SHARDA MAROTI NIMJE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:-

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner passed an examination of Sub Inspector in Central Police Organization against the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe Community. The caste certificate pertaining to social status as Halba Community was issued to the petitioner by the competent authority. The respondent No.3 verified the petitioner's caste certificate from the respondent No.2. The petitioner before the respondent No.2 submitted her representation dtd. 22/3/2011 along with relevant documents showing her to be belonging to S.T. (Halba) Community. The petitioner submitted caste certificate of her father, great grandfather, voter I.D. of her father, House Registry of great grandfather and also submitted a letter/notification issued by respondent No.1 dtd. 18/11/1982 and other relevant documents, but without considering the same respondent No.2 vide its order dtd. 19/5/2012 turned down the verification of Caste Certificate of petitioner. The respondent No. 2 erroneously without considering the representation and documents submitted therewith communicated the same to respondent No.3 that due to non availability of relevant documents, the respondent No. 2 is unable to issue caste verification certificate. The order dtd. 19/5/2011 was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore. The order dtd. 19/5/2011 and subsequent charge sheet dtd. 8/10/2012 were quashed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh vide order dtd. 16/1/2014 and the respondents were directed to refer the matter to the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee. Thereafter the Caste Scrutiny Committee vide order dtd. 9/1/2015 (Annexure-P/1) cancelled the petitioner' caste certificate as Halba Scheduled Tribe Community, against which the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent committee has failed to comply with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court thereby caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. The findings recorded by the respondent committee are highly perverse. The jurisdiction of the scrutiny committee is limited only to opine into the caste on the basis of findings of facts. The opinion of the committee should be based on sociological, ethnological, etymological and anthropological accounts. The findings recorded by the committee are more in the nature of conjectures and surmises rather than of definite conclusions. The committee has applied rigid and unwarranted standards of burden of proof. Upon notice having been issued to the petitioner, the petitioner discharged her burden of producing ample material on record, but the committee has erred in law as well as in facts while rejecting petitioner's case. The petitioner has not been afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard nor was she allowed to lead oral evidence. The respondent authorities have failed to see that the reply and documents connected therewith filed by the petitioner show that she belongs to the 'Halba' Tribe. The respondents did not consider and properly interpret various circulars issued by the Governments both Central as well as State from time to time in this regard. The action of the authorities is violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner and hence warrants interference of this Court. The respondents erred is not considering the notification / letter issued by Ministry of Home Affairs dtd. 18/11/1982, which specifically states that caste certificate issued to the migrant from other states / UT is required to be considered genuinely. The respondent No.2 erred in not considering the fact that the formation of State of Chhattisgarh took place in year 2000 while the caste certificate produced by the petitioner was of year 1995 which was issued by the competent authority, Raigarh (earlier in M.P now in C.G.). It is further submitted that the father of the petitioner was under central services and the certificate issued by the Ministry specifically states that he belongs to S.T. (Halba). Even in the letter/orders dtd. 19/5/2011 and 9/4/2012, the respondent No.2 have never said that the caste certificate produced by the petitioner is fake. Infact it is stated that the respondent No. 2 is unable to issue caste verification certificate. The State of Chhattisgarh had issued the order dtd. 27/6/2007 wherein definition of bonafide residents of Chhattisgarh has been defined and explained which includes (1) persons belonging to the central services posted at Chhattisgarh, their spouses or children; (ii) all the employees of State of Chhattisgarh, their spouses or children; (iii) Persons appointed on Constitutional or Statutory posts by President of India, their spouses or children, (iv) Corporation, Agencies, Commissions, Board's, Officials/ Officers/ employees, their spouses or children. This Government order is to benefit the petitioners-students with respect to bonafide residents of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner is in the service of the respondents since year 2004, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of protection against ouster from service. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and others and the order passed by this Court in the matter of Srimati Jayarani Morla vs State of Chhattisgarh and others passed in WPC No.5709/2011 vide dtd. 12/9/2019.