Smt. Reena Masih Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

¶1

1 / 19

¶2

2024:CGHC:42709

¶3

AFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

Order Reserved On : 06.08.2024

¶6

Order Pronounced On : 04.11.2024

¶7

WPC No. 1105 of 2013

¶8

1 - Smt. Reena Masih W/o Ishwari Masih Aged About 50 Years Presently Posted As Staff Nurse, Regional Leprosy Training And Research Institue, Lalpur, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, C.G. , Chhattisgarh

¶9

---- Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. S/o Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Tribal Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Mandir Hasaud, Distt. Raipur C.G., Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - Jati Praman Patra Uchha Stariya Chhanbin Samiti In The Office Of Commissioner, Sc/st Tribes Development, Pandit Ravi Shankar Shukla Vishwa Vidyalaya Parisar, Raipur, Post Vishwavidyalyaa, Ps Vishwavidyalaya Thana, Dist Raipur, Cg

¶13

3 - Commissioner Sc/st Development Pandit Ravi Shankar Shukla Vishwa Vidyalaya Parisar, Raipur, Post Vishwavidyalaya, Ps Vishwavidyalaya, Thana, Dist Raipur, Cg

¶14

4 - Regional Leprosy Training And Research Institute Through Its Director, Lalpur, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg

¶15

---- Respondents

¶16

WPS No. 3611 of 2013

¶17

1 - Smt. Reena Masih W/o W/o Shri Ishwari Masih Aged About 50 Years R/o

¶18

2 / 19

¶19

Mig-65, Gautam Vihar, Deopuri,ps New Rajendra Nagar, Distt Raipur, Cg Earlier Posted As Staff Nurs In The Regional Leprosy Training And Research Institute Lalpur, Distt Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh

¶20

Versus

¶21

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. S/o Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Tribal Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh

¶22

2 - High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee Through Its President Cum Secretary, Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribal Research And Training Institute, Pt. Deendayal Upadhayay Nagar, Sector-4, Raipur, Distt Raipur, Cg

¶23

3 - Regional Leprosy Training And Research Institute Through Its Director, Lalpur, Raipur, Distt Raipur, Cg

¶24

----Respondents
For Respective Petitioners : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate and Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate
For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas, J. CAV ORDER
1. Since an identical issue and common question of facts are involved in these writ petitions, they are heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.

¶25

The petitioner in WPC No. 1105/2013 has prayed for setting aside the order dated 11.06.2013 issued by respondent No. 2, High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee (in short ‘Scrutiny Committee’) by which the caste certificate of the petitioner has been set aside and it has been held that the petitioner does not belong to the 'Gond' community which is a notified Scheduled Tribe in the State of Chhattisgarh. It has

¶26

3 / 19

¶27

further directed the employer department to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law. The petitioner in WPS No. 3611/2013 has prayed for quashing of order 30.07.2013 issued by the respondent Director Regional Leprosy Institute Raipur (Annexure P/1) by which the services of the petitioner who was working as Staff Nurse has been terminated in view of the cancellation of caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee.

¶28

The brief facts, as reflected from the records of the WPC No. 1105/2013 are that late Shri Barnabas Sadhu, the grandfather of the petitioner originally belonged to Sarbahara village of Pendra Tehsil in the Bilaspur District. The grandfather of the petitioner was born in the year 1895-96 at village Sarbahra and died in the year 1979. He told his wife Smt. R. Sadhu that his parents were from Gond community of Sarbahra and his parents died when he was 4 years old. He was taken care of by the Missionary of Pendra Road. He was sent to Damoh Mission Boarding along with other orphan boys and he was given biblical name as Barnbas, son of Prabhudas Sadhu, by the missionaries. He embraced Christianity from Gond community in the year 1915. It is further submitted that after completion of his studies from Damoh Mission School, the grandfather of the petitioner was sent by the Missionaries to his native place at village Sarbahra in Pendra Tehsil, District Bilaspur, where he became the first Head Master and in the year 1931-32 he constructed a house at Sarbahra but later on sold the same to one Shri Mangal Badi as he left the job and went to Bishrampur, Tehsil Baloda Bazar. It is further submitted that during the year 1940, grandfather of the petitioner purchased land at his wife's residence at Pendridih, Jarhagaon area from late Shri Ramkishor

