KISHNA DAS MAHAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner appeared in competitive examination conducted by the Public Service Commission of Madhya Pradesh for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge Class -II in the judicial services of the State in the year 1993. By communication dated 8th November 1993 (Annexure -P/1) he was informed that his name appears in the select list at serial No. 133. The petitioner sought recruitment in open competition as also against the seats reserved for scheduled castes. The petitioner along with his application for the post filed a certificate stating that he belongs to scheduled caste 'Mahar'. However, before offering the appointment to the petitioner against the seat reserved for scheduled caste, enquiry was made by the Law Department of the State from the District Magistrate, Shahdol by letter dated 1 -12 -1993 (Annexure -R/1) filed with the return. The District Magistrate, Shahdol by his reply dated 2 -3 -1994 informed the State Government in the Law Department that as per the enquiry made from village Majmankala, District Shahdol which is the domicile of the petitioner he belongs to caste 'Mahara'. Along with the report of the District Magistrate was enclosed the enquiry report of Sub Divisional Officer, Bandhavgarh dated 7 -2 -1994 (Annexure -R/III) in which it has been stated that in the land records, the petitioner's caste is recorded as 'Mahara' and not 'Mahar'. On the basis of the above report made by the District Magistrate and the S.D.O., the petitioner was sent a show cause notice dated 29 -3 -1994 (Annexure -R -IV) to submit his explanation. In response to the notice, the petitioner stated that in all his educational and other relevant records he has been rightly described as belonging to caste 'Mahar'. Since the petitioner thereafter was not offered any appointment, he approached this Court in this writ petition. This Court while admitting the petition, passed an interim direction on 15 -9 -1994 that one post of Civil Judge Class II shall be kept vacant subject to the decision of the petition.

(2.) SHRI Rajendra Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that instead of Shri G.S. Baghel, counsel earlier engaged, he has been instructed by the petitioner to appear in the case. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that unless the caste certificate issued by the competent authority is annulled or cancelled after grant of opportunity to the petitioner, the said caste certificate has to be honoured and relied by the State Government. It is contended that the State Government could not have ignored the caste certificate and refused to offer appointment to the petitioner on the basis of his position in the select list.

(3.) THE contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted that caste certificate issued by the competent authority cannot be scrutinised and further verified for ascertaining its genuineness by the appointing authority at the time of offering appointment. Before offering the appointment to a judicial post, the State Government is within its right to verify the testimonials and certificates submitted by the candidate to find out whether they are correct or not. The State Government, therefore, was fully within its right to wake further enquiry into the caste certificate of the petitioner.