MADHUMITA DAS Vs. COLLECTOR, KHURDA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P.(C) No.9664 of 2012 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned orders passed by the opposite party no.1 therein vide Annexures-11 & opposite party no.3 vide Annexure-7 seeking further declaration that the proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide Annexure-8 and the dismissal order of the petitioner vide Annexure-12 based on the Tahasildar's order vide Annexure-7 as illegal and void.

(2.) Similarly, W.P.(C) No.16433 of 2015 is filed by the very same petitioner to quash the subsequent proceeding initiated against the petitioner involving an allegation on her caste status by the opposite party no.2 and in the alternative if the proceeding found to be maintainable, the opposite party no.2 be directed to allow the petitioner represented / assisted by a lawyer of her choice by allowing her application vide Annexure-10.

(3.) Short background involved in the case is that on the application of the petitioner for grant of a caste certificate to the then Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, the Tahasildar initiating a proceeding under the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules bearing Misc. Case No.7 of 1996 after conducting due enquiry and involving a report of the R.I. issued a caste certificate in favour of the petitioner recording her caste as Scheduled Caste and sub caste as 'Dewar' on 5.1.1996 appearing at Annexure-1. Petitioner applied for a job in the B.D.A. taking help of the caste certificate and being selected in a duly constituted recruitment process joined as Junior Assistant on 17.10.1998. While the petitioner was continuing as such, it is alleged by the petitioner that involving some misbehavior and ill comments relating to caste and gender by the Vice Chairman, Bhubaneswar Development Authority (hereinafter in short called as V.C., B.D.A.) on 27.3.2011 the petitioner lodged F.I.R. against the V.C., B.D.A. in Mahila P.S. at Bhubaneswar which was registered as Mahila P.S. Case No.133 dated 29.7.2011. It is alleged that the V.C., B.D.A. misutilizing his official position and power with an intention to take revenge wrote a letter to the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar in W.P.(C) No.9664 of 2012 for having an investigation regarding caste certificate of the petitioner. Based on the direction of the Sub-Collector, the Tahasildar opposite party no.3 initiated Rev. Misc. Case no.47 of 2011 against the petitioner and issued notice to the petitioner on 5.8.2011 asking the petitioner to appear on 12.8.2011 and show cause on the allegations against her. Petitioner in order to strengthen her show cause applied for copies of relevant orders and documents. Petitioner was denied with such opportunity on the other hand, the Tahasildar fixed the case to 16.8.2011 for filing of the show cause. Under constrained on 16.8.2011 the petitioner filed her show cause denying all the allegations and further took the stand that the Tahasildar has no authority to review its earlier order rather following the Rule 9 of the Orissa Caste Certificate Rules 1980 hereinafter in short called as Rules 1980 a person is required to move the Collector involving any such issue. It is alleged that the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar without considering the submissions of the petitioner passed an order on 16.8.2011 rejecting the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner appearing at Annexure-7. It is further alleged that basing on the order of the Tahasildar, the V.C., B.D.A. initiated a departmental proceeding against the petitioner to remove her from service and for realization of her entire salary, she has received since the date of her joining till date of such order. Petitioner at this juncture filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 23511 of 2011. This High Court entertaining the writ petition stayed the impugned order directing for no coercive action against the petitioner till disposal of the writ petition. On 1.11.2011 this High Court disposing the writ petition observed that since the petitioner has the provisions for appeal involving the impugned order to the Collector permitted the petitioner to file an appeal. The petitioner, accordingly, preferred appeal before the Collector and the Collector finally dismissed the appeal vide its order vide Annexure