¶29

4 / 19

¶30

Malgujar, and constructed his own house at Pendridih and also purchased land for cultivation. During the year 1940, Malgujari system was prevailing and a sale deed used to be executed on One Rupee stamp paper before the witness in which complete address including the caste and religion of the purchaser was recorded. Accordingly, the name of late B. Sadhu, son of Prabhudas Sadhu, Gond Isai, petitioner's grandfather was recorded in the stamp paper. It is further submitted that in the year 1982, father of the petitioner Shri P. K. Sadhu approached the Tehsildar Bilaspur for issuance of Scheduled Tribe (Gond) certificate duly supported by the statements of his mother Smt. R. Sadhu, Pastor B. L. Gulal, Rev. J. R. Singh, Mr. S.D. Rai, Mr. Kewal Dass and Shri Alexender Philiphs and the stamp paper of 1940 in favor of late Shri B. Sadhu in which the caste Gond and religion Christianity was recorded. The said stamp paper was verified by the Tehsildar and Patwari verified from the other sources and after full satisfaction, the ST (Gond) certificate was issued in favour of Shri P. K. Sadhu, father of the petitioner. The Deputy Collector duly countersigned the aforesaid certificate issued by the Tehsildar and Sanyojak, Adim Jati Kalyan Vibhag, Bilaspur and necessary entry has been made in the service book of Shri P. K. Sadhu. The original stamp paper of 1940 was, available with Smt. R. Sadhu, grandmother of the petitioner.

¶31

It has also been contended that as per the instructions of the Government, all the caste certificates are to be issued by the Adim Jati Kalyan Vibhag only. Accordingly, the Scheduled Tribe certificate in favour of the petitioner Smt. Reena Masih was issued on the basis of her father's certificate after due verification by the Tehsildar Bilaspur

¶32

5 / 19

¶33

which was again countersigned by the Deputy Collector. It is also the case of the petitioner that she was appointed as Staff Nurse in the year 1990 against the existing vacancy of Staff Nurse in the Regional Leprosy Training and Research Centre, Lalpur, Raipur which was reserved for candidate belonging to ST category. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Joint Collector, Bilaspur, vide letter dated 04.09.1998 directed the petitioner to get her caste certificate verified from Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bilaspur. The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Bilaspur, cancelled the caste certificate issued to the petitioner vide order dated 05.05.1999. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing W.P. No. 2400/1999. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 07.02.2000 stayed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and directed the respondent No. 2 to take a decision within a period of 10 weeks.

¶34

In pursuance of the direction of the High Court, the petitioner appeared before respondent No. 2 on 12.02.2003 along with all the relevant documents in originals. After the enquiry in February 2003, there was no correspondence from respondent No. 2 and it was presumed that the enquiry has been completed and the representation along with the documents have been accepted. In the meanwhile, unfortunately the original stamp paper of 1940 of grandfather of the petitioner Late Shri B. Sadhu and the original Rin pústika of P.K. Sadhu (petitioner's father) were lost on 14.01.2004. The respondent No. 2 passed the order dated 29.08.2005 whereby the social caste status certificate issued to the petitioner was cancelled and the petitioner was declared not belonging to Gond Community. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court being

¶35

6 / 19

¶36

W.P. No. 4881/2005. The said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 04.02.2011 whereby the order dated 29.08.2005 issued by respondent No. 2 was quashed and respondent No. 2 was directed to proceed in accordance with the directives issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Hon'ble Court.

¶37

Thereafter, vide notice dated 22.10.2011 the petitioner was informed that respondent No. 2 had obtained a vigilance report and further that in the record investigated everywhere 'Xtian' appears in the column for caste and he was directed to submit her reply by 15.11.2011. The petitioner submitted her preliminary objection to the said notice dated 22.10.2011 on 15.11.2011. Respondent No. 2 did not consider the said objection raised by the petitioner and directed the petitioner to submit her detailed reply and also to submit the material to prove her social caste status. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted her detailed reply on 31.01.2012. In addition to the said reply submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner even presented Shri Nirmal Kumar and Shri Samsher Samuel, Father of Church at Bishrampur, Block Baloda Bazar, on 26.02.2012. They certified the documents pertaining to the record of the church which were of the year 1941. This was even marked in the record by the Scrutiny Committee that the said document pertaining to the year 1941 wherein it has been categorically recorded that the caste of Shri B. Sadhu as Gond. The original record was brought by the Fathers from the Church and the record before the Scrutiny Committee was compared with the original and the same was found correct. Thereafter, the petitioner with the permission of the Scrutiny Committee examined two more witnesses namely Shri Bhaiyalal and Shri Krishnapal to substantiate her case. It is also the case of the

