Smt. Kanti Prasad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:32006

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1133 of 2025

¶5

Smt. Kanti Prasad W/o Shri Chandrakant Prasad Aged About 50 Years D/o- Late Shri Manan Prasad, R/o- Kumharaband, Pujaripara, Ward No.3, Jagdalpur, District-Bastar (C.G.).

¶6

... Petitioner(s)

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

2 - Secretary Department Of Schedule Tribe And Schedule Caste Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

3 - Secretary Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

4 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

5 - High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee Through Its President/member Secretary, Office Of The Commissioner, Department Of Schedule Tribe And Schedule Caste Development, Block-4d, Ground Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

6 - Deputy Superintendent Of Police Vigilance Cell, High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee, Office Of The Commissioner, Schedule Tribe And Schedule Caste Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.).

¶14

... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, PL.

¶15

2

¶16

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

10/07/2025

¶19

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

¶20

“10.1 That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ and quash the impugned order dated-21.07.2022 (Annexure-P/1) issued by Respondent No.5.

¶21

10.2 That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in favour of the petitioner as per the facts & circumstance of the present case, in the interest of Justice.”

¶22

The facts of the present case are as under:

¶23

(I) father of the petitioner, who originally hails from the State of Bihar, migrated to Jagdalpur, (MP) now CG as he was an employee of the Central Government.

¶24

(ii) The petitioner was born within the territory of the State of Chhattisgarh on 20.07.1975.

¶25

(iii) The petitioner completed her entire studies in the then State of MP now CG. Her father was appointed as ‘Research Khalasi’ on 05.10.1963 as employee of the Central Government under Dandkaranya Project Jagdalpur and during the course of the employment he had died on 27.08.1989. After his death, the petitioner is continue residing in State of Chhattisgarh and as per Pension Rule of Central Government, he received family pension till the completion of her aged 25 years and thus the petitioner and her father having the status of permanent resident of

¶26

3

¶27

State of CG.

¶28

(iv) The petitioner belongs to the ‘Gond’ caste which is a notified scheduled Tribe and they originally belong to District Sivan, Bihar, where the ancestors of the petitioner belong to Gond caste and proved from Khatauni prior to the year 1950. Similarly she is having the status of original/permanent resident of State of CG as the domicile certificate has been issued in her favour and is entitled to get the benefits of her caste in the State of CG. The Social Status Certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner by the SDO (R), Jagdalpur, on 22.06.2001.

¶29

As per circulars dated 01.08.1996, 01.04.1998, 31,10.2002, 17.06.2003, 21.07.2003, 18.08.2003, 06.07.2004,18.07.2004 and 27.06.2007, it is clarified that the petitioner had obtained the status of a permanent resident of State of CG and is entitled to get the benefit of reservation of her caste as notified by the presidential order in both the states as the father of the petitioner was employee of the institution of Central Government situated in the area of the Chhattisgarh State. However, the father of the petitioner joined the service of the Central Government in the territory of the State of MP now CG and had died during the course of employment on 27.08.1989.

¶30

Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that in similar issue as of the petitioner, this Court in WPS No.7013/2011 and WPS 2063/2016, where the ancestor of concerned petitioners was originally residents of other State and have been migrated/shifted to Chhattisgarh State, after the Presidential Order 1950, the respondent No.3 had cancelled their caste certificate stating that the benefits cannot be given to the petitioners as their parents/ancestors are not residing in the State of CG prior to presidential order 1950 and this Court allowed the writ petitions by fixing a parameter and stating that the petitioners are

¶31

4

¶32

entitled to get the benefits of caste/reservation in the State of CG and the matter of petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments. 4. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that father of the petitioner was an employee of the Central Government and he migrated to Jagdalpur. The petitioner was born on 20.07.1975. She submits that the caste certificate as ‘Gond’ under Scheduled Tribes was issued on 20.06.2001 by the SDO, Jagdalpur and subsequently the caste certificate as Gond under Scheduled Tribes was issued on 19.02.2004 by Sub Divisional Officer (R) Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG) in favor of the petitioner. He argued that according to the circular, the petitioner attained the status of a permanent resident of the State of Chahttisgarh. He also argued that according to the circular, the spouse and children of the employee would be entitled to get all the benefits including the caste. He further submits that the caste ‘Gond’ is a notified Scheduled Tribe and it finds place in the Presidential order pertaining to the State of Chhattisgarh as well as the State of Bihar. He also submits that the petitioner was born on 20.07.1975 in Jagdalpur. He completed her studies in the State of CG therefore as per the definition of a permanent resident, the petitioner got the status of a permanent resident of the State of Chhattisgarh. Thus, the order passed by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee is bad in law and the subsequent order passed by the employer is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Divya Gautam Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, WPS 7013 of 2011. 5. Further, contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that similar order as passed by this Court on 08.07.2025 in WPC No.1137/2025,

¶33

5

¶34

may be passed in the present writ petition.

