Priyanka Dhurv Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1. By filing the present petition, the petitioner calls in question the action of the respondent authorities in not issuing a Permanent Social Status Certificate (Scheduled Tribe - Gond) in favour of the petitioner and her children despite submission of online applications bearing Nos. 0704012601001380 and

¶19

2

¶20

0704012601001381 before the competent authority, namely, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur, on 23.03.2026, along with the requisite documents and an Inability Memo as contemplated under the relevant statutory provisions.. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :-

¶21

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the respondents.

¶22

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly pass an order or direction for issuance of Permanent Social Status Certificate of Scheduled Tribe (Gond) to the petitioner.

¶23

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief or pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice.. ”

¶24

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Tribe "Gond" community and is seeking issuance of Permanent Social Status Certificates for herself and her children in order to avail the benefits available to members of Scheduled Tribes within the State of Chhattisgarh. It is submitted that applications were duly submitted before the competent authority along with all available supporting documents including caste certificates of the petitioner's ancestors, domicile records, family tree and other relevant materials. He further submits that the petitioner's child, namely, Laavendra Dhurv, has been selected

¶25

3

¶26

for admission to Class-VI in PM SHRI Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya pursuant to selection proceedings dated 26.05.2026, for which submission of a valid Permanent Social Status Certificate is necessary. Despite the urgency involved and despite repeated approaches before the authorities, no certificate has been issued till date.

¶27

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's application has been rejected/not processed on two counts. Firstly, it has been observed that the application was not submitted within the prescribed period of fifteen days. Secondly, the authorities have insisted upon production of educational or other documentary evidence pertaining to the period prior to the year 1950. It is argued that the aforesaid approach adopted by the respondent authorities is contrary to the provisions governing issuance of social status certificates. He submits that the petitioner had already filed an Inability Memo before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 6 of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Rules, 2013 (for short, ‘Rules of 2013’).

¶28

4. It is further argued that Rule 6 of the Rules of 2013 specifically contemplates a situation where an applicant belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, despite making sincere and adequate efforts, is unable to procure historical documents required under the Rules. In such circumstances, the applicant is permitted to submit an

¶29

4

¶30

affidavit in the prescribed form by way of an Inability Memo. Once such Inability Memo is submitted, the competent authority is required to proceed with the inquiry contemplated under the Rules and cannot insist upon production of such unavailable documents as a condition precedent for consideration of the application. He submits that when the statutory scheme itself recognizes the practical difficulty faced by applicants in obtaining very old documents, particularly documents relating to the pre-1950 period, rejection of the petitioner's application solely on the ground of nonproduction of such documents is arbitrary and unsustainable.

¶31

5. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has already placed on record the caste certificates issued to her ancestors by competent authorities, domicile records, family tree, educational records and other relevant materials and, therefore, the claim deserves to be considered on its own merits in accordance with law.

¶32

6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that there exists a prescribed statutory procedure for obtaining a Permanent Social Status Certificate and the same is required to be followed by every applicant. It is submitted that the petitioner's application could not be processed through the online system as the requisite procedural requirements were not fulfilled within the prescribed timeline and consequently the system reflected rejection/nonprocessing of the application. However, he fairly submits that so far as the filing of the Inability Memo is concerned, the petitioner

¶33

5

¶34

has indeed submitted the same before the competent authority. He further submits that if a fresh application is submitted by the petitioner in accordance with the applicable provisions, the competent authority shall consider the same in accordance with law.

¶35

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶36

8. From the pleadings and documents placed before this Court, it appears that the petitioner claims to belong to the Scheduled Tribe "Gond" community and has sought issuance of a Permanent Social Status Certificate for herself and her children. It further appears that the petitioner has already submitted an Inability Memo before the competent authority as contemplated under Rule 6 of the Rules of 2013.

¶37

9. Prima facie, Rule 6 of the Rules of 2013 has been incorporated to address situations where an applicant is unable to obtain historical documents despite genuine efforts. The legislative intent appears to be that in such cases the competent authority should undertake an appropriate inquiry in accordance with Rule 8 instead of mechanically rejecting the claim solely for want of unavailable documents.

¶38

10. At the same time, this Court finds that the claim of the petitioner regarding issuance of a Permanent Social Status Certificate requires factual verification and examination by the competent

¶39

6

¶40

authority in accordance with the statutory framework governing social status certification.

¶41

11. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, and without entering into the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding entitlement to issuance of a Scheduled Tribe Certificate, this Court deems it appropriate to permit the petitioner to submit a fresh application before the competent authority.

¶42

12. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh application for grant of Permanent Social Status Certificate (Scheduled Tribe - Gond) before the competent authority under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013 and the Rules framed thereunder, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In the event such application is submitted within the aforesaid period, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law after conducting such inquiry as may be required under the statutory provisions.

¶43

13. It is further directed that while considering the petitioner's claim, the competent authority shall take into consideration the Inability Memo already submitted by the petitioner and shall not insist upon production of documents pertaining to the period prior to the year 1950 solely on that ground, if the claim is otherwise required to be examined under Rule 6 and Rule 8 of the Rules of 2013.

¶44

7

¶45

14. The competent authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking order after affording due opportunity to the petitioner and shall endeavour to conclude the entire exercise within a further period of 45 days from the date of submission of the fresh application.

¶46

15. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding her social status, entitlement to issuance of caste certificate, authenticity of the documents produced by her or any other disputed question of fact. All such issues shall be independently examined by the competent authority in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation made in this order.

¶47

16. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.

¶48

17. No order as to costs.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶51

Yogesh

Priyanka Dhurv v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka Dhurv 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Adim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Urandabedha, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shivram Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Biran Bai Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deenanath Jatvar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shailesh Gulhare Vs State of Chhattisgarh