KALPANA KARATKAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENING the order Annexure P -5 dated 24.12.1998 passed by the Director, Adim Jaati Anusandhan Sansthaan, Bhopal terminating the services of the petitioner and the findings recorded by the High Power Committee vide Annexure P -9 dated 12.3.2003 petitioner has filed this petition.

(2.) PETITIONER claims to be a person belonging to caste 'Dhobi' by birth, which is notified as Scheduled Caste in the District of Bhopal, under Appendix I Part IX to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders, 1976 at serial No.22 in the Districts of Bhopal, Raisen and Sehore. Claiming herself to be a person staying in Bhopal after her forefathers had migrated in the year 1949 petitioner sought appropriate certificate from the competent authority. The Tahsildar concerned in the year 1992 granted certificate to the petitioner after due enquiry vide Annexure P -l on 22.9.1993 declaring the petitioner to be a person belonging to 'Dhobi' community, a scheduled caste person.

(3.) BEING aggrieved thereof, petitioner preferred an application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Bhopal being O.A. No.949/98 and a bench of the Tribunal vide Annexure P -6 dated 27.4.2002 directed the matter to be referred to the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted by the State Government in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Developmentand others [(1994)6 SCC 241]. The High Power Committee constituted by the State of Madhya Pradesh conducted enquiry into the matter. Petitioner appeared and submitted various documents collectively filed as Annexure P -7 and by the impugned report Annexure P -9 dated 12.3.2003 the committee having negated the claim of the petitioner and having declared not to be a member belonging to the scheduled caste community of 'Dhobi', the petitioner is before this Court challenging the order passed by the respondent No.1 terminating her services and findings recorded by the High Power Committee in its report Annexure P -9.