DHANRAJ SINGH PUSAM Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is said to have been filed for grant of a writ of quo warranto directing removal of respondent No.5 from the post on various allegations. It is contended by the petitioner that he is a social worker and a member of Gondwana Gantantra Party and an office bearer of the said party being Media Incharge. The respondent No.5 was born at Gwalior, has obtained his education without claiming any benefit of reservation, took part in the selection for appointment on the post of Assistant Engineer, was appointed as such in General category, but by manipulating the record on the strength of some sort of caste certificate, got the benefit of reservation and accelerated promotion in the service as a result, he got himself appointed by promotion on the post of Chief Engineer in the Water Resources Department. This being so, various complaints were made, but none of the complaints were looked into. Ultimately, a Public Interest Litigation was brought before this Court, but the Division Bench of this Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the said writ petition with liberty to resort to the remedy available under the law. Since the complaints are not being looked into by the authorities despite approach, this writ petition was required to be filed. On the basis of these allegations, the petitioner has claimed the following reliefs :-

(2.) Highlighting the allegations made in the petition, it is contended that the well settled law is that 'Majhi' is a Scheduled Tribe in certain districts like Datia, Tikamgarh, Chhindwara, Panna, Satna, Rewa, Sidhi and Shahdol, but admittedly the petitioner, who belongs to Gwalior could not be treated as Scheduled Tribe and was not to be given the benefit of reservation. These facts the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court while filing the rejoinder to the return filed in the earlier Public Interest Litigation and the Notification issued by the President in this respect, was produced. The Division Bench decisions have been placed on record to show that the respondent No.5 could not be treated as a Scheduled Tribe person and, therefore, correction in the gradation seniority list with respect to the description of the caste of the respondent No.5 is sought to be challenged. It is contended that all this was done by the respondents playing hand in gloves with the respondent No.5 to favour him and, as such, the respondent No.5 was liable to be removed from the post. It is further contended that the general instructions were issued in respect of those employees whose caste certificates were under investigation, therefore, the case of respondent No.5 was to be deferred from consideration for promotion. However, instead of following the said instructions so issued by the respondents, since accelerated promotions have been granted to the respondent No.5, it is contended that such actions were bad in law and the matter was required to be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation and action was required to be taken against the respondent No.5.

(3.) On being noticed, the respondents have filed their return. The respondents No. 1 to 4 and 6 have opposed the claim made by the petitioner and have contended that right from day one, the respondent No.5 was treated to be a member of Scheduled Tribe and his appointment was made as such. There were certain errors committed in the gradation seniority list with respect to giving the description of the reservation category of respondent No.5 and when these facts were brought to the notice of the authorities, the same were corrected. It is contended that the presidential notification of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Order as amended by Act of 1976 published on 1st July 1977 in the Gazette described that 'Majhi' is the Scheduled Tribe within the whole of the State. It is not declared to particular district, as has been done in cases of certain other Scheduled Tribes. Thus, it is contended that if the respondent No.5 was treated to a Scheduled Tribe and was given promotion and a direction was issued for correction in his description in the gradation list, no wrong is committed. It is, thus, contended that the caste certificate issued in respect of respondent No.5 has not been challenged in any manner. Had a proper challenge been made, the caste certificate issued in respect of respondent No.5 would have been enquired into. For any other irregularities, facts were brought to the notice of the respondents and they have enquired into the same. Nothing wrong was found with respect to working of the respondent No.5 and he has rightly been granted the promotion in accordance to the reservation strictly in accordance to the provisions made in the Rules. Thus, it is contended that the petition being wholly misconceived deserves to be dismissed.