PRABIR KUMAR DAS Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The correctness and legality of the impugned orders cancelling Caste certificates of the petitioners in all the above cases on the ground that no reasonable opportunity of representation was afforded to them has been called in question and since similar question of law and fact are involved in all these cases, it is proposed to disposes of them by this common judgment. FACTS IN CIVIL RULE NO. 195 OF 1998

(2.) The petitioner claimed that he belonged to Mahishya community, which is recognized as Scheduled Caste by the Presidential Order issued under Articles 341 (1) and 342 (2) and after an elaborate inquiry into his claim, the competent authority granted in his favour a Scheduled Castes certificate on 6.5.1984. On the academic side, the petitioner is a holder of Master degree in History and a Diploma in Sanitary Inspectorship. He applied for a post of Sanitary Inspector in the Agartala Municipal Council following which he was interviewed and selected. But later, another person was appointed as Sanitary Inspector in his place quite illegally and arbitrarily prompting him to approach this court by filing Civil Rule No. 153 of 1993. The said writ petition was allowed with a direction to the respondents to provide the petitioner with a post of Sanitary Inspector, but that direction was challenged before a Division Bench of this court in a writ appeal filed by the respondents herein. The writ appeal having been dismissed the Agartala Municipality appointed the petitioner as Sanitary Inspector and since then he has been serving in that post. On 13.6.1996, the Sub-Divisional officer, Sadar (for short 'S.D.O.',) issued a notice asking the petitioner to show cause why his Scheduled Caste certificate should not be cancelled on the ground that an inquiry held in that connection established that he is not a member of the Scheduled Castes community. During the said inquiry, as disclosed from the letter of the SDO, the petitioner was not informed or afforded any opportunity to make his representation against the question raised about his caste-status and as a result, an ex parte finding was arrived at by the inquiring authority that the petitioner does not belong to any Scheduled Caste community whereupon the show cause notice was issued by the SDO on 13.6.1996. On 4.10.1996, a similar show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the same authority only for correcting the first show cause notice with regard to the number of the Caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. On 17.10.1996, he submitted a reply to the show cause asserting his Scheduled Caste status and questioning the inquiry done at his back, but on 1.6.1998, the said authority cancelled the Scheduled Castes certificate of the petitioner, which was issued in 1984. The order of cancellation dated 1.6.1998 after a period of 14 years from the date of its issue has been called in question in this writ petition.

(3.) The State respondents contested the case by filing counter-affidavit contending, inter alia, that though a Scheduled Caste certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner after elaborate inquiry, it came to notice later that the said certificate was wrongly issued. Though the petitioner himself claimed in the writ petition by swearing an affidavit that he belongs to Mahishya community, the Scheduled Caste certificate he was holding showed him as a member of Jalia Kaibartya community. Thus on the face of record, it is contended, the claim of the petitioner suffers from contradictions, which make it evident that the Scheduled Caste certificate obtained by him is a sham document. It has been further contended that as per the provisions of the Tripura Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in Services & Posts) Act, 1991 (for short 'the Act') and the Rules framed thereunder, the competent authority issuing the certificate, if satisfied later on that the same was obtained by misrepresentation, can cancel the same and that has exactly been done in the present case. As regards procedure adopted for cancellation, it has been emphasized that after the inquiry established t:hat the certificate was wrongly issued, the petitioner was given opportunity to show cause why the same should not be cancelled and this amounts to substantial compliance with the requirement of natural justice. FACTS IN CIVIL RULE NO. 477 OF 1998