Smt. Savita Katle Vs Janpad Panchayat, Lormi

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO

¶3

2024:CGHC:33760

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 3173 of 2013

¶7

1 - Smt. Savita Katle W/o Shri Shyam Sundar Katle Aged About 33 Years Shiksha Karmi Grade-III, Government Primary School Ratiyapara, R/o Village Gailugaon, Lormi, Civil And Revenue District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Janpad Panchayat, Lormi, Through The Chief Executive Officer, Lormi, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - District Panchayat, Through The Chief Executive Officer, Lormi, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - District Education Officer Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner	: Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1 & 2	: Shri Ayaz Naved, Advocate.
For Respondents No.3 & 4/ State	: Shri Pranjal Shukla, P.L.

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶17

03.09.2024

¶18

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following

¶19

relief(s):-

¶20

2

¶21

“10.1 To issue a suitable writ for setting aside the order dated 24.6.2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner.

¶22

10.2 Any other relief/ reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioner.

¶23

10.3. To direct appropriate respondents that, petitioner may be restituted in service with complete consequential and ancillary benefits with same effect and consequences, as if, she was never terminated in the first place.”

¶24

The facts of the present case are that the petitioner hails from the State of Maharashtra. She was married to Shyam Sundar Katle in the year 2003 and thereafter, she started residing in the State of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner as well as her husband both belonged to the Scheduled Caste category, particularly Mahar. The caste Mahar is included in the Presidential Order of 1950 in the State of Maharashtra as well as in the State of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner after marriage applied for a social status certificate and the same was issued on 28.05.2007 by the Tehsildar, Lormi, District Bilaspur. An advertisement was issued according to the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997 (for short ‘Rules, 1997’) for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III in the month of May, 2007. The petitioner applied for that post as a member of the Scheduled Caste category and she was appointed vide order dated 03.09.2007 and was posted at Government Primary School Ratiyapara, Block Lormi, District

¶25

3

¶26

Bilaspur. The petitioner was served with the order dated 04.11.2011 whereby her services have been terminated on the ground that the caste certificate submitted by her is forged. An appeal was preferred before the Collector against the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Lormi dated 04.11.2011 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 27.09.2012. A revision was preferred before the Divisional Commissioner and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 24.06.2013.

¶27

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the social status certificate was issued by the Competent Authority in favour of the petitioner on 28.05.2007 and by virtue of the caste certificate, the petitioner applied for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III and she was appointed vide order dated 03.09.2007. He would further argue that if there was any dispute with regard to the social status certificate of the petitioner, the authority concerned should have referred the matter to the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee for verification of the caste certificate of the petitioner and the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Lormi had no jurisdiction to terminate the services. He would also argue that though the decision was taken by the Administration Standing Committee to remove the petitioner according to Rule 9 of the Rules, 1997, no opportunity of hearing was afforded and no enquiry was conducted. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal

¶28

4

¶29

Development and Others reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 , Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2004) 9 SCC 481 , and GM, Indian Bank vs. R. Rani and Another reported in (2007) 12 SCC 796 .

¶30

1. On the other hand, the learned counsels for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. They would submit that the petitioner was a permanent resident of the State of Maharashtra; she got married to Shyam Sundar Katle in the year 2003 and she would not be entitled to get the benefit of reservation in the State of Chhattisgarh. They would further argue that the temporary caste certificate was issued and a complaint was also received against the petitioner and during the course of enquiry, sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to submit a permanent caste certificate but when the petitioner failed to submit a social status certificate issued by the Competent Authority, the decision was taken for termination of service of the petitioner according to Rule 9 of Rules, 1997. They would also submit that the contention made by counsel for the petitioner with regard to the violation of the principle of natural justice is misplaced as sufficient opportunity was afforded and show-cause notices were also issued. They would further state that the decision was taken according to clause 5 of the order of appointment where it is stated that if any of the information provided by the Shiksha Karmi is found false, the services may be terminated.

¶31

5

¶32

With regard to the power of the Chief Executive Officer or Janpad Panchayat regarding scrutiny or verification of the caste certificate, they would submit that as the petitioner failed to produce the permanent caste certificate issued by the Competent Authority, services of the petitioner were terminated and there was no need to refer the matter to the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee for verification of the caste certificate.

