GIRISH WARUDKAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the validity of the decision dated 14-8-2003 taken by High Level Scrutiny Committee by which the Committee has decided to cancel the caste certificate issued to the petitioner as well as the minutes of meeting of the High Level Scrutiny Committee held on 16-3-2004. The petitioner has challenged the communication (Annexure P-7) issued by the Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development to Collector by which the Additional Commissioner has directed the Collector to ensure that caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner by the Competent Authority be cancelled and suitable action should be taken against the Competent Authority which has issued the certificate.

(2.) Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that father of the petitioner migrated from Amravati in the State of Maharashtra to Shahdol in the State of Madhya Pradesh in the year 1962. Thereafter the father of the petitioner shifted from Shahdol to Bhopal in the year 1967. The petitioner was . born on 26-8-1969 at Bhopal. The petitioner completed his studies from Bhopal. The petitioner claims that he belongs to 'Halba' caste. A caste certificate dated 16-7-1984 (Annexure P-9) was issued to the petitioner. Pursuant to the special drive undertaken by the respondents for recruitment of Scheduled Tribe candidates, the petitioner participated in the process of recruitment and was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk in General Administration Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 17-5-1990. The caste certificate of the petitioner was verified by the Collector and a communication in this regard was sent by Collector to Secretary, General Administration Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh. Thereafter, the matter was taken up by the High Power Scrutiny Committee constituted by the State Government pursuant to decision of the Supreme Court in Ku. Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, 1995 AIR(SC) 94. The High Power Scrutiny Committee came to the conclusion that father of the petitioner is original resident of State of Maharashtra. He migrated to the State of Madhya Pradesh in the year 1962 and started residing in District Shahdol and thereafter from 1964 in Bhopal. Since father of the petitioner was original resident of State of Madhya Pradesh prior to 1950, therefore, the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner cannot be accepted for the State of Madhya Pradesh. Accordingly, a recommendation was made that action for cancellation of the caste certificate should be taken. The copy of the decision taken by the High Power Scrutiny Committee was communicated by Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development to the Collector, Bhopal vide communication dated 20-6-2005 with a direction that Competent Authority should immediately cancel the caste certificate which has been issued in favour of the petitioner and disciplinary action should be taken against the Competent Authority which has issued the caste certificate. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) The respondents have filed the return in which inter alia it is averred that petitioner in his statement which was recorded by High Power Scrutiny Committee Annexure R-5 admitted that his father was living in Maharashtra and was appointed under general category. It was further admitted that petitioner's father did not avail the benefit of Scheduled Tribe category. Copy of the statement of the petitioner dated 14-8-2003 has been annexed as Annexure R-5. The High Power Scrutiny Committee after considering the entire material on record including the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, came to the conclusion that petitioner is not entitled for grant of caste certificate. Accordingly, the directions were rightly issued for cancellation of caste certificate issued to the petitioner. It has further been averred that the petitioner is not.entitled to any relief as he had secured the appointment on the basis of a forged caste certificate. It has further been averred that the High Power Scrutiny Committee has followed the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court m-Madhuri Patil 's case , and has completed the enquiry and has recorded findings of fact which can neither be termed as arbitrary nor illegal.