SRI NITISH RANJAN DAS Vs. THE STATE OF TRIPURA, TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEREFT of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner, in short, is that he got offer of appointment as a Graduate Assistant Teacher on 26.08.1987. On 15.10.1987 order of his posting was issued and he finally joined service on 30.10.1987. He belonged to Mahishya Das community, a community considered as Scheduled Caste in the State of Tripura and at the time of joining the service, he submitted a Certificate dated 29.02.1986 (Annexure A/1 to the writ petition) issued by his local MLA that he belonged to Scheduled Caste community being a member of 'Mahisya Das' community but that Certificate was not accepted by the respondent No. 3 and therefore, his caste status was not recorded as a Scheduled Caste at the time of entering into service. Since he belonged to very poor family, having no other members in the Govt. service, immediately joined the service and since his Caste status Certificate issued by the MLA was not accepted, he was compelled to write caste status as 'others' at the time of entering in the service. On 26.11.1997 Sub Divisional Officer (for short, SDO), Dharmanagar issued a caste status Certificate (Annexure A/5 to the writ petition) in the name of the petitioner and he immediately submitted it to the authority and it was accordingly accepted by the authority and was entered in the service book. Considering him as a Scheduled Caste category candidate, he was deputed for B.Ed training vide memo dated 11.06.1998 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) and in that deputation order he was clearly shown as a person belonging to SC community and at that time, he was posted at Paschim Panisagar High School. On 20.06.2007 respondent No. 3 directed concerned Inspector of School to record SC status of the petitioner in his service book w.e.f. 26.11.1997 i.e. the date of issuance of SC certificate by SDO, Dharmanagar.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel, Mr. S.C. Das for the petitioner and learned Addl. G.A., Mr. S. Chakraborty for the State -respondents.

(3.) A person belonged to a particular caste or community by birth and not by the date of issuance of certificate. Indisputably, the petitioner could not produce his caste status certificate issued by competent authority on the date of his entry into service but subsequently he obtained his caste status certificate and produced it before the competent authority and on such production of such certificate, the authority was under obligation simply to record his caste status as belonging to SC. There was no need of taking a stand that he belonged to SC community w.e.f. the date of certificate. A person belonged to a particular caste or community by birth and a caste certificate is a proof that he belonged to particular caste or community. A certificate cannot make a person to be of a particular caste or community. If he actually does not belong to a particular caste or community, whereas having such a certificate in possession, such certificate may be cancelled by the competent authority (Scrutiny Committee) in due course of law. While the petitioner produced his caste status certificate dated 26.11.97, the official respondents i.e. respondent No. 3 was simply under obligation to record his caste status as belonging to SC community in his service book and there was no reason for particularly recording that he belonged to SC community w.e.f. the date of issuance of certificate i.e. 26.11.97.