¶33

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

¶34

1. Some of the admitted facts are as under:-

¶35

“(1) The petitioner is a permanent resident of the State of Maharashtra where she was born and brought up and also completed her studies.

¶36

(2) She was married to Shyam Sundar Katle in the month of May, 2003.

¶37

(3) Temporary caste certificate was issued on 28.05.2007 by the Tehsildar in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner applied for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III pursuant to the advertisement issued in the month of May, 2007 and she was appointed to that post on 03.09.2007. Showcause notices were issued to the petitioner to submit the permanent caste certificate and when she could not place on record such certificate, her services were terminated vide order dated 04.11.2011.”

¶38

1. In the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), a direction was issued to the respective States to constitute a High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee. In para 13 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of a false social status

¶39

6

¶40

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. It is further held that if the admission or appointment has been gained on the basis of false status certificates in such a situation the said certificates should be scrutinized at the earliest with the utmost expedition and promptitude and directions were issued for constitution of the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee. Para 13 which is relevant is reproduced herein below:-

¶41

“13. The admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly 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 scrutinised 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:

¶42

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.

¶43

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.

¶44

3. Application for verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at least six months in

¶45

7

¶46

advance before seeking admission into educational institution or an appointment to a post.

¶47

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 certificates. 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.

¶48

5. Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in overall charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in the proforma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the castes or tribes or tribal communities concerned etc.

¶49

6. The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the vigilance officer if he found the claim for social status to be "not genuine" or 'doubtful' or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue show-cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post with acknowledgment due or through the head of the educational institution concerned in which the candidate is studying or employed. The notice should indicate that the representation or reply, if any, would be made within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice and in no case on request not more than 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. In case, the candidate seeks for an opportunity of hearing and claims an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the Director on receipt of such representation/ reply shall convene the committee and the Joint/ Additional Secretary as Chairperson who shall give reasonable opportunity to the candidate/ parent/ guardian to adduce all evidence in support of their claim. A public notice by beat of drum or any other convenient mode may be published in the village or locality and if any person or association opposes such a claim, an opportunity to adduce evidence may be given to him/it. After giving such opportunity

¶50

8

¶51

either in person or through counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-a-vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof.

¶52

7. In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed.

¶53

8. Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the parents/guardian also in case candidate is minor to appear before the Committee with all evidence in his or their support of the claim for the social status certificates.

¶54

9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day-to-day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. If after inquiry, the Caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or spurious, they should pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and confiscate the same. It should communicate within one month from the date of the conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the parent/guardian and the applicant.

¶55

10. In case of any delay in finalising the proceedings, and in the meanwhile the last date for admission into an educational institution or appointment to an officer post, is getting expired, the candidate be admitted by the Principal or such other authority competent in that behalf or appointed on the basis of the social status certificate already issued or an affidavit duly sworn by the parent/guardian/candidate before the competent officer or non-official and such admission or appointment should be only provisional, subject to the result of the inquiry by the Scrutiny Committee.

¶56

11. The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶57

12. No suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie.

¶58

13. The High Court would dispose of these cases as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months. In case, as per its procedure, the writ petition/miscellaneous petition/matter is disposed of by a Single Judge, then no further appeal would lie against that order to the Division Bench but subject to special leave under Article 136.

¶59

14. In case, the certificate obtained or social status claimed is found to be false, the parent/guardian/the candidate should be prosecuted for making false claim. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude, disqualification for elective posts or offices under the State or the Union or elections to any local body, legislature or Parliament.

¶60

9

¶61

15. As soon as the finding is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the certificate obtained was false, on its cancellation and confiscation simultaneously, it should be communicated to the educational institution concerned or the appointing authority by registered post with acknowledgment due with a request to cancel the admission or the appointment. The Principal etc. of the educational institution responsible for making the admission or the appointing authority, should cancel the admission/appointment without any further notice to the candidate and debar the candidate from further study or continue in office in a post.”