¶38

7 / 19

¶39

petitioner that the Scrutiny Committee again went into an enquiry to prove that the petitioner did not belong to the said tribe and was not a member of the said tribe. Respondent No. 2 again directed the vigilance cell vide letter dated 11.04.2012 to make an enquiry into the sale deeds executed by the grandfather of the petitioner. Vigilance cell vide letter dated 27.04.2012 requested the Sub-Registrar, Bilaspur, to supply the necessary documents. The vigilance cell forwarded certain land record relating to one Purudas, son of Mahangu Satnami of the same village. On the basis of the said document and record the petitioner was directed to produce document to show that Purudas was not the great grandfather of the petitioner. The petitioner applied for obtaining the family tree of the said Purudas who was by caste a satnami and not gond. It is also the case of the petitioner said Shri Purudas was not the great grandfather of the petitioner infact he belonged to a separate family. The Patwari submitted the detailed report on 14.05.2012 which was produced before respondent No. 2. It is pertinent to mention that the vigilance cell even took statements from family members of said Purudas who denied that the petitioner had anything to do with their family. But the said statements were not supplied to the petitioner. The great grandfather of the petitioner was Prabhudas and not Purudas. This is further evident from the sale deeds executed in 1940 which categorically recorded the name of the great grandfather of the petitioner as Prabhudas. The petitioner submitted the said documents to demonstrate that Purudas has nothing to do with the family of the petitioner. So much so that the report submitted by the vigilance cell contained a document being a sale deed executed on 02.04.1959 executed before the Sub-Registrar

¶40

8 / 19

¶41

wherein the grandfather of the petitioner namely Shri B. Sadhu was a witness and the said document of 1959 also categorically recorded that the great grandfather of the petitioner was Shri Prabhudas Sadhu and not Purudas. Respondent No. 2 had itself suo moto proceeded to establish a relationship between the petitioner and the said family of Purudas. The said exercise on part of respondent No. 2 is absolutely arbitrary, and in excess of jurisdiction. It is also the case of the petitioner that the vigilance cell has not supplied final report to the petitioner. The petitioner even requested the Scrutiny Committee that in the alternative it may kindly be considered that the petitioner had already put in more than 20 years of service and the petitioner may be denied from receiving any further future benefit, but for the present she may be permitted to continue in service and be treated as a unreserved candidate. The arguments were finally heard on 21.08.2012 and the matter was closed for orders. The impugned order dated 11.06.2013 was received by the petitioner along with a covering letter dated 20.06.2013.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order dated 11.06.2013 is illegal, arbitrary and based on conjectures and surmises and has been issued without holding a due and proper enquiry with regard to the case status of the petitioner. He would further submit that the impugned order has been passed by completely ignoring ample material and evidence placed on record by the petitioner, which clearly establish that the petitioner belongs to Gond community. He would further submit that the entire enquiry has been conducted by respondent No. 2 is wholly misplaced because the enquiry could have proceeded only after there was an adverse report

¶43

9 / 19

¶44

against the petitioner by the vigilance cell. Vigilance cell submitted a report that in all the relevant record where caste is to be recorded, 'Xtian' is recorded and therefore they could not with certainty ascertain the caste status of the petitioner. This clearly shows that there was no adverse material against the petitioner to show that the petitioner had claimed a caste certificate of Gond by not belonging to Gond community. The burden of proof was duly discharged by the petitioner once the petitioner produced relevant material to show that she belongs to Gond community. He would further submit that the impugned order is based on a completely misconceived notion as if the petitioner after having adopted / embraced Christianity as a religion ceased to be a tribal and 'Isai' does in any manner mean that the petitioner does not belong to tribal community.

¶45

To substantiate his submission he would refer to judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ku. Madhuri Patil Vs Additional Commissioner (1994)6 SCC 241 , in the case of Smt. Yogita Somawar (Thawait) Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh vide its order dated 26/06/2012 passed in W.P. No. 14147/2011, State of Maharastra Vs Milind and Others, (2001) 1 SCC, Dattu, S/o Namdev Thakur V. State of Maharastra and Others, (2012) 1 SCC 549.

