a settled law that there is a presumption of validity of caste certificate unless and until such caste certificate is cancelled by the competent authority.

¶34

It is contended that the impugned termination order dated 31.5.2016 has been passed on the basis of order dated 22.12.2015 passed by CG Scheduled Tribe Commission which has no jurisdiction or authority to enquire into the validity of the caste certificate and as such, the very foundation of passing the impugned order itself is illegal and therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in law and it’s a nullity itself. When termination is found to be bad in law, back-wages and other pecuniary benefits and consequential benefits have to be granted. Since original petitioner Mulchand Kawar has died during pendency of this petition & it is being prosecuted on behalf of his legal heirs-petitioners herein, they are entitled for such momentary benefits.

¶35

Reliance has been placed on the decisions in the matters of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, (1994) 6 SCC 241; Collector, Bilaspur Vs. Ajit P.K. Jogi and others, (2011) 10 SCC 357; Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of CG, 2021 SCC OnLine Chh 3412; Bharati Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka, (2018) 6 SCC 162; I. Lakra Vs. State of CG and others, 2022 SCC OnLine Chh 121; Chairman-cumManaging Director, Coal India Ltd. Vs. Ananta Saha, (2011) 5 SCC 142; Chief Engineer, Hydel Project and others Vs. Ravinder Nath and others, (2008) 2 SCC 350 ; and VLS Finance Ltd. Vs. UOI, (2013) 6 SCC 278.

¶36

¶37

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that one Lav Kumar made a complaint on 19.8.2015 (Annexure R/1) against the petitioner Mulchand Kanwar and his family members that they have obtained government services by submitting forged caste certificate as their original caste is Gada (xkM+k). Thereafter, on 17.11.2015 the office of Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pithoura, Distt. Mahasamund submitted his enquiry report to the Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Tribe Commission, Raipur regarding caste certificates of the petitioner and his family members in which it was categorically mentioned that in the attendance register of Primary School, Raipur and Govt. Middle School, Bhikhapali of the year 1980, in the column of Religion and Caste, the caste of the petitioner is mentioned as Ishai (Christian) (Kanwar) which is admitted by the petitioner. After considering and verifying all the aspects, the SDO, Pithoura came to the conclusion that the complaint made against the petitioner is true and he obtained government service by submitting forged caste certificate. Therefore, the impugned termination order dated 31.5.2016 passed by respondent No.3 is strictly in accordance with law and the present petition being devoid of any substance is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

The intervenor-complainant has also supported the arguments of the State counsel and submitted in his application for intervention that the intervenor Lav Kumar had made a genuine complaint that the petitioner does not belong to Kanwar caste and after due enquiry, the same was found to be proved. The petitioner claims that he belongs to

¶39

¶40

Kanwar caste but failed to prove it and hence, his services have been rightly terminated by respondent No.3.

¶41

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

¶42

It is an admitted position in this case that the enquiry into the caste status of the petitioner was conducted by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pithoura, Distt. Mahasamund and after enquiry, he submitted enquiry report dated 17.11.2015 to the Collector, Mahasamund and consequently, on the recommendation dated 22.12.2015 of CG State Scheduled Tribe Commissioner, Raipur, the impugned order dated 31.5.2016 was passed by the District Education Officer, Mahasamund, dismissing the petitioner Mulchand Kanwar from services with immediate effect. The impugned order dated 31.5.2016 reads as under:

¶43

vkns’k

¶44

lapkyd] yksd f’k{k.k lapkyuky; N0x0 u;k jk;iqj dk i= dzaekd @lr@v@15@2016@249 jk;iqj] fnukad 25-02-2016 ,ao la;qDr lfpo] N0x0 ‘kklu Ldwy f’k{kk foHkkx ea=ky; egkunh Hkou] u;k jk;iqj dk i= dzaekd ,Q4&14@2016@20&nks u;k jk;iqj fnukad 01-02-2016 ds vuqlkj Jh ewypan daoj] fuyafcr iz/kkuikBd] ‘kkldh; izkFkfed ‘kkyk [ksM+hxkao fodkl[k.M fiFkkSjk] ftyk egkleqUn ds fo:} N-x jkT; vuqlwfpr tutkfr vk;ksx ds i= dza- 6818 fnukad 22-12-2015 ds vuqlkj QthZ tkfr izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij ‘kkldh; lsok djus dh iqf”V vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh ¼jktLo½ fiFkkSjk ds tkpa izfrosnu esa gksus ds QyLo:i N0x0 flfoy lsok ¼oxhdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e 1966 dafMdk 10 ¼ukS½ ds rgr rYdky izHkko ls ‘kkldh; lsok ls c[kkZLr ¼dismis½ fd;k tkrk gSA

¶45

gLrk- 31@5@16 ftyk f’k{kk vf/kdkjh

¶46

¶47

This Court in the matter of Sanjay Kumar (supra), observed in paras 16, 17 & 18 of its order as under:

¶48

“16. Quite recently following the principles laid down in Madhuri Patil (supra), in the matter of Collector, Bilaspur v. Ajit P.K. Jogi (2011) 10 SCC 357, the Supreme Court has held that the verification of validity of the caste certificates and the determination of the caste status should be done only by scrutiny committee constituted as per direction in Madhuri Patil (supra) or in terms of any statute made by appropriate Government in that behalf.

