CHANDAN MANKER Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by petitioner challenging order dtd. 29/2/2012 by which respondent No.2-High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee cancelled caste certificate issued in favour of petitioner. Earlier also Vigilance Cell conducted inquiry, submitted report dtd. 3/8/2011 to the effect that since ancestors of petitioner are residents of State of Maharashtra, petitioner is not entitled for benefits of reservation in State of Chhattisgarh.

(2.) Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

(3.) Facts of case, in nutshell, are that father of petitioner migrated from State of Maharashtra to erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh in the year 1969 (as per case of petitioner), appointed as Daily Wage employee in Mahanadi Reservoir Project Division, Dhamtari and in the year 1972 service of petitioner's father was regularized on post of 'Typist'. Petitioner born on 6/8/1983, his birth was registered with Statistical Department on 3/12/2009, as appearing from Annexure P-3. Petitioner studied upto Class 8th in Government School at Rudri, District Dhamtari; from Class 9th to Class 12th in Manonite High School Dhamtari. Petitioner acquired graduate degree from Government College of Science, Raipur (affiliated with Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, Raipur) and LLB degree from Durga College, Raipur (affiliated with Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, Raipur). In the year 2008, the State Government published advertisement inviting applications for appointment on the post of 'Assistant District Public Prosecution Officer'. Vide order dtd. 3/8/2011 petitioner was appointed as 'Assistant District Public Prosecution Officer'. Prior to issuance of appointment order, vide order dated 17.8.20210 (Annexure P-5) candidates, who submitted application form seeking benefit of their social caste status, were directed to get verified their caste certificate from concerned department. Petitioner submitted relevant documents with respondent No.2 for verification, based on which an inquiry was conducted and after inquiry, respondent No.2 arrived at a conclusion that petitioner is not entitled to benefits of reservation. Report of Vigilance Cell was put to challenge by petitioner by filing writ petition bearing WPS No.7353/2009, which came to be disposed off vide order dtd. 17/2/2011 (Annexure P-4) with following directions:-