¶46

The respondent State in its reply would submit that as per the documents filed by the petitioner herself i.e. Revenue records and school certificates, her social status has been shown as being of "Christian" (ईसाई) social status and no document or official document of the petitioner or her forefathers have been annexed by the petitioner

¶47

10 / 19

¶48

to substantiate that she is of a Scheduled Tribe (Gond). It has also been contended that the onus and the burden of proof of social status lies upon the person who is claiming benefit arising out of it. The petitioner miserably failed to discharge her burden. It has also been contended that the Scrutiny Committee has conducted procedure as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, (1994) 6 SCC 241, and passed the order. It has also been contended that from the records of the Scrutiny Committee it is quite vivid that the petitioner has adopted Christianity and there is no material on record to suggest that she has again adopted the custom of the Tribal Gond to take advantage of the reservation. It is well settled position of law that the following things have to be established by the benefciary of the caste certificate that there must be absolute clear cut proof that she belongs to that caste which has been recognized by the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 and there has been reconversion to the original religion to which the parents and earlier generation belonged to and there has to be evidence establishing acceptance by the community and each aspect is very significance and if one is not substantiated the recognisation is not possible and in the present case all the ingredients are missing , therefore, the Scrutiny Committee has not committed any illegality in setting aside the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. As such, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶49

The employer in its reply would submit that the petitioner was appointed in the Regional Leprosy Training and Research Institute as

¶50

11 / 19

¶51

Staff Nurse against the reserved post of Scheduled Tribes (ST). The caste certificate submitted by the petitioner was forwarded to the Collector, Bilaspur for verification of the same. The Joint Collector, Collectorate, Bilaspur sent a verification report by letter dated 11/01/1999 wherein it was mentioned that caste of the petitioner is not "Gond", so the certificate of Gond-ST community submitted by her is not legal. It is further submitted that on the basis of verification report, the petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect in terms of Rule 10 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules (in short hereafter referred to as "CCA Rules"), vide order dated 16/02/1999. The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Bilaspur on 05/05/1999 directed to cancel the appointment of the petitioner given to her on the post of ST with immediate effect. In compliance of the order of the High Power Committee, vide order dated 21/09/2005 cancelled the appointment of the petitioner which was assailed before this Court and this Court vide order dated 04/02/2011 in W.P. No. 4881/05 has quashed the order dated 29/08/2005 of the High Power Caste Screening Committee, Raipur and directed the Scrutiny Committee to proceed in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, (1994) 6 SCC 241, in Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of A.P. Vs. Laveti Giri and another, (1995) 4 SCC 32 and further explained by this High Court in Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, and other connected matters W.P.(S) No.3338/2007 decided on in 19th August, 2010. Again the Scrutiny Committee vide impugned order

¶52

12 / 19

¶53

dated 11.06.2013 set aside the caste certificate. She filed WPC No. 1105/2013 wherein this Court on 02.08.2013 granted stay and directed that no action shall be taken against the petitioner, if no order has been passed, till the next date of hearing. The interim order passed by this Court is continued, therefore, no action has been taken against the petitioner.

¶54

This Court has called upon the record of the Scrutiny Committee and it was found that a notice dated 21.04.2011 was issued to the petitioner to submit information regarding custom, marriage, worship of god which she is adopting, culture along with notification issued by His Excellency the President of India mentioning the caste in which she is claiming herself, Missle Bhuabhilekh, educational document or any Government document or Ethnic Form upto 30.04.2011 but the petitioner has submitted only the sale deed dated 03.06.1940, Kistbandi Khatoini of 2008-09, sale deed dated 02.04.1969 and Khasra Panchsala of 2000 to 2009. The vigilance report dated 21.09.2011 has also been made available wherein it has been mentioned that the word Gond has been inserted after doing manipulation in the Khasra Panchasala and other documents there was no description of the Gond Caste. The order sheet of the case would further demonstrate that on 15.11.2011 the petitioner appeared along with her counsel and raised objection about initiation of the proceeding and also sought 3 weeks time to submit the records regarding caste of her forefathers therefore, the proceeding was adjourned to 05.12.2011. The proceeding was adjourned for want of Quorum and matter was fixed on 17.01.2012. On 17.01.2012 the applicant appeared along with her counsel and also stated that since 4

¶55

13 / 19

¶56

months have already been lapsed as directed by the High Court therefore, the Scrutiny Committee has no jurisdiction. The Scrutiny Committee has also observed that in the vigilance report there is no verification about the original place of forefathers of the petitioner and their caste and the applicant has prayed for time to produce the record which was allowed. On 31.01.2012 the petitioner appeared and prayed for time to produce the record which was allowed and the matter was fixed for 07.02.2012. On 07.02.2012 the petitioner along with counsel and her witnesses appeared but she intended to examine further evidence, therefore, she sought time which was allowed and the matter was taken up on 26.03.2012. On 26.03.2012, the witnesses were examined but no documents to establish that the petitioner belongs to Gond community has been produced. The proceeding was adjourned to 01.05.2012, 12.06.2012, 10.07.2012, 31.07.2012 and 21.08.2012. On 21.08.2012 the petitioner has stated that whatever the documents are available with her that have already been produced. The learned committee after considering the entire facts and also considering the law the burden lies upon the person to claim benefits of the reservation on his but the petitioner has failed to produce the same accordingly it has rejected the caste certificate. Since the caste certificate found to be illegal, the Scrutiny Committee has directed the employer to take action in accordance with law against the petitioner and accordingly her services were terminated on 30.07.2013 which has been assailed in WPS No. 3611 of 2013 on the same factual and legal foundation.

¶57

This Court to avoid repetition has not taken into consideration the facts pleaded in WPS as on the same factual matrix the petitioner has

¶58

14 / 19

¶59

challenged the order of cancellation of caste certificate which has already been refused by this Court in foregoing paragraph of judgement.

¶60

The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that in view of seriousness of the allegation the petitioner should be given a fair opportunity to cross examine the witnesses who were examined by the Scrutiny Committee, as such the order cancelling the caste certificate is contrary to the principle of natural justice and on this count alone the impugned orders deserve to be quashed. To substantiate this submission he has referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra and Others. 2013 (4) SCC 465 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

¶61

“46. In view of the above discussion and considering the seriousness of the allegations, as the Scrutiny Committee has already conducted an inquiry in relation to this matter, and the only grievance of the appellant is that there has been non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, and the fact that the applications filed by him, were not decided upon, we direct that before the submission of any report by the Scrutiny Committee, his application for calling the witnesses for cross-examination must be disposed of, and appellant must be given a fair opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, who have been examined before the Committee. We further direct the Scrutiny Committee to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law thereafter. In case, the Scrutiny Committee has already taken a decision, the same being violative of the principles of natural justice, would stand vitiated.”

¶62

This submission deserves to be rejected as from the record it is quite vivid that no such application was filed before the Scrutiny Committee to her an opportunity of cross-examination. In absence of any prayer for cross-examining the witnesses, the grounds raised by the petitioner cannot be considered. Thus, the submission made by the counsel for

¶63

15 / 19

¶64

the petitioner that no fair opportunity was given to the petitioner is misconceived and same deserves to be rejected.

¶65

The record of the Scrutiny Committee would clearly demonstrate that petitioner has failed to place any material, evidence on record to prove that she belongs to the Gond community, therefore, there is no perversity in the findings of the Scrutiny Committee. It is well settled position of law that the High Court while deciding the validity of the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee cannot act as appellate authority and can interfere only when perversity or illegality is apparent on the face of record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Navneet Kaur Harbhajan Singh Kundles vs State of Maharashtra in Civil Appeal No. 2741-2743/2024 decided on 04.04.2024 has held in paragraph 15 to 17 as under :-

¶66

Now, when the Scrutiny Committee which is principally tasked with the fact-finding exercise for validation of caste claim, had applied its mind and reached a conclusion, then in such a situation, whether a roving enquiry by High Court was required? It is well settled that High Courts as well as Supreme Court should refrain themselves from deeper probe into factual issues like an appellate body unless the inferences made by the concerned authority suffers from perversity on the face of it or are impermissible in the eyes of law. In the instant case, the order passed by Scrutiny Committee reflects due appreciation of evidence and application of mind and in absence of any allegation of bias/malice or lack of jurisdiction, disturbing the findings of Scrutiny Committee cannot be sustained.