¶35

Learned State Counsel does not oppose the above prayer made by counsel for the petitioner with regard to similar order passed by this Court on 08.07.2025 in WPC No.1137/2025.

¶36

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶37

From the inquiry report submitted by the Vigilance Cell, it is quite vivid that the father of the petitioner migrated to Jagdalpur in the year since 1947. He was a Central Government employee and was born prior to 1950 and was appointed as ‘Research Khalasi’ on 05.10.1963 under the Dandkaranya Project Jagdalpur of Central Government and during the course of the employment he had died on 27.08.1989.

¶38

The issue involved in the present case is whether the petitioner is a permanent resident of Chhattisgarh or not and whether he would be entitled to the benefit of the social status of the caste ‘Gond’ within the State of Chhattisgarh.

¶39

The circular dated 27.06.2007 as stated by the petitioner in the similar petitions (WPS No.1533 of 2014) which defines bonafide residents of Chhattisgarh. According to the Circular (I) persons belonging to the central services posted at Chhattisgarh. Their spouse or children; (ii) All the employees of the State of Chahttisgarh, their spouse or children; (iii) Persons appointed on Constitutional or Statutory posts by the President of India, their spouse or children; and (iv) Corporations, Agencies, Commissions, Boards, Officials/Officers/employees their spouse or children would be the permanent resident of the State of Chhattisgarh. 11. Circular issued on 17.06.2003 by the State of Chhattisgarh

¶40

6

¶41

defines permanent residents. According to the circular, such a person would be treated as a permanent resident of Chahttisgarh, if he fulfills any of the four conditions:

¶42

If he was born in the State of Chhattisgarh.

¶43

He and his or her parents are staying in the State of Chhattisgarh at least for 15 years.

¶44

His or her parents are government servants of the State or servants of the Central Government in the State of Chhattisgarh.

¶45

He himself or his parents are pursuing any business, or immovable property in the territory of the State of Chhattisgarh.

¶46

These two circulars make it amply clear that a person who is an employee of the Central government, his spouse or children would be treated as a permanent resident of the State of Chhattisgarh. If the caste of a person is notified within the State of Chhattisgarh, such person would be entitled to get the benefit of his social status.

¶47

In the present case, father of the petitioner was an employee of the Central Government and petitioner completed her studies in the State of Chhattisgarh thus, he got the status of a permanent resident. The caste ‘Gond’ is notified and it finds a place in the Presidential order of 1950 for the State of Chhattisgarh as well as in the Presidential order of 1950 for the State of Maharashtra, therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to get the benefit of her caste.

¶48

The High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee cancelled the social status certificate of the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce the relevant documents prior to the year 1950 before the Committee. This Court in a catena of judgments held that there is

¶49

7

¶50

no necessity for a person to produce the documents prior to the year 1950 to prove his social status.

¶51

In the matter of Divya Gautam (supra) , this Court in paras 9,10 & 12 held as under:-

¶52

“9. In the matter of Narendra Dehariya (supra) and Ku. Bharti Banpuriya (supra), the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the issue with regard to the social status of students who were denied the certificates whereas they were born and brought up in the State of Chhattisgarh considered the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate General appearing for the State that the State Government has issued the order dated 27.06.2007 wherein the definition of bonafide residents of Chhattisgarh has been defined and explained, and observed thus:-

¶53

“Learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents / State informs that the judgment of the learned Single Judge was wrongly interpreted and in compliance of the judgment in Writ Petition No. 2510/2004 dated 04-02-2005, the Government by an order dated 02.02.2006 had kept its notification dated 08.07.2004 in abeyance. Thereafter the Government has issued another order dated 27-06-2007 wherein definition of bonafide residents of Chhattisgarh has been defined and explained which includes (i) persons belonging to the central services posted at Chhattisgarh, their spouses or children; (ii) all the employees of State of Chhattisgarh, their spouses or children; (iii) Persons appointed on Constitutional or Statutory posts by President of India, their spouses or children; (iv) Corporation, Agencies, Commissions, Board's, Officials/Officers/employees, their spouses or children. This Government order is to benefit the petitioners-students with respect to bonafide residents of Chhattisgarh.”

¶54

The above-cited judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court makes it amply clear that all the employees of the State of Chhattisgarh, their spouses or children fall within

¶55

8

¶56

the definition of bonafide residents of the State of Chhattisgarh and they would be entitled to get the benefit of social status if their caste is included in Presidential Order.