¶62

8 ) In the matter of Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the services of a government servant cannot be reverted without referring the matter to the Scrutiny Committee. In paras 6 & 7, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

¶63

“6. Here we find that the Maharashtra State Electricity Board acting upon the direction of the 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. We may notice that in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case [supra] this Court observed:-

¶64

"13. The admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly 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 appointment 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"

¶65

Similar observation have been made in Director of Tribal Welfare v. Laveti Giri, [1995] 4 SCC 32. This aspect of the matter has been noticed following the observation of this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. v. Addl. Commissioner Tribal Development, Thane and Ors., (second) [1997] 5 SCC 437 ] in Punit Rai v. Dinesh Chaudhary, JT (2003) {Suppl. 1} SC 557 at 574]:-

¶66

10

¶67

“3. As regards prayer (b) read with direction (iv) of the order of this Court, we too appreciate the inconvenience caused due to vast area of the State. Therefore, instead of one committee of three officers, there will be three Scheduled tribe/Caste Scrutiny Committees comprising of five member with quorum of three members, as suggested in par 4 of the direction, to take a decision. At Pune, Nasik and Nagpur, six caste scrutiny committees for SCs, Denotified Tribes, Nomadic Tribes, other Backward Classes and the Special Backward category in existence at Mumbai, Pune, Nasik, Aurangabad, Amravati and Nagpur would continue to scrutinise the certificate issued by the respective officers and take a decision in that behalf. In this regard, it is also suggested by Shri Dholakia, learned senior council for the applicant, that in case any certificate has been wrongfully refused by the certificate issuing authority, the afore-stated committees also would go into the question and decide in that behalf, whether refusal was wrongful and in case it finds that the refusal was wrongful, they are at liberty to direct the authority to grant the certificate.

¶68

5. With regard to prayer (d), along with the Vigilance Cell, one research officer/tribal development or social welfare officer would be associated in finding the social status of eligibility of the officers."

¶69

7. In view of fact that the appellant's case was not referred to the appropriate Committee, the judgment and order under challenge deserves to be set aside. It will be open to the Maharashtra State Electricity Board to refer the matter o the Scrutiny Committee for verifying the eligibility of the appellant. We direct that the appellant shall be reinstated forthwith as Assistant Engineer and shall continue to hold the said post till the matter is decided by the Committee. The appeal is allowed on the aforementioned terms. There shall be no order as to cost. ”

¶70

9 ) In the matter of R. Rani (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has

¶71

held that if a civil servant has been removed from services without referring the matter to the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee only on the basis of false caste certificate, such employee would be entitled for restatement in the services till the matter is decided by the Committee. In paras 10 & 11, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

¶72

“10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants lastly submitted that the High Court should not have passed the order of reinstatement. This point is squarely concluded by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Sudhakar Vithal

¶73

11

¶74

Kumbhare (supra) in which on the ground of very same infirmity in the constitution of the Committee the direction was given by this Court to reinstate the government servant till the matter was decided by the Committee afresh. As such we do not find any substance in this submission as well.

¶75

11. For the foregoing reasons we do not find any merit in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed and the District Level Committee, now duly constituted by the State Government, is directed to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the circumstances of the case, we direct that there shall be no order as to costs.”

¶76

10) Taking into consideration the fact that the issue with regard to the social status certificate of the petitioner was decided by the Janpad Panchayat itself without referring the matter to the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, therefore, the decision taken by respondent No.1/Janpad Panchayat is erroneous and the subsequent orders passed by the Collector and Commissioner are also liable to be quashed. Consequently, the orders passed by the CEO, Janpad Panchayat dated 04.11.2011, by the Collector dated 27.09.2012 and by the Commissioner dated 24.06.2013 are hereby quashed. The petitioner is reinstated in the services. The respondent No.1/CEO, Janpad Panchayat would be at liberty to refer the matter to the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee for verification of the social status of the petitioner and if the matter is referred by the respondents to the High Power Committee, it is expected that such Committee shall decide the dispute expeditiously.

¶77

11) With regard to back-wages, the petitioner has not pleaded in the petition that she was not gainfully employed anywhere, therefore, the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation before the appointing authority raising this issue and in turn, the authority concerned shall decide the representation expeditiously,

¶78

12

¶79

preferably, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a

¶80

copy of this order.

¶81

12) With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), this petition is

¶82

disposed of.

¶83

Sd/-