¶49

In the matter of Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2004) 9 SCC 481, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that issue of caste status cannot be gone into in a departmental enquiry and this matter can be examined only by the Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted under the direction of the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) and held as under :-

¶50

"6. Here we find that the Maharashtra State Electricity Board acting upon the direction of State Government has reverted the appellant without referring the matter to the Scrutiny Committee which was not the correct way to deal with the appellant's case. In fact, in such a situation the employer was required to refer the question before the Scrutiny Committee, which admittedly had been constituted and established for coming to the matter."

¶51

The Supreme Court in the matter of Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Others (2017) 8 SCC 670 affirmed the principle of law laid down in Madhuri Patil (supra) and held as under :

¶52

"69.2. Since the decision of this Court in Madhuri Patil which was rendered on 2-9-1994, the regime which held the field in pursuance of those directions envisaged a detailed procedure for :

¶53

¶54

(a) the issuance of caste certificates;

¶55

(b) scrutiny and verification of caste and tribe claims by Scrutiny Committees to be constituted by the State Government;

¶56

¶57

(d) Cancellation and confiscation of the caste certificate where the claim is found to be fales or not genuine;

¶58

(e) Withdrawal of benefits in terms of the termination of an appointment, cancellation of an admission to an educational institution or disqualification from an electoral office obtained on the basis that the candidate belongs to a reserved category; and

¶59

(f) Prosecution for a criminal offence."

¶60

09. In the matter of I. Lakra (supra), this Court in para 8 of its order held as under:

¶61

“8. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the aforesaid principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that the main dispute raised by the petitioner is qua caste of respondent No. 3 for which caste certificate has been issued in his favour way back on 13/04/1987 (Annexure P/4) that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe category. In the matter of Bharati Reddy (supra), their Lordships have clearly held that once the caste certificate has been issued by competent authority and it is still valid and in force then there is a statutory presumption that such caste certificate shall be valid until it is cancelled by the competent authority and until and unless the factum of validity of the caste certificate is pending before the Caste Verification Committee, it has to be presumed that the said caste certificate is still valid and in force. In that view of the matter, since the caste certificate dated 13/04/1987 (Annexure P/4) issued in favour of respondent No. 3 is said to be valid on the own showing of the petitioner, it cannot be held that a writ of

¶62

¶63

quo warranto can be issued removing respondent No. 3 from the post which he is holding at present and no case is made out for issuance of notice to respondent No. 6 for want of pleading and supporting documents as such.”

¶64

Thus, it is well settled that verification of validity of caste certificate and determination of caste status should be done only by the Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted in terms of the order passed in Madhuri Patil case (supra). Therefore, validity of the caste certificate issued to the petitioner by a competent authority should have been examined only by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and not by any other authority.

¶65

Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court on the issue, the petition deserves to be and is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order dated 31.5.2016 as also the enquiry report dated 17.11.2015 and the order dated 22.12.2015 (Annexure P/1) are hereby set aside. Since the original petitioner Mulchand Kanwar has died and this petition is being contested by his legal heirs – petitioners herein, they are held entitled for getting the consequential monetary benefits except the backwages. The question of backwages shall be considered by the competent authority within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order in accordance with applicable Rules/Regulations/Standing Orders.

¶66

The respondent authorities are directed to refer the matter to the appropriate Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted by the appropriate

¶67

¶68

State Government to verify the validity of caste certificate and also for determination of caste status of the petitioner as per direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Madhuri Patil (supra) followed in the matter of Ajit Jogi (supra), within a period of six weeks. Upon receipt of report from the Caste Scrutiny Committee, the respondents are at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law against the caste certificate of family members of the deceased petitioner i.e. the petitioners herein.

¶69

Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge

¶70

Khan

Mulchand Kanwar (Dead) Through Lrs., v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mulchand Kanwar (Dead) Through Lrs., v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Praveen Kumar Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Vipin Kumar Dansena Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Ram Kumar Nirmalkar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Bhagirathi Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Smt. Dashoda Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Dashoda Jurri Vs State Of Chhattisgarh