Smt. Geeta Meshram Vs Advocate General

¶1

1 / 6

¶2

Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE

¶3

2024:CGHC:32318

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 2552 of 2015

¶7

Smt. Geeta Meshram, W/o Shri Om Prakash Meshram, Aged About 48 Years, Occupation- Service, Working As Peon, Office Of Advocate General, High Court Campus, Bilaspur, R/o Talapara,, Police Station- Civil Lines Bilaspur, Tehsil Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Advocate General, State Of Chhattisgarh, High Court Of Chhattisgarh Premises, Village Bodri, Police Station Chakarbhata, Tehsil Bilha, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes Development Department, Mantralaya, Capitol Complex, Naya Raipur, Police Station Naya Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - High Powered Certification Scrutiny Committee, Through Its Member Secretary Cum Commissioner, Tribal Research And Training Institute, Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar, Sector 4 Raipur, Police Station Pandri, Tehsil Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - Collector, Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Lines, Tehsil Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate, holding the brief of Ms. Anubhuti Marhas, Advocate For State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Deputy Government Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

23.08.2024

¶18

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶19

“10.1 To call for the entire records pertaining to the enquiry made by the respondent No.3 and all the other documents pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the respondents for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

¶20

10.2 To quash impugned order dated 19/06/2015 (Annexure P-1) communicated to the petitioner vide letter of even date.

¶21

2 / 6

¶22

10.3 Any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, including the costs, may also be given in favour of the petitioner against the respondents. ”

¶23

1. Brief facts of the present case are as under:-

¶24

I. The petitioner belongs to the ‘Mahar’ caste which is a Scheduled Caste (for short, SC) as defined in the Order issued by the President of India under Article 341 of the Constitution of India.

¶25

II. The father of the petitioner, namely, late Shri Ratha Rour had involuntarily migrated to Kharagpur where he served the South Eastern Railways (for short, SER).

¶26

III. On 14.07.1966, the petitioner was born and she was brought up in Kharagpur. The petitioner passed her class-8th and 9^th examinations from South Side High School, Kharagpur in the years 1981 and 1983, respectively. The mother-in-law of the petitioner executed a Will deed in favour of her daughter namely, Mehtarin Bai and in that document, the caste of the parties is mentioned as ‘Mahar’.

¶27

IV. On the basis of the sale deed and the record of the rights, the concerned Patwari prepared a family tree on 29.05.2014 indicating the caste of the petitioner as ‘Mahar’. The petitioner was married to one Om Prakash Meshram on 09.04.1989 and came to Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. She passed her High School Certificate Examination in the year 1996. She was appointed to the post of ‘Peon’ under respondent No.1 vide order dated 10.05.2007 as an SC category candidate and in clause-9 of the appointment order it was indicated that her caste certificate was subject to verification by the High Powered Caste Scrutiny Committee (for short, the Committee).

¶28

V. The caste certificate of the petitioner was issued by the Tehsildar, Bilaspur on 01.11.1989, wherein, in the column of the name of the father, the petitioner’s father-in-law is mentioned, and in that certificate, the caste of the petitioner is mentioned as ‘Mahar’ which is a notified SC. Another caste certificate was issued on 02.01.2014 by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) in favour of the petitioner.

¶29

3 / 6

¶30

VI. Respondent No.3/the Committee, after getting the report of the vigilance cell, issued a show cause notice along with a copy of the report to the petitioner on 08.07.2014. On 21.12.2014, the proceedings were adjourned for 09.01.2015. On 09.01.2015, the petitioner appeared before the Committee and her statement was recorded. Thereafter, the final order was passed against the petitioner and her caste certificate was cancelled.

¶31

1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner. He referred to Rule 22 of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013, which says that where the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the social status claim of the applicant/petitioner, according to the inquiry Report of the Vigilance Cell, the committee may through registered post shall issue a show-cause notice to Applicant/petitioner in prescribed FORM-6B along with the report of the Vigilance Cell. He further submitted that in the caste certificate issued in the year 1989, the name of the father-in-law is mentioned whereas, in another caste certificate issued in the year 2014, the name of her husband is mentioned. It is argued that on trivial issues the Committee has cancelled the caste certificate of the petitioner; thus, he prayed that the impugned order dated 19.06.2015 (Annexure P/1) may be quashed.

¶32

1. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that after receipt of a complaint, the social status report was called from the vigilance cell. He further submitted that according to the report submitted by the vigilance cell, the petitioner was found nonresident of the State of Chhattisgarh and after marriage, she migrated to this State and this fact has been discussed in the said report. He

¶33

4 / 6

¶34

also submitted that a copy of the inquiry report along with the notice was served upon the petitioner. He contended that the petitioner participated in the proceedings before the Committee, her statement was recorded, and she failed to produce documents to establish that she is a resident of this State or whether she belongs to the SC category as notified in the Presidential order for this State, therefore, her caste certificate was cancelled. He also contended that the Committee has afforded proper opportunity of hearing and thus, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶35

1. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on the record.

¶36

The aforesaid Committee was constituted on the basis of the direction issued in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has formulated the procedure for issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and approval. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-

¶37

"13. The admission wrongly gained or appointme nt wron gly obtained on the basis of false social status certificate necessarily has the effect of depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined in the Constitution of the benefits conferred on them by the Constitution. The genuine candidates are also denied admission to educational institutions or appointments to office or posts under a State for want of social status certificate. The ineligible or spurious persons who falsely gained entry resort to dilatory tactics and create hurdles in completion of the inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee. It is true that the applications for admission to educational institutions are generally made by a parent, since on that date many a time the student may be a minor. It is the parent or the guardian who may play fraud claiming false status certificate. It is, therefore, necessary that the certificates issued are scrutinized at the earliest and with utmost expedition and promptitude. For that purpose, it is necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval, which may be the following:

¶38

5 / 6

¶39

1. The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level.

¶40

2. The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn and attested by a competent gazetted officer or non-gazetted officer with particulars of castes and sub-castes, tribe, tribal community, parts or groups of tribes or tribal communities, the place from which he originally hails from and other particulars as may be prescribed by the Directorate concerned.

¶41

3. Application for verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at least six months in advance before seeking admission into educational institution or an appointment to a post.

¶42

4. All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the department concerned, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificate.

¶43

In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities. ”

¶44

In the present case, the petitioner was appointed to the post of ‘Peon’ under respondent No. 1 on the strength of the caste certificate issued by the Tehsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur. Both the caste certificates were referred to the Committee for verification according to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) and a show cause notice along with a copy of the vigilance report was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the Committee on 09.01.2015, and her statement was recorded, but she failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish that she belongs to that particular caste or category notified in the State of Chhattisgarh. Further, she was born in Kharagpur, West Bengal; her parents or

¶45

6 / 6

¶46

forefathers were not born in the territory of the State of Chhattisgarh.

¶47

1. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the considered opinion of this Court, no case is made out warranting interference with the order impugned. Accordingly, the instant petition fails and is hereby

¶48

dismissed . No order as to cost(s).

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)

¶51

Judge

¶52

Nadim

Smt. Geeta Meshram v. Advocate General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Geeta Meshram v. Advocate General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxmikant Jaiswal Vs The Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya and Ors.

Smt. Chandrika Som Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Lokeshwar Kumar Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Kumar Goswami Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Janpad Panchayat Lakhanpur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Dhirendra Vishwakarma Vs Rasheed Hasmi