Nafr High Court
Case Details
YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.04.24 10:43:53 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:13153 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1873 of 2012 Aavesh Kumar Nagwanshi S/o Chatrugun Nagwanshi Aged About 30 Years Shankar Nagar, Road No. 4 Near Megha Traders, Boudh Vihar Road, P.S. Durg, Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, P.S. Golbazar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary Home Department DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, P.S. Golbazar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Inspector General of Police Durg Range, P.S. Durg, Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent of Police, P.S. Durg, Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), P.S. Durg, Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPC No. 1968 of 2012 Sumit Kumar Gajbhiye S/o Lt. Prakash Gajbhije Aged About 29 Years Shankar Nagar, Ward No. 12, Police Station Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through SEcretary Tribal Welfare Department, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Police Station Gole Bazar Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Police Station Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 – Additional Tahsildar Police Station Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents 2 WPS No. 2329 of 2017 Aavesh Kumar Nagwanshi S/o Shri Chatrugun Nagwanshi, Aged About 35 Years Posted As Assistant Sub- Inspector M, At Office of Superintendent of Police, Balod, District Balod R/o Shankar Nagar, Road No. 4 Near Megha Traders, Boudh Vihar Road Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Inspector General of Police, Durg Range Durg District Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent of Police, Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh 5 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg Nagar District Durg Chhattisgarh (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ----Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocate on For Respondents-State : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Additional behalf of Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 19.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned counsel for the respective petitioners 3 and Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents in all the writ petitions. 2. Since the common issue is involved in all the writ petitions, as such, they are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. In WPC No.1873/2012, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “i To kindly quash the impugned order dated 05/06/2012 passed by the respondent No.5 Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Durg (Annexure P/1). ii. To kindly direct the No.5 Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Durg to consider the case of the petitioner afresh without insisting on the records prior to 10/08/1950. iii. To kindly direct the respondent No. 2 to 4 to allow the petitioner to join his services forthwith on the basis of his caste certificate issued by the Naib-Tehsildar. iv. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 4. In WPC No.1968/2012, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “i To kindly quash the impugned order Dated 17/05/2012 passed by Respondent No.2, Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg. (Annexure P/1). 4 ii. To kindly direct the Respondent No.2, Sub Divisional Officer to consider the case of the petitioner for issuance of the permanent caste certificate to the petitioner without forcing him to produce land records/documents prior to 1950, as the same is not the mandatory provision. iii. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 5. In WPS No.2329/2017, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned termination order Dated 05.05.2017 (Annexure-P/1) issued by the respondent Superintendent of Police Balod; 10.2 this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned order Dated 22.04.2017 (Annexure-P/2) issued by the respondent Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg City & further direct to reconsider the case of the petitioner for permanent caste certificate in light observed made in WPC No. 526/2012, WPC No. 1873/2012. 10.3 this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s)/ writ(s), order(s) in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts & 5 circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 6.
Legal Reasoning
Brief facts of WPC No.1873/2012 and WPS No.2329/2017 filed by the same petitioner, i.e. Aavesh Kumar Nagwanshi, in a nutshell, are that, the petitioner was born on 15.07.1981 in Bhilai Nagar Durg (C.G) ane he belonged to "Mahar" caste which is listed as “Schedule Caste” in the State of Chhattisgarh. He possessed a duly issued permanent caste certificate by the Tehsildar, Durg as he was born and brought up in the State of Chhattisgarh being permanent resident of Bhilai Nagar, District Durg and in this regard, a domicile certificate has been issued to him on 01.05.2005. The petitioner has completed his all education in the State of Chhattisgarh, as such, character certificate was also issued showing his caste as ‘Mahar’ 7. It is the further case of the petitioner that his father was born on 24.02.1953 in Village Sogalpur, Tehsil Lanjee, District Balaghat (Madhya Pradesh) and completed his studies in Govt. Primary School Sogalpur, Tehsil Lanjee, District Balaghat (Madhya Pradesh) from the year 1959 to 1965 and according to his transfer certificate, he belonged to ‘Mahar’ Caste. Thereafter, his father joined his services w.e.f 07.01.972 at Bhilai Steel Plant. The father of the petitioner had possessed the valid permanent caste certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Lanjee, District Balaghat (Madhya Pradesh) of Mahar caste, which is a Scheduled Caste. The petitioner has duly selected on the post of 6 Assistant Sub-Inspector in Police Department, State of Chhattisgarh under reserved post of Schedule Caste category and vide letter dated 18.06.2011, the Superintendent of Police, Durg directed the petitioner that as the petitioner has been selected on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector for the year 2011, therefore, he shall be present before the authorities within 3 days after receiving the letter for verification of the certificates. Respondent No.4, Superintendent of Police, Durg vide letter No.Pua/Durg/SRC/Pumani/1055-6/11, dated 01.07.2011, sent to the petitioner informing that he has been selected on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector in Police Department, State of Chhattisgarh in District Police Force, Durg, for which his documents were verified. After verification, it has been found that petitioner has submitted a permanent caste certificate dated 01.11.1999 issued by the Tehsildar, Durg, but it has been directed, that the petitioner within a period of 7 days must submit a caste certificate issued by the competent officer. Thereafter, the petitioner duly applied for issuance of the temporary caste certificate and the Naib Tehsildar, Dhamdha District Durg issued the temporary caste certificate on 10.08.2011 showing the petitioner’s caste as ‘Mahar’ (Schedule Caste). The petitioner then applied for permanent caste certificate before respondent No.5 i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg, who in turn, on the report of the Tehsildar that family of the petitioner was the resident of Gram-Sogalpur, Tehsil Lanjee, District Balaghat (Madhya 7 Pradesh), caste certificate of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 20.10.2011. 