Quashed¶69

Smt. Sushma Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 Apr 2025WPC/1110/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh HC Bilaspur, WPC 1110/2021 with WPS 1504/2021, order dated 03.04.2025 (neutral citation 2025:CGHC:15611, NAFR), Rakesh Mohan Pandey J. — cancellation of government teacher/sports officer's Scheduled Caste certificate and fresh scrutiny notices quashed; authorities acted without jurisdiction, ignoring Madhuri Patil (1994) 6 SCC 241 guidelines and Chhattisgarh Social Status Certification Rules 2013; liberty to redo per law.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders/notices (Annexure P/1) in both WPC No. 1110 of 2021 and WPS No. 1504 of 2021 were quashed; the authorities concerned were left at liberty to take steps strictly in accordance with the law, if so advised. ¶69

Smt. Sushma Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶69

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned orders/notices (Annexure P/1) in both petitions — including the cancellation of the petitioner's caste certificate — were issued in adherence to the procedure established by law, in particular the mandatory procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) and the Chhattisgarh SC/ST/OBC (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Rules, 2013, and whether they are sustainable.

¶67

Court's answer

Acting on a complaint by one Murari Agrawal, the respondent authorities proceeded without jurisdiction and without following the due procedure prescribed under the Chhattisgarh SC/ST/OBC (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Rules, 2013; they scrutinised the petitioner's revenue and other documents, cancelled her 'social status certificate', and further recommended to the State Government the termination of her services.

¶65

Ratio / Principle

The approach adopted by the respondent authorities is in clear violation of the mandatory procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), wherein detailed guidelines were laid down for verification and cancellation of caste certificates through a properly constituted Scrutiny Committee.

¶66

Key takeaways

The impugned orders (Annexure P/1) of both petitions, having been issued without adherence to the procedure established by law and in contravention of the principles in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), are not sustainable and are quashed; however, the authorities concerned remain at liberty to take steps strictly in accordance with the law, if so advised.ratio¶69

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petitions (WPC No. 1110 of 2021 and WPS No. 1504 of 2021), decided 03.04.2025 (High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur; Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.): The petitioner, appointed as Sports Officer in 1998 on the basis of a Scheduled Caste certificate issued in 1996, challenged orders/notices dated 16.10.2020, 04.12.2020, 19.01.2021 and 10.02.2021 whereby her caste certificate ('social status certificate') was cancelled and fresh scrutiny demanded, with a recommendation for termination of service. HELD: acting on a complaint of one Murari Agrawal (who had retracted it and died in 2019), the authorities acted without jurisdiction and without following the due procedure prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Rules, 2013, and in clear violation of the mandatory procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241, which requires verification and cancellation of caste certificates through a properly constituted Scrutiny Committee. The impugned orders were therefore unsustainable and were quashed, with liberty reserved to the authorities to proceed strictly in accordance with law if so advised.

¶1

-1-

¶2

Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE

¶3

2025:CGHC:15611

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 1110 of 2021

¶7

Smt. Sushma Kumar W/o Late Shri Sanjay Kumar Aged About 59 Years R/o Sunder Nagar, Pendra Road, District Gourela-Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh

¶8

--- Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee Through The Commissioner, Sc St Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - District Level Certificates Verification Committee Through The Assistant Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, District Janjgir Champa District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Principal Pt. Madhav Rao Sapre Government College, Pendra Road, District Gourela-Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh

¶14

--- Respondent(s)

¶15

WITH

¶16

WPS No. 1504 of 2021

¶17

1 - Smt. Sushma Kumar W/o Late Shri Sanjay Kumar Aged About 59 Years R/o Sunder Nagar, Pendra Road District Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh

¶18

--- Petitioner(s)

Versus

-2-

2 - Commissioner Higher Education, Directorate, Block No. 03, First and Third Floors, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh

¶23

3 - Principal Pt. Madhav Rao Sapre Government College Pendra Road, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s)

¶24

For Petitioners : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate For State : Mr. Pramod Ramteke, Advocate

¶25

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶26

Order on Board

¶27

03.04.2025

¶28

The petitioner has filed these petitions seeking the following relief(s):-

¶29

“10.1) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to issuance of the impugned notices (Annexure P-1), for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

¶30

10.2) The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to quash the impugned notices (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondents.