¶67

In view of the above discussion, if we take a look at the findings of the High Court in said perspective and deal with each findings individually, it would rather burden the judgment unnecessarily and therefore, we deem it appropriate to confine our analysis only to those findings by which the High Court has upset the reasonings adopted by Scrutiny Committee to admit those two documents, i.e.,the bona-fide certificate of Appellant’s grandfather and indenture of tenancy of year 1932 to allow the claim of Appellant. With respect to bona-fide certificate, the High Court opined that the Scrutiny Committee did not deal with the observations made by Vigilance Cell that the original student register was not produced by the Vice-Principal for inspection and that the handwriting and ink of the last two entries made in the said register did not match. The High Court itself perused the coloured

¶68

16 / 19

¶69

photocopy of the last page of the register146 [2024] 4 S.C.R.Digital Supreme Court Reports and affirmed the difference in handwriting and the ink by appreciating the said evidence. On the other hand, insofar as the indenture of tenancy of year 1932 is concerned, the High Court in contradiction with the Scrutiny Committee was of the view that the alleged rent agreement was relied upon by Appellant much later in time, coupled with the fact that it did not make any sense for a landlord and tenant in a private rent agreement to mention the caste of tenant. The High Court further observed that to substantiate the rent agreement, the Scrutiny Committee heavily relied upon the affidavit of one Smt. Radha Adukiya, i.e., the granddaughter of the erstwhile landlord who rentedthe property in favour of Appellant’s grandfather. In the said affidavit,Smt. Akudia deposed that her grandfather rented the property in favour of Appellant’s grandfather and further identified his signatures too. Smt. Akudiya at the time of deposition herself was about 82 years of age and she recognized the signatures of her grandfather on an agreement allegedly executed 55 years back. In view of the same,the High Court was of the opinion that Scrutiny Committee failed in not carrying out an enquiry in finding out the authenticity of the said rent agreement. With these primary findings, the High Court quashed and set-aside the order of Scrutiny Committee.

¶70

Having perused the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee and findings recorded by it to reach its subjective satisfaction with respect to claim of Appellant, at this juncture, if we look at the whole exercise carried out by High Court from the perspective of settled principles of law for invocation of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, particularly in relation of writ of certiorari, it leaves us with no scope of doubt that the High Court has clearly overstepped byreappreciating the evidence in absence of any allegation of mala-fide or perversity. As fairly settled by this Court in catena of judgments,the writ of certiorari being a writ of high prerogative, should not be invoked on mere asking. The purpose of a writ of certiorari for a superior Court is not to review or reweigh the evidence to adjudicate unless warranted. The jurisdiction is supervisory and the Court exercising it, ought to refrain to act as an appellate court unless the facts so warrant. It also ought not re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own conclusion interfering with a finding unless perverse. The High Court in a writ for certiorari should not interfere when such challenge is on the ground of insufficiency or adequacy of material to sustain the impugned finding. Assessment of adequacy or [2024] 4 S.C.R. 147 Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles @ Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana v.State of Maharashtra and Other sufficiency of evidence in the case at hand, fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Scrutiny Committee and reagitation of challenge on such grounds ought not have been entertained by High Court in a routine manner.

¶71

The further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that

¶72

though she has adopted the Christianity but she is Gond but no material has been placed on record to show that she has been

¶73

17 / 19

¶74

reconverted to Gond or followed the ritual and culture of the tribal which was required to be proved by the petitioner to establish that she is Gond. The issue with regard to re-conversion and grant of benefits of reservation has come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of K. P. Manu v. Scrutiny Committee for verification of Community Certificated reported in (2015) 4 SCC 24 reads as under:

¶75

“38. In our considered opinion, three things that need to be established by a person who clams to be a beneficiary of the caste certificate are: (I) there must be absolutely clear-cut proof that he belongs to the caste that has been recognized by the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, (ii) there has been reconversion to the original religion to which the parents and earlier generations had belonged; and (iii) there has to be evidence establishing the acceptance by the community. Each aspect according to us is very significant, and if one is not substantiated, the recognition would not be possible.