8. Being aggrieved with the order passed by respondent No.5 dated 20.10.2011, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition bearing WPC No.526/2012, which was disposed of vide order dated 02.04.2012 directing respondent to strictly follow the extant of circular issued by the State in this regard as also keeping in view the orders passed by this court in the matters of Narendra Deharia and Ramsajivan and further directing that the selection of the petitioner would remain intact and his name from the list of selected candidates should not be cancelled on the ground that he has not furnished caste certificate issued by respondent No.5, but respondent No.5 has not complied with the directions issued by this Court and reiterated the earlier findings given vide order dated 20.10.2011, and rejected the candidature of the petitioner. 9. Thereafter, on 21.07.2003, circular vide No.426/2003/1/3 Raipur, has been issued by the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, State of Chhattisgarh, which has prescribed certain guidelines/procedure fixed as to how a caste certificate can be issued to the intending candidates clearly mentioning that the land records for the year 1950 or prior to that would not be mandatory. The State of Chhattisgarh has further issued a circular vide No.F-9-1/2001/1/3 dated 27.06.2007, according to which, those persons who are born in the State of 8 Chhattisgarh although their fathers/guardians may have their origin in some other State from where they may have migrated to the State of Chhattisgarh, yet such persons would be deemed to be permanent residence of the State, but the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) has rejected the candidature of the petitioner for grant of permanent caste certificate vide order dated 05.06.2012. 10. In compliance of order Dated 02.11.2012, the Superintendent of Police, Durg vide order dated 03.01.2013 appointed the petitioner as provisional basis and posted at office of the Superintendent of Police, Durg District Durg (C.G.). Thereafter the services of the petitioner has been transferred at the office of the Superintendent of Police, Balod District Balod. 11. In the meanwhile, as the matter is sub-judice before this Court, Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg vide order dated 22.04.2017 rejected the application of the petitioner for Schedule for grant of Caste Certificate, assigning the reason that the petitioner’s petitioner ancestors were resident of Tehsil Lanjee, District Balaghat (Madhya Pradesh) hence permanent caste certificate cannot be issued in favour of petitioner, but in the services of State Government institution, the benefit of permanent caste certificate could be given. In compliance of order dated 22.04.2017 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg, the Superintendent of Police, Balod vide order dated 9 05.05.2017, the services of the petitioner has been terminated assigning the reason for termination as per order dated 22.04.2017 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg, whereby the application of grant of permanent caste certificate has been cancelled. 12. Brief facts of WPC No.1968/2012 filed by the petitioner-Sumit Kumar Gajbhiye, in a nutshell, are that, the petitioner was born on 23.02.1983 in Durg and studied in the State of Chhattisgarh. The domicile certificate of the petitioner was issued on 15.05.2002 by the Naib Tahasildar, Durg showing him as permanent resident of State of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner being the member of Scheduled Caste ‘Mahar’ caste, duly got his temporary caste certificate by the Tahsildar, in which, his caste has been mentioned as Mahar. The petitioner has filed WPC No.225/2012,
Decision
which was disposed of vide order dated 14.02.2012 in which the Court has directed to consider the case of the petitioner on the basis of circulars, directions and guidelines issued by the Supreme Court as well as the observations made by this Court vide order dated 27.09.2007 in Narendra. Dehariya v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others passed in WPC No.5070/2007 and other connected matters. 13. Thereafter, the petitioner approached on 21.02.2012 before the competent authority for issuance of permanent caste certificate, who in turn, ordered respondent No.3 to make a report about the 10 caste credentials of the petitioner, who gave it report on 03.03.2012 stating that the petitioner had no case for issuance of permanent caste certificate on the ground that he did not furnish his temporary caste certificate and the land records of prior to year 1950, despite the fact that land records of prior to 1950 is not a necessary requirement for issuance of permanent caste certificate. Based on the said report, the impugned order dated 17.05.2012 has been passed rejecting the application of petitioner for issuance of caste certificate. 14. According to the petitioners, they belonged to Scheduled Caste, i.e., “Mahar” caste and they are residents of State of Chhattisgarh. Their forefathers were residents of State of Madhya Pradesh and the petitioner were born and brought up in the State of Chhattisgarh. As such, they applied for a caste certificate of Mahar caste on the basis of documents filed by them, which were rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg vide order dated 05.06.2012 in WPC No.1873/2012 and vide order dated 17.05.2012 in WPC No.1968/2012. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would argue that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) is not competent to cancel the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioners under review jurisdiction because he is not authorised or having jurisdiction to cancel any caste certificate. It is the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, who, after following due procedure of 11 law, can cancel caste certificate as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, AIR 1995 SC 94. For cancellation of a caste certificate, in the said judgment, the Supreme Court has given certain directions which have to be followed and only after being exhaustive scrutiny the caste certificate can be cancelled by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) does not have any power or authority to cancel the caste certificate issued in favour of any person. 16. On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) has rightly passed the impugned order while cancelling the caste certificate of the petitioners by the impugned order, which in accordance with law and it has been passed following the due procedure of law. Further, in WPS No.2329/2017, the respondent authorities have rightly been terminated the services of the petitioner as it was not found the petitioner being the member of Schedule Caste and he has not produced his permanent caste certificate. 17. I have heard the rival contentions put-forth on behalf of the parties and perused the material available with due care. 18. Perusal of the record of WPC No.1873/2012 would show that an interim relief has been granted vide order dated 02.11.2012, which is as follows:- 12 “Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the State. Heard. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this Court in the matters of Narendra Dehariya v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others [W.P.(C) No.5070/2007), Siddharth Choure v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others [W.P.(C) No.3001/2008] and Ramsajiwan v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others [W.P.(S) No.6616/2008), has considered the ratio decidendi laid down by the Supreme Court in Action Committee on issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and Another v. Union of India & Another [(1994) 5 SCC 244], which had been referred by the S.D.O., Durg, and he has given his own interpretation. This may not be done by him ignoring completely the consideration of the above-referred case in several decisions of the High Court. Learned counsel further submits that the S.D.O., Durg, has exceeded his jurisdiction and power while considering application for grant of caste certificate. Issue notice to the respondents, as per rules. Shri Shrivastava, learned State 13 counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the State/respondents and is granted three weeks time to file reply, if any. Having regard to the facts situation of the case, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 05.06.2012 (Annexure P-1) shall remain stayed, till the next date of hearing. Needless to mention that the petitioner has approached earlier to this Court in W.P. (C) No.526/2012. This Court, by order dated 02.04.2012, have clearly directed the respondent No.5 to consider the case of the petitioner in view of Narendra Dehariya and Ramsajiwan (supra), which has also not been done. If the petitioner has been selected and for want of production of caste certificate, he has not been appointed, he may be given a provisional appointment, till issue of caste certificate is settled, subject to subsequent production of the proper caste certificate. Accordingly, I.A.No.1, application for interim relief, stands disposed of. Certified copy, as per rules.” 19. Perusal of the record of WPS No.2329/2017 would show that an interim relief has been granted vide order dated 18.05.2017, which is as follows:- “Mr. Mateen Siddique, Counsel for the 14 petitioner. Mr. Shashank Thakur, Government Advocate for the State. Heard. In petitioner's first petition i.e. WPC No.526 of 2012, the competent authority was directed to consider the petitioner's case for issuance of caste certificate on the basis of orders passed by this Court in the matters of Narendra Dehariya Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others (WPC No.5070 of 2007) and Ramsajiwan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others (WPS No.6616 of 2008). In petitioner's second petition i.e. WPS No.1873 of 2012, which is still pending before this Court, an interim order is operative that if the petitioner has been selected and for want of production of caste certificate, he has not been appointed, he may be given a provisional appointment, till issue of caste certificate is settled. By the present impugned order - Annexure P/2, the SDO (R), Durg Town, has dismissed the petitioner's application for issuance of caste certificate on 22.4.2017, without even mentioning a word about the orders passed by this Court in Narendra Dehariya (supra) and Ramsajiwan (supra). It appears, the SDO(R) has either not followed the order passed by this Court or has conveniently ignored the same, which may 15 amount to commission of contempt of lawful authority of this Court. Issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Government Advocate, would accept notice on behalf of all the respondents, therefore, P.F. need not be paid. The respondents are allowed 12 weeks time to file return. In the meanwhile, the effect and operation of the impugned orders -Annexure P/1 & P/2 shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing. Certified copy as per rules.” 20. The first and foremost question for consideration before this Court is that whether the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg has power and authority as also jurisdiction to cancel the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioners for “Mahar” caste, a Scheduled Caste in the Presidential List of Scheduled Castes for the State of Chhattisgarh. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), after due verification, has issued the caste certificate in favour of the petitioners, which he does not have power and jurisdiction to cancel the caste certificate and for that there is authority under the law who can cancel the caste certificate after following due procedure as envisaged in Kumari Madhuri Patil case (supra). The Supreme Court, while considering the various aspects in 16 respect of caste of any particular person, has particularly held the procedure by which caste of any person can be verified by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Vide paragraph 12 of its judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “12. The admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of false social status certificate necessarily have the effect of depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined in the Constitution of the benefits conferred on them by the Constitution. The genuine candidates are also denied admission to educational institutions or appointments to office or posts under a State for want of social status certificate. The ineligible or spurious persons who falsely gained entry resort to dilatory tactics and create hurdles in completion of the inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee. It is true that the applications for admission to educational institutions are generally made by a parent, since on that date many a time the student may be a minor. It is the parent or the guardian who may play fraud claiming false status certificate. It is, therefore, necessary that the certificates issued are scrutinised at the earliest and with utmost expedition and promptitude. For that purpose, it is necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of a social status certificates, their scrutiny 17 and their approval, which may be the following: 1. The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue- Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such Officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal Level. 