SUBODH DEBBARMA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner obtained a certificate, in the year 1977, issued by the District Collector, West Tripura, to the effect that the petitioner belongs to Tripuri community, which stands recognised as a Scheduled Tribe. Having been appointed as a Lower Division Clerk under the Directorate of Higher Education, Tripura, the petitioner joined his duty on 23.8.1979. On 17.8.1984, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk and, thereafter, he was also promoted to the post of Accountant on 12.7.1990. When the petitioner's promotion to the post of Office Superintendent fell due, a complaint was made to the respondent No. 5, namely, District Magistrate and Collector, West Tripura, Agartala, to the effect that the Scheduled Tribe Certificate, issued to the petitioner in the year 1977, was not genuine. The petitioner was accordingly asked by the respondent No. 5 to produce the original documents in support of his claim that he belongs to Tripuri community and, upon enquiry, made in this regard, by respondent No. 5, when respondent No. 5 found that the said certificate was genuine, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Office Superintendent as indicated hereinbefore.

(2.) Following the directions, issued by the Supreme Court, in Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors., 1994 6 SCC 241, which were reiterated in Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of A.P. v. Laveti Giri and Anr., 1995 4 SCC 32, the Tripura Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Reservation Act, 1991, has been enacted and Tripura Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Reservation Rules, 1992, ('the Rules') has been framed under the said enactment in tune with the directions, issued in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). The Rules provide for constitution of two different scrutiny committees. A scrutiny committee, is, according to Rule 2(1)(g) of the Rules, a committee constituted by the State Government for verification of community certificate and also cancellation of community certificate. Rule 5 embodies the procedure for issuance of certificate and Rule 6 provides for cancellation thereof. The scrutiny committee is popularly known as State Level Scrutiny Committee ('the SLSC'). There are two SLSCs, one for the Scheduled Tribes and the other for Scheduled Castes.

(3.) Acting on a complaint received against the petitioner, while he was serving as Office Superintendent, to the effect that the petitioner had obtained Scheduled Tribe Certificate by making misrepresentation of fact that he is a member of Tripuri community, though he, in fact, belongs to Laskar community, which is not recognized as Scheduled Tribe, in the State of Tripura, under the relevant Presidential order, a notice to show-cause was issued, on 6.6.2005, by respondent No. 7, namely, Member-Secretary, State Level Scrutiny Committee, Government of Tripura, directing the petitioner to show-cause as to why his Scheduled Tribe Certificate be not cancelled. The notice aforementioned was accompanied by an enquiry report, which had been carried out by the Special Vigilance Cell, which is constituted, in this regard, under the said Act and the Rules. The petitioner submitted his representation, on 29.6.2005, to the respondent No. 7, i.e., Member-Secretary, State Level Scrutiny Committee, Government of Tripura, asserting that he was a member of Tripuri community, the complaint, made against him, was wholly baseless and that the complaint was aimed at harassing him. By his said representation, the petitioner requested respondent No. 7 to allow him to cross-examine those persons, who had purportedly made statements in the said enquiry and whose statements were being relied upon for the purpose of cancelling the petitioner's Scheduled Tribe Certificate. By his said representation, the petitioner also requested respondent No. 7 to allow him to adduce evidence in support of his assertion that he was a member of Tripuri community. A notice, addressed to the petitioner, was then, issued, on 25.10.2006, by the respondent No. 7, informing the petitioner that considering the fact that the petitioner had, while making representation to the show-cause notice issued to him, sought for an opportunity of being heard and adduce evidence, he shall appear, either in person or through his authorised representative, before respondent No. 6, namely, Chairman, State Level Scrutiny Committee, in the premises of the Directorate of Tribal Welfare, on 20.11.2006, at 11 a.m. This notice also made it clear that if the petitioner fails to appear, either personally or through his authorised representative, on the date, time and venue as mentioned hereinbefore, the matter would be decided ex parte. On his appearance as had been directed by the notice, dated 25.10.2006, the petitioner made another representation, wherein, while claiming that he was a member of a Tripuri community, he renewed his request that he be allowed to cross-examine the person(s) on the basis of whose statements, his status as a member of the Tripuri community was being doubted. By his said representation, the petitioner also made it clear that he would demolish the enquiry report if he was given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The petitioner, therefore, once again, requested to allow him to cross-examine those witnesses on whose statements his status as a member of Tripuri community was being doubted and also to allow him to adduce evidence. No order, on this representation, was made: but an order was issued, on 4.1.2010, by the respondent No. 3 stating therein to the effect, inter alia, that the petitioner does not belong to Tripuri community, inasmuch as he was a member of Laskar community, which was not recognised as a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Tripura. Since the petitioner had enjoyed his seniority and promotional benefits as a reserved category candidate, whereas he ought to have been treated, in terms of the order, dated 4.1.2010, as a member of unreserved category, his promotion to the post of Office Superintendent too was withdrawn, he was reverted to the post of UDC as held by him on 11.7.1990 and it was made clear by the order, dated 4.1.2010, aforementioned, that the petitioner would enjoy the seniority and promotional benefits as an unreserved category candidate. By the order, dated 4.1.2010, aforementioned, it was further directed that the payments made to the petitioner on his promotion to the post of Office Superintendent be also recovered and an entry, in this regard, be made in the service record of the petitioner. It is the order, dated 4.1.2010, which stands impugned by the petitioner, in this writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioner contends that the complaint, made against him, is wholly false and motivated and that the complaint is aimed at denying him promotion to the post of Accountant and that he had not been given any opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses, who had been examined by the Vigilance Cell, and on whose statements, the petitioner was being treated as a member of Laskar community.