PURSHOTTAM PATWAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common question of law and fact is involved in both the writ petitions, they were clubbed together and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The petitioner was issued caste certificate by the District Coordinator in Scheduled Tribe (ST) category on 18-1-1993 and thereafter, he was appointed as Steno-Typist under the ST category on 9-12-1997. Thereafter, the Caste Scrutiny Committee verified the caste of the petitioner and on 9-4-2002, after issuing notice to the petitioner held that the petitioner is Kevat by caste and he does not belong to ST category and accordingly annulled the caste certificate granted in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, on the basis of that order, the Additional Collector, Distt. Koriya, on 26-10-2004, also cancelled the caste certificate dated 18-1-1993 issued in favour of the petitioner. Challenging legality, validity and correctness of the order declaring him to be non-ST category, the petitioner filed W.P.(S)No.1142/2008 and thereafter, his services have been terminated by order dated 23- 8-2008 which has been challenged in W.P.(S)No.4971/2008.

(3.) Mr. Aman Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the writ petitions, would submit that the caste scrutiny committee did not grant proper opportunity to the petitioner to adduce oral evidence in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, 1994 6 SCC 241 and also the Caste Scrutiny Committee did not consider the notification of the State Government dated 7-9-1998 in which the State of M.P. has clearly directed that coercive action should not be taken against the persons who belong to Majhi caste and caste certificate has been issued in their favour. Even the notice issued to the petitioner by the Caste Scrutiny Committee was not in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) which has been followed by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra and others v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar and another, 2007 1 SCC 80. As such, the impugned order declaring the petitioner not belonging to ST category and the order dated 26-10- 2004 cancelling the caste certificate deserve to be set aside and consequently, the order of termination of the petitioner dated 23-8- 2008 also deserves to be set aside.