Chandrakant Prasad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:31378

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 1137 of 2025

¶6

1 - Chandrakant Prasad S/o Shri Ramsevak Prasad, Aged About 51 Years R/o - Kumharaband, Pujaripara, Ward No. 3, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (C.G.)

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

5 - High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee, Through Its President/member Secretary, Office Of The Commissioner, Department Digitally signed by SUGUNA SUGUNA DUBEY Of Schedule Tribe And Schedule Caste Development, Block-4d,Date: DUBEY 2025.07.10 11:27:28 Ground Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur C.G.+0530

¶14

2

¶15

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.)

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

For Petitioner(s) : Shri Pawan Shrivastava, Advocte For Respondent(s) : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, PL

¶18

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

08/07/2025

¶21

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

¶22

“10.1 may kindly issue a suitable writ and quash the impugned order dated 21.07.2022 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.5.

¶23

10.2 may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in favour fo the petitioner as per the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”

¶24

The facts of the present case are as under:

¶25

(I) father of the petitioner, who originally hails from the State of Uttar Pradesh, migrated to Durg (MP) now CG as he was an employee of the State Government and his services were transferred there.

¶26

(ii) The petitioner was born within the territory of the State of Chhattisgarh on 27.12.1973.

¶27

(iii) The petitioner completed his entire studies in the then State of MP now CG. His father was appointed as Muster Clerk on 20.06.1963 under Executive Engineer, Durg

¶28

3

¶29

Division(B & P) , Durg in the department of Public Works and subsequently he was appointed as Master Operative on 06.02.1964 in the Bhilai Steel Plant and now he has taken volunatry retirement from service on 31.07.2002. He died on 08.03.2006. The petitioner and his father are having the status of permanent resident of State of CG. (iv) The petitioner belongs to the ‘Gond’ caste which is a notified scheduled Tribe and they originally beong to District Deoria, UP where the ancestors of the petitioner belong to Gond caste and proved from Khatauni of year 1323. Similarly he is having the status of original/permanent resident of State of CG as the domicile certificate has been issued in his favour and is entitled to get the benefits of his caste in the State of CG. The Social Status Certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner by the Collector, Raipur on 02.08.1982.

¶30

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 his 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 in the State of CG and had retired as State Government employee.

¶31

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

¶32

4

¶33

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 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 the father of the petitioner was an employee of the State government and he migrated to Durg and he was born on 27.12.1973. He submits that the caste certificate as ‘Gond’ under Scheduled Tribes was issued on 26.11.1984 by the District Co-ordinator, Schedule Tribe Welfare, District Durg (MP) and after establishment of State of CG, the caste certificate as Gond under Scheduled Tribes was issued on 07.02.2004 by Sub Divisional Officer (Certification) 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 UP. He also submits that the petitioner was born on 27.12.1973 in Durg. He completed his studies in the State of CG therefore as per the definition of a pernament 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

¶34

5

¶35

Court in the matter of Divya Gautam Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, WPS 7013 of 2011.

¶36

On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that on 04.06.2018, a complaint regarding caste of the petitioner was made to the respondent No.2 which was forwarded vide letter dated 23.01.2019 to respondent No.5 for enquiry. Thereafter, vide letter dated 27.06.2019 the matter was sent to respondent No.6 with direction to conduct enquiry into the matter and submit the report before the Committee. The Vigilance Inspector initiated enquiry and asked the petitioner to produce the necessary records prior to 06.09.1950 and on 4.11.2019, the petitioner submitted the documents along with ethic form. On 30.12.2019, the Vigilance Inspector directed to produce the necessary records prior to1950 and vide letter dated 10.01.2020, the petitioner submitted mishal prior to 1950 and the family tree issued by Gram Pradhan. Thereafter, as per the direction of the Apex Court, the Vigilance Inspector examined the social status of the petitioner and on 08.02.2022 submitted the report to respondent NO.6 mentioning that the petitioner’s father/forefather’s originally belong to village Ukina Khas, Tahsil Salempur, District Deoria (UP) and were not the original residents of State of CG prior to presidential notification. Therefore, as per the documents and records submitted by the Vigilance Cell, it is clear that the forefathers of the petitioner were the domicile of District Dewariya, Uttar Pradesh as on 06.09.1950. It is submitted that the father of the petitioner was a permanent resident of State of Uttar Pradesh and the petitioner can take benefit of his social status in the State of UP but not in the State of Chhattigarh. It is also submitted that the petitioner filed to produce any document prior to the year 1950

¶37

6

¶38

before the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee therefore, the social status certificate of the petitioner was cancelled. Thereafter on 24.02.2022, the petitioner was issued show cause notice stating that why the caste certificate issued to the petitioner should not be cancelled.

¶39

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

¶40

From the inquiry report submitted by the Vigilance Cell, it is quite vivid that the father of the petitioner migrated to Durg in the year since 1946-47. He was a State government employee and was born on 1946 and was appointed as Muster Clerk on 20.06.1963 under Executive Engineer, Durg division (B & P) Durg in the Department of Public Works and subsequently, appointed as Master Operation on 06.02.1964 in the Bhilai Steel Plant.

¶41

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.

¶42

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

¶43

7

¶44

permanent resident of the State of Chhattisgarh.

¶45

Circular issued on 17.06.2003 by the State of Chhattisgarh 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:

¶46

If he was born in the State of Chhattisgarh.

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

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.

¶51

In the present case, the father of the petitioner was an employee of the State Government and he completed his 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 his caste.

¶52

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

¶53

8

¶54

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

¶55

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

¶56

“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:-

¶57

“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.”

¶58

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

¶59

9

¶60

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.

¶61

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:-

¶62

“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 :

¶63

“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

¶64

10

¶65

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

¶66

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

¶67

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.”

¶68

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.”

¶69

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:-

¶70

“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

¶71

11

¶72

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.”

¶73

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 committed an error of law in cancelling the Social Status Certificate of the petitioner, therefore, the order passed by the Committee and the order impugned dated 21.07.2022 is hereby quashed.

¶74

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.

¶75

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

¶76

Sd/-

¶77

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

Chandrakant Prasad v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakant 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

Kunti Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samuh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amar Sukhwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hem Kumar Sidar Vs Axis Bank Limited

Sewaram Panjwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Au Small Finance Bank Ltd. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Juvenile in Conflict With Law Vs State of Chhattisgarh