¶31

10.3) Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner.

¶32

10.4) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. ”

¶33

1. The petitioner has challenged the following orders passed by the respondent

¶34

authorities:-

¶35

-3-

¶36

S. No.	Petition Number	Impugned Order (Annexure P/1)	Authority Passing the Order
01.	WPC/1110/2021	(i) 04.12.2020- Order passed by Respondent No.3 cancelling the caste certificate of the petitioner.	Assistant Commissioner-cum- Secretary, District Level Certificates Verification Committee ( Respondent No.3)
		(ii) 16.10.2020	Member Secretary, High Level Certificate Scrutiny Committee and Director, SC & ST Development, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar
02.	WPC/1504/2021	(i) 19.01.2021 (Annexure P/1)	Commissioner, Higher Education Directorate, Nava Raipur
			(respondent No.2)
		(ii) 10.02.2021 (Annexure P/1)	Additional Director, Higher Education Directorate, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar

¶37

1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would make the following submissions:-

¶38

A. A caste certificate was issued to the petitioner by the Court of Nayab Tahsildar on 31.08.1996, declaring her a member of the Scheduled Caste community.

¶39

B. On the basis of the said certificate, the petitioner applied for the post of ‘Sports Officer’ in the year 1997, and was selected on merit,

¶40

-4-

¶41

securing 9th position in the selection list. The examination was conducted by the M.P. Public Service Commission.

¶42

C. The petitioner was appointed as Sports Officer on 07.04.1998 and has been discharging her duties diligently and without any complaint for more than two decades.

¶43

D. In the year 2017, one Shri Murarilal Agrawal, claiming to be the President of Press Club, Pendra Road, made a complaint alleging that the petitioner was appointed on the basis of a forged caste certificate.

¶44

E. Subsequently, in the same year (2017), Shri Murarilal Agrawal himself submitted a letter before the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee stating that he had never filed any complaint against petitioner and that someone had misused his name for making an anonymous complaint. This communication was also forwarded to the Commissioner, Higher Education, Raipur.

¶45

F. Despite the denial by the alleged complainant and the absence of any authentic complaint, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner years later, though the original complainant passed away in 2019.

¶46

G. A notice was issued to the petitioner for the first time on 07.03.2020, followed by a reminder on 11.06.2020, and another notice on 19.06.2020 asking her to appear before the authorities concerned with original documents on 25.06.2020.

¶47

H. The petitioner challenged the said proceedings by filing WPS No. 2854 of 2020 before the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, and vide order dated 21.07.2020, Co-Ordinate Bench allowed the petition and quashed the enquiry proposed by the SDO’s letter dated 19.06.2020. Despite a clear order, fresh notices were issued to the petitioner by various authorities including the High Power Scrutiny Committee on 16.10.2020, 04.12.2020, and finally on

¶48

-5-

¶49

19.01.2021, demanding documents and evidence which were scrutinized and accepted long ago.

¶50

I. The entire proceeding appears to be arbitrary, malafide and in violation of the settled principle of law that no person should be harassed through repeated inquiries, especially when the original complaint stands disowned and the matter has already attained finality through judicial intervention.

¶51

J. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241.

¶52

K. It is also submitted that the high power caste scrutiny committee is only empowered to look into the issue of the validity of the social status report of any person.

¶53

1. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submit that a complaint was received against the petitioner and pursuant thereof, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. He would contend that the show cause notice and documents like revenue records & other documents were examined by the authorities concerned and thereafter, a decision was taken to cancel the ‘social status report’ of the petitioner. He would also submit that the petitioner was afforded due opportunity of hearing before passing the order impugned.

¶54

1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the file.

¶55

1. In the matter of Madhuri Patil (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has formulated the procedure for the issuance of social status certificates, their

¶56

-6-

¶57

scrutiny and approval. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-

¶58

"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 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:

¶59

The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue SubDivisional 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.