¶57

In the matter of Grace Marry Minj (supra),the High Court of Madhya Pradesh while dealing with a similar issue held that the parents of the petitioner migrated to the State of Madhya Pradesh at Bhopal prior to the birth of the petitioner in the year 1985, they are from Scheduled Tribes Community, her caste is declared as Schedule Caste in both the States and she had her entire education and career in the State of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, she cannot be denied benefit of caste certificate. The relevant part of the said judgment is reproduced herein below:-

¶58

“That apart, in the case of Kamal Kishore Barapatre (Supra), this Court had considered the question of migration of Medical Students from the State of Maharashtra to the State of Madhya Pradesh and the matter has been decided after taking note of the judgments rendered by this Court in W.P.No. 1160/2003- Neetu Singh Vs. State of M.P., decided on 16.9.2003 and W.P.No. 5143/2005-Dr. Yamini Khapre Vs. State of M.P. & Ors., wherein the matter has been dealt with in the following manner :

¶59

“16. However, in the present case, the facts are entirely different. Petitioner is born in the State of Madhya Pradesh. She had her entire education and career in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Herfather migrated in Madhya Pradesh before her birth i.e. more than 20-25 years back. The caste “Halba” is declared as Scheduled Caste in both the States and the Tehsildar, Jabalpur had issued caste-certificate in her favour in the year 1999 Annexure-P/1. Thus, the petitioner in the present case is a bonafide resident of Madhya Pradesh and as has been held by this Court in the case of Neetu Singh (supra) she has acquired the status of permanent domicile in the State of Madhya Pradesh as she fulfills the following condition viz-(i) She is born in the State of Madhya Pradesh and had her entire education

¶60

9

¶61

right from the beginning to MBBS in the State of Madhya Pradesh; and

¶62

(ii) her parents are continuously residing in the State of Madhya Pradesh for more than fifteen years.

¶63

As the petitioner had complied with the conditions for acquiring the status of a permanent domicile and, the caste to which she belongs is declared as Scheduled Tribe in the State of Madhya Pradesh, there is no reason to deny her the benefits of caste certificate.”

¶64

Keeping in view the aforesaid legal principles and the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly the fact that the petitioner's parents are permanently residing at Bhopal, even prior to the birth of the petitioner in the year 1985, when Jashpur was part of un-divided State of Madhya Pradesh and the fact that the respondents do not deny that status of the petitioner and the fact that her parents are from Schedule Tribe Community, the insistence upon producing a caste certificate from the State of Chhattisgarh and proposing to cancel the admission on such consideration is nothing but an arbitrary and illegal action.”

¶65

In the matter of Vandana Dhakad (supra), the High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that as the petitioner was born in the State of Madhya Pradesh, she had her entire education and career in the State of Madhya Pradesh, her father migrated in Madhya Pradesh before her birth, the caste ‘Dhanuk’ is declared Scheduled Caste in both the States and the competent authority had issued certificate in her favour and thus, the petitioner is bonafide resident of the State of Madhya Pradesh. The relevant para- 8 is reproduced herein below:-

¶66

“8.Petitioner is born in the State of Madhya Pradesh. She had her entire education and career in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Her father migrated in Madhya Pradesh before her birth i.e.more than 20-25 years back. The caste “Dhanuk” is declared as Scheduled Caste in both

¶67

10

¶68

the States and the competent authority had issued caste certificate in her favour in the year 1989 and on 17-5-2002 by SDO Gwalior. Thus, the petitioner in the present case is a bona fide resident of Madhya Pradesh and as has been held by this Court in the case of Neetu Singh (supra), she has acquired the status of permanent domicile in the State of Madhya Pradesh as she fulfills the following conditions viz --(i) she has born in the State of Madhya Pradesh and had her entire education right from the beginning to M.B.B.S. in the State of Madhya Pradesh; and (ii) her parents are continuously residing in the State of Madhya Pradesh for more than 25 years.”

¶69

Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, the Circular dated 27.06.2007 and the law laid down by this Court in the matter of Divya Gautam (supra) , in the considered opinion of this Court, the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee has committed an error of law in cancelling the Social Status Certificate of the petitioner, therefore, impugned order dated 21.07.2022 (Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed. 16. The mater is remitted back to the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee/respondent No.5 to decide the matter afresh in the light of the facts and law discussed above after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶70

With the above observation/direction, the petition stands disposed of.

¶71

Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶72

J.

Smt. Kanti Prasad v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kanti Prasad 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

Diljeet Kaur Chhabra Vs Sanjay Narang

Smt. Chandarmati Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Rashmi Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gurbari, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tikaram Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Taukir Ahmad Vs State of Chhattisgarh