SALINA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-court appeal arises from the order dated 10.05.2011 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2503/2011 (Smt. Salina v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) in which the appellant (petitioner therein) impugned the legality and validity of the order dated 02.05.2011 (Annexure P/8 to the writ petition) passed by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee (for short 'the HPC') whereby, after verification, it was held that the certificate dated 24.02.1995 issued by the Naib Tahsilar, Rajnandgaon, holding the appellant to be 'Gond', a scheduled tribe, was bad and illegal.

(2.) The appellant questions the legality and validity of the order dated 10.05.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, on the ground that the communication dated 26.09.2007 (Annexure P/2 to the writ petition) issued by the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog (for short 'the Ayog') to the Collector, wherein it was found that the complaint was wrong and the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, was correct, is binding on the HPC and after the said communication, the HPC has no justification to verify the social status of the appellant and pass a contrary order. Further, it was raised that no reasonable opportunity of hearing was afforded to the appellant by the HPC.

(3.) The learned Single Judge, after having examined all the aspects of the matter, came to the conclusion that there was a proper enquiry conducted through the Vigilance cell by the HPC and in the enquiry, it was found that A. John was not the son of Sitaram as it was stated by Kanta, wife of A. John that she used to reside in the house of Sita Ram and A.John was working in the house of Sita Ram. The Vigilance Cell recorded the statement of the mother of the appellant and other persons before coming to the conclusion that she failed to establish that Sita Ram was her ancestor. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.