2. The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn and attested by a competent gazetted officer or non-gazetted officer with particulars of castes and sub-castes, tribe, tribal community, parts of groups of tribes or tribal communities, the place from which he originally hails from and other particulars as may be prescribed by the concerned Directorate. 3. Application for verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at least six months in advance before seeking admission into educational institution or an appointment to a post. 4. All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the concerned department, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal 18 Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities. 5. Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in overall charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He also should examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged 19 in the proforma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the concerned castes or tribes or tribal communities etc. 6. The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the vigilance officer if he found the claim for social status to be "not genuine” or "doubtful” or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue show cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post with acknowledgment due or through the head of the concerned educational institution in which the candidate is studying or employed. The notice should indicate that the representation or reply, if any, would be made within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice and in no case on request not more than 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. In case, the candidate seeks for an opportunity of hearing and claims an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the Director on receipt of such representation/reply shall convene the Committee and the Joint/Addl. Secretary as Chairperson who shall give reasonable opportunity to the candidate/parent/guardian to adduce all 20 evidence in support of their claim. A public notice by beat of drum or any other convenient mode may be published in the village or locality and if any person or association opposes such a claim, an opportunity to adduce evidence may be given to him/it. After giving such opportunity either in person or through counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-a-vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof. 7. In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed. 8. Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the parents/guardian also in case candidate is minor to appear before the Committee with all evidence in his or their support of the claim for the social status certificates. 9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day-to-day proceedings within such period 21 not exceeding two months. If after inquiry, the caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or spurious, they should pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and confiscate the same. It should communicate within one month from the date of the conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to parent/guardian and the applicant. 10. In case of any delay in finalising the proceedings, and in the meanwhile the last date for admission into an educational institution or appointment to an officer post, is getting expired, the candidate be admitted by the Principal or such other authority competent in that behalf or appointed on the basis of the social status certificate already issued or an affidavit duly sworn by the parent/guardian/candidate before the competent officer or non-official and such admission or appointment should be only provisional, subject to the result of the inquiry by the Scrutiny Committee. 11. The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 12. No suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie. 22 13. The High Court would dispose of these cases as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months. In case, as per its procedure, the writ petition/Miscellaneous petition/matter is disposed of by a single Judge, then no further appeal would lie against that order to the Division Bench but subject to special leave under Article 136. 14. In case, the certificate obtained or social status claimed is found to be false, the parent/guardian/the candidate should be prosecuted for making false claim. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude, disqualification for elective posts or offices under the State or the Union of elections to any local body, legislature or the Parliament. 15. As soon as the finding is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the certificate obtained was false, on its cancellation and confiscation simultaneously, it should be communicated to the concerned educational institution or the appointing authority by registered post with acknowledgment due with a request to cancel the admission or the appointment. The Principal etc. of the educational institution responsible for making the admission or the appointing 23 authority should cancel the admission appointment without any further notice to the candidate and debar the candidate for further study or continue in office in a post." 21. In the State of Chhattisgarh also, an act has been enacted which is called as the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013 (henceforth ‘the Act of 2013’) in which specific provisions are made for verification of caste of a Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes. The relevant provisions of the Act of 2013, applicable in this case is quoted below: “3. Application for issuance of Social Status Certificate.- Any person belonging to Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or Other Backward Class may apply to the Competent Authority for issuance of a Social Status Certificate in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed. 4. Procedure for Issuance of Social Status Certificate.-(1) The Competent Authority, may on receipt of an application under Section 3 and after making such inquiry as may be prescribed issue a Social Status Certificate: Provided that where the competