MATHURA PRASAD BAIGA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this petition is to the order dated 24.11.2008 (Annexure P-1), passed by the respondent No.4 i.e. High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee (for short "the Committee"), whereby, claim of the petitioner that he belongs to 'Baiga' (Scheduled Tribe) community was rejected on the ground that in the admission register of Primary School Podi (Sipat), his caste was mentioned as 'Dhimar', which does not come under the Scheduled Tribe category.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the Supreme Court in Ku. Madhuri Patil & Another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development & Others1, mandated in Para 13(6) that the Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the vigilance officer if it is found that the claim for social status to be "not genuine" or 'doubtful' or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, should issue show cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the candidate affording the opportunity of hearing to the candidate. In the instant case, the respondent No.4 though had supplied a vigilance report, however, failed to give the documents on the basis of which, a vigilance report was submitted, thus, the same is in violation of mandate of the Supreme Court in Ku. Madhuri Patil1 and also of this Court in the matter of Dinesh Kumar Bhagoria v. State of Chattisgarh & Others2.

(3.) THE guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Ku. Madhuri Patil1 has been reiterated with approval in several cases mainly in Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of A.P. v Laveti Giri and Another3, Gayatrilaxmi Bapurao Nagpure v. State of Maharashtra and Others4, State of Maharashtra v. Milind and Others5, R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala and Others6, Subhash Chandra and Another v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Others7, GM, India Bank v. R. Rani and Another8 & Sayanna v. State of Maharashtra and Others9.