Allowed

Pradeep Kumar Sonkar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC8 Jan 2024WPS/4404/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh quashed notices and inquiry proceedings initiated by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee against a petitioner seeking to verify his caste certificate. The court held that reopening the matter was impermissible as it had been finally decided.

What did the court decide?

Notices issued by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee and the Vigilance Committee were quashed/set aside, and any initiated inquiry was also quashed.

Pradeep Kumar Sonkar Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

AFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 4404 of 2019

¶5

Pradeep Kumar Sonkar S/o Late Shri Jeevanlal Sonkar Aged About 45 Years R/o A/2 Archana Vihar Gandi Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

2. Higher Power Caste Scrutiny Committee Through Its Presedent Cum Secretary, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

3. Member of Secretary High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

4. Vigilance Inspector Vigilance Cell, High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee Indrawati Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate along with Mr. Sourabh Shukla, Advocate For Intervener : Mr. K. K. Shrivastava, Advocate For State : Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, Government Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶16

09.01.2024

¶17

1 The petitioner has challenged the notices issued by respondent No. 2/High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee vide Annexures P/1 and P/2 dated 04.08.2018 and 04.09.2019, respectively, whereby the petitioner was directed to appear before the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee for verification of his caste certificate.

¶18

2 The facts of the present case are that the petitioner is a member of the

¶19

¶20

Scheduled Caste community, particularly Sonkar/Sunkar caste, and a caste certificate was issued in his favour by the prescribed authority on 12.08.2009, wherein, he is shown as a member of Scheduled Caste community, caste Sonkar/Sunkar, which is a notified Scheduled Caste. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Senior Auditor in Local Fund Audit, Finance Department, Chhattisgarh on 22.05.2004, thereafter he was promoted to the post of Assistant Director vide order dated 05.09.2018. The caste certificate of the petitioner was referred to the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee for verification and the same was invalidated by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee/respondent No. 2 vide order dated 17.01.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the order dated 17.01.2012 by filing WPS No. 787 of 2012 before this Court and an interim order was granted in his favour. During the pendency of that petition, the petitioner produced certain documents before the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee and an order was passed in his favour by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee on 15.10.2015. The petitioner withdrew WPS No. 787 of 2012. Thereafter, the intervener, Digvijay Das Sirmour filed WPS No. 429 of 2016 challenging therein the order of the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee passed in favour of the petitioner on 01.02.2015. A reply was filed by the State wherein it was specifically stated that after due verification, the caste certificate of the petitioner was found valid, thereafter, the intervener again made a complaint during the pendency of WPS No. 429 of 2016 before respondent No. 2/the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee and two notices vide Annexures P/1 & P/2 were issued against the petitioner for his presence before the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee. Thereafter, the writ petition filed by the intervener i.e. WPS No. 429 of 2016, was dismissed by this Court being rendered infructuous on 11.10.2023.

¶21

3 The petitioner in the present petition has challenged the notices issued by respondent No. 2/the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee and the Vigilance Committee on the complaint of the intervener.

¶22

¶23

4 Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier the matter was thoroughly scrutinized by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee and an order was passed in favour of the petitioner wherein the caste certificate issued in the year 2009 in favour of the petitioner was found valid and again the same issue cannot be re-opened by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee on the basis of a false and frivolous complaint.

¶24

5 He would rely on Rule 19 of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Cases, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013, which talks about Registration of cases by High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee. The aforesaid rule is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-

¶25

“19 . Registration of the Cases by High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee .-(1) The Higher Power Certification Scrutiny Committee shall register the referred cases by Verification Committee or by the State Government or by the State Government in FORM-5G.”

¶26

6 Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that a complaint made by a stranger or private person cannot be entertained by the Committee/respondent No. 2.

¶27

7 In support thereof, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of J Chitra v. State Power Vigilance Committee, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 654.

¶28

8 He would also rely on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patila & Another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal, reported in AIR 1995 SC 94 wherein in para 13(7) it was held as under:-

¶29

“13(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.”

¶30

9 Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the intervener had

¶31

¶32

no locus standi to make a complaint before the Committee; thus, he would pray to quash the proceedings initiated by respondent No. 2/the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee vide notices Annexure - P/1 & P/2 against the petitioner.

¶33

10 Per contra, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Tiwari would submit that the caste certificate issued by the State was itself in favour of the petitioner and vide order dated 17.01.2012, the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled, and thereafter, again an application was moved by the petitioner himself and order was reviewed by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee vide Annexure P/8 dated 15.10.2015 where the caste certificate of the petitioner was found valid. He would further submit that again the matter has been reopened by the Committee exercising the power of review which is not permissible.

