KISHORI DAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged Annexure-20 dated 8.7.2005 issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Sitamarhi by which the petitioner has been dismissed from services on the ground that the petitioner does not belong to the Schedules Castes and Scheduled Tribes category rather his caste comes within the Backward Category of caste.

(2.) The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher and was appointed on 28.7.1976 under the special employment schemes. At the time when he was appointed, he described himself to belong to BEDIA caste. Vide Annexure-6, BEDIA caste comes within the (sic) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes category of castes. On 18.1.2002, a co-villager filed an application stating that the petitioner actually belong to the BANOUDHIYA caste, on the basis of which this proceeding was initiated. A show cause was given to the petitioner, he filed a reply stating the aforesaid facts. On the basis of the show cause and the facts stated by the petitioner, an enquiry was held by the Block Development Officer, Parihar.

(3.) The enquiry report contained in Annexure-B to the counter affidavit as well as Annexure-13 to the writ application indicates that the Block Development Officer verified from the persons, not named in the enquiry report, and on the basis of this ex-parte enquiry, he came to the conclusion that earlier the petitioner and several persons like him had settled in the village and were said to belong to BANOUDHIYA caste, however, he could not trace or decipher as to how this group of persons settled down in the village and identified themselves as belonging to the BEDIA caste. On the basis of this ex-parte enquiry, the Block Development Officer came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not of the BEDIA caste.