¶76

In the case at hand, as far as the first aspect is concerned, as we have stated hereinbefore, there is no dispute. If a person who is born to Christian parents who has converted to Christianity from the Scheduled Caste Hindu can avail the benefit of the caste certificate after his embracing Hinduism subject to other qualifications, there cannot be any soundness of logic that he cannot avail the similar benefit because his grandparents were converted and he was born to the parents who were Christians. They must have belonged to that caste and after conversion the community has accepted. Our view is fortified by the authority in S. Anbalagan. Thus, the reasoning as ascribed by the Scrutiny Committee as well as by the High Court on this score is unacceptable.

¶77

The law with regard to prove the genuineness of the caste certificate is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions and it has been held that burden of proof that he/she belongs to tribe lies with him/her as it is assumed that the person who seeks caste certificate must surely be aware of the caste, tribe or class to which he

¶78

18 / 19

¶79

or she belongs to and must establish the claim. In the present case the Scrutiny Committee has given ample opportunity to the petitioner to prove that she belongs to Gond community but she has not availed of the opportunities by placing the documents, materials on record. Thus, the Scrutiny Committee has not committed any illegality in canceling the caste certificate. The issue with regard to burden of proof has come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Surpreme Court in case of Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and Others vs. Jagdish Balram Bahira and Others {2017 (8) SCC 670} wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :-

¶80

Section 10, it must be noted, provides for the withdrawal of civil benefits which have accrued to an individual on the strength of a claim to belong to a PART A reserved category, when the claim upon due enquiry and verification is invalidated. Section 10, as its marginal note indicates, provides for the withdrawal of benefits secured on the basis of a false caste certificate. Section 11 provides for offences and penalties. The invalidation of a caste certificate may result in two consequences : (i) immediate cancellation or withdrawal of the benefits received by the candidate on the basis of a false caste certificate; (ii) prosecution of a claimant who procures a certificate which is found to be false by the Scrutiny Committee. The intent of a candidate may be of relevance only if there is a prosecution for a criminal offence. However, where a civil consequence of withdrawing the benefits which have accrued on the basis of a false caste claim is in issue, it would be contrary to the legislative intent to import the requirement of a dishonest intent. In importing such a requirement, the bench of two Judges in Shalini (supra) has, with great respect, fallen into error. The judgment in Shalini (supra) must, therefore, be held not to lay down the correct principle. In the very nature of things it would be casting an impossible burden to delve into the mental processes of an applicant for a caste certificate. As the provisions of the Act indicate, a person, who claims to belong to a reserved category and who seeks the benefit of an appointment to a reserved post or of admission to an educational institution against a reserved seat or any other benefit provided by the provisions of Article 15(4), has to apply for the grant of a caste certificate. The burden of proof that he or she belongs to such a caste, tribe or class lies with the claimant. The legislature has legitimately assumed that a person who seeks a caste certificate must surely be aware of the caste, tribe or class to which he or she belongs and must establish the claim. If the claim to belong to the reserved PART A category is found to be untrue, the caste certificate has to be cancelled on the ground that it has been obtained falsely. The grant of the benefit to the candidate is fraudulent because

¶81

19 / 19

¶82

the candidate has obtained a benefit reserved exclusively for a specified caste, tribe or class to which he or she is not entitled. The decision in Shalini (supra) would result in serious consequences and would eviscerate the statutory provision. The interpretation which has been placed on the provisions of Section 10 by the judgment in Shalini (supra) is evidently incorrect.

¶83

From the above discussion and considering the facts, law on the subject it is quite vivid that the petitioner is unable to prove before the Committee that she belongs to Gond community and even after re-conversion she is following the Gond culture and customs, thus order passed by the Scrutiny Committee is legal, justified and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Since, the caste certificate of the petitioner has been cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee and the same is affirmed, therefore, the consequence has to be followed.

¶84

Consequently, both the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed accordingly, they are dismissed. The interim order passed in WPC No. 1105/2013 on 02.08.2013 is vacated.

¶85

Sd/-

¶86

(Narendra Kumar Vyas)

¶87

Judge

¶88

Bhumika

Smt. Reena Masih v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Reena Masih v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Murli Satnami Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Premlal Nayak Vs Shri Rajesh Sukumar Toppo

M/S Yash Constructions and Suppliers Vs Abhinash Mishra

Vijender Singh Chouhan Vs Akanksha Singh

Advit Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Reena Masih Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.