¶34

11 On the other hand, Mr. Tribhuwan Das, learned counsel appearing for the intervener would submit that one petition filed by the petitioner and one filed by the intervener have already been rendered infructuous, in the light of the disposal of those petitions, the present petition has also become infructuous. He would also submit that vide order dated 17.01.2012, the caste certificate of the petitioner was cancelled, but vide order dated 15.10.2015, the caste certificate was not declared valid by the Committee and that order was not signed by the president of the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee.

¶35

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

¶36

13 From a perusal of the documents, it appears that the caste certificate in question was issued in favour of the petitioner. Earlier the petitioner was appointed to the post of Senior Auditor in Local Fund Audit, Finance Department, Chhattisgarh on 22.05.2004. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Director vide

¶37

¶38

order dated 05.09.2018. A complaint was made and the caste certificate of the petitioner was referred to the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee and vide order dated 17.01.2012, the aforesaid caste certificate was cancelled. Later on, the petitioner obtained certain documents and again approached the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, after due verification and scrutiny, the caste certificate of the petitioner was declared valid and it was found that the petitioner is a member of the Scheduled Caste, particularly, Sonkar/Sunkar caste. The order passed by respondent No. 2/High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee was challenged by the intervener before this Court by filing WPS No. 429 of 2016, but the same has been dismissed as being rendered infructuous.

¶39

14 The caste certificate of the petitioner was duly scrutinized by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee according to the existing rules and provisions in light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patila (supra).

¶40

15 The intervener made a complaint during the pendency of WPS No. 429 of 2016 before the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee. Thereafter, notices vide Annexure P/1 dated 04.08.2018 and vide Annexure P/2 dated 04.09.2019, were issued to the petitioner for his presence before the Committee.

¶41

16 The matter which was already decided by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee in the year 2015 ought not to have been re-opened without any sufficient reason. The High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee while entertaining a frivolous complaint issued notices to the petitioner again. It is nowhere stated that the petitioner obtained the caste certificate by playing fraud or by misrepresentation therefore, reopening of such cases would be detrimental to the interest of the members of the Scheduled Caste.

¶42

17 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of J. Chitra (supra), in para 8 held as under: -

¶43

¶44

“8. In the instant case, an inquiry was conducted by the District Level Vigilance Committee which has upheld the community certificate in favour of the Appellant. The decision of the District Level Vigilance Committee in the year 1999 has not been challenged in any forum. The recognition of the community certificate issued in favour of the Appellant by the District Vigilance Committee having become final, the State Level Scrutiny Committee did not have jurisdiction to reopen the matter and remand for fresh consideration by the District Level Vigilance Committee. The guidelines issued by G.O.108 dated 12.09.2007 do not permit the State Level Scrutiny Committee to reopen cases which have become final. The purpose of verification of caste certificates by Scrutiny Committees is to avoid false and bogus claims. Repeated inquiries for verification of caste certificates would be detrimental to the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Reopening of inquiry into caste certificates can be only in case they are vitiated by fraud or when they were issued without proper inquiry.”

¶45

18 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patila (supra), in

¶46

para 13 has summarized the manner of inquiry as under:-

¶47

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:

¶48

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.

¶49

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.

¶50

¶51

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.

¶52

All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely, (1) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the department concerned, (11) 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.

¶53

Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in over-all 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 pro forma, 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.

¶54

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 acknowledgement 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

¶55

¶56

opportunity 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.

¶57

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.

¶58

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.

¶59

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.

¶60

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.

¶61

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

¶62

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

¶63

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 13.

¶64

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.

¶65

¶66

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 acknowledgement 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.

¶67

19 The caste certificate of the petitioner was duly enquired into and scrutinized by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee in the year 2012, and thereafter in the year 2015, therefore in the considered opinion of this Court, no further inquiry is required. The issuance of notices Annexure P/1 & P/2 to the petitioner on the complaint of the intervener would lead to unnecessary harassment of the petitioner.

¶68

20 Consequently, the petition is allowed. The notice issued by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee vide Annexure P/1 dated 04.08.2018 and the notice issued by the Vigilance Inspector vide Annexure P/2 dated 04.09.2019, are hereby quashed/set aside. The inquiry, if any, initiated by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, is also hereby quashed/set aside.

¶69

21 In the result, the petition stands allowed however there shall be no order as to cost(s).

¶70

Sd/-

¶71

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶72

Siddhant

Pradeep Kumar Sonkar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar Sonkar 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

Ramesh Kumar Rawal and Ors. Vs Himmat Lal Rawal and Ors.

Suman Krishna Haldhar Vs Smt. Sheela Haldhar

Pushpraj Sadhu Vs (Deleted) India Church Council of the Disciples of Christ

Rajeev Diwan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ku. Shabana Nisha Rani Vs Smt. Rama Bai

Prince Kumar Gupta Vs Central Bank of India