¶60

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 nongazetted officer with particulars of castes and subcastes, 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.

¶61

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.

¶62

-7-

¶63

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.

¶64

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. ”

¶65

1. In the present case, on the basis of a complaint made by one Murari Agrawal, the respondent authorities without having jurisdiction or following the due procedure prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Rules, 2013 proceeded to scrutinize revenue and other documents of the petitioner and canceled the ‘social status certificate’. Further, a recommendation was made to the State Government for the termination of her services.

¶66

1. The approach adopted by the respondent authorities is in clear violation of the mandatory procedure laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down detailed guidelines for the verification and cancellation of caste certificates through a properly constituted Scrutiny Committee.

¶67

1. Since the impugned orders (Annexure P/1) of both petitions have been issued without adherence to the procedure established by law and in contravention of the principles laid down in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) , the same are not

¶68

-8-

¶69

sustainable in the eyes of the law and are accordingly quashed . However, the authorities concerned would be at liberty to take steps strictly in accordance with the law, if so advised.

¶70

Sd/-

¶71

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)

¶72

Judge

¶73

NADIM

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Impugned orders/notices (Annexure P/1) challenged in the two petitions: (i) in WPC 1110/2021, order dated 16.10.2020 of the Member Secretary, High Level Certificate Scrutiny Committee/Director, SC & ST Development, and order dated 04.12.2020 of Respondent No. 3 cancelling the petitioner's caste certificate; (ii) in WPS 1504/2021, notice/order dated 19.01.2021 of the Commissioner, Higher Education Directorate, and order dated 10.02.2021 of the Additional Director, Higher Education Directorate.¶67
Member Secretary, High Level Certificate Scrutiny Committee and Director, SC & ST Development; Assistant Commissioner-cum-Secretary, District Level Certificates Verification Committee (Respondent No. 3); Commissioner, Higher Education Directorate (Respondent No. 2); Additional Director, Higher Education Directorate · 16.10.2020; 04.12.2020; 19.01.2021; 10.02.2021
Prior proceeding
Caste certificate issued to the petitioner by the Court of Nayab Tahsildar on 31.08.1996, declaring her a member of the Scheduled Caste community (as submitted by petitioner's counsel).¶38
Prior proceeding
On the strength of the certificate she applied in 1997 for the post of Sports Officer; the selection (conducted by the M.P. Public Service Commission) placed her 9th in the merit list.¶41
Prior proceeding
Appointed as Sports Officer on 07.04.1998 and discharged her duties for more than two decades without complaint.¶42
Prior proceeding
In 2017, one Shri Murarilal Agrawal, claiming to be President of Press Club, Pendra Road, complained that the petitioner had been appointed on a forged caste certificate.¶43
Prior proceeding
Later in 2017 the same person wrote to the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee denying that he had ever complained, stating his name had been misused; the communication was forwarded to the Commissioner, Higher Education, Raipur.¶44
Prior proceeding
Despite the complainant's denial and the absence of any authentic complaint, proceedings were initiated years later; the original complainant died in 2019.¶45
Prior proceeding
First notice issued to the petitioner on 07.03.2020, reminder on 11.06.2020, and a further notice on 19.06.2020 calling upon her to appear with original documents on 25.06.2020.¶46
Prior proceeding
The petitioner challenged those proceedings by filing WPS No. 2854 of 2020 before the High Court of Chhattisgarh.¶47
Prior proceeding
By order dated 21.07.2020 in WPS No. 2854 of 2020, a Co-ordinate Bench allowed the petition and quashed the enquiry proposed by the SDO's letter dated 19.06.2020.¶47
Prior proceeding
Despite the quashing order, fresh notices were issued on 16.10.2020, 04.12.2020 and finally 19.01.2021 demanding documents and evidence already scrutinised and accepted.¶49

Smt. Sushma Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sushma Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Prakash Talawar Vs High Level Verification and Scruitiny Committee

Mohan Jute Mill Limited Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Devi Singh Vs Municipal Corporation Raipur

Secretary C.G.Swatantra Mazd. Vs the C.M.D. Secl and Anr.

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Prabha Sahu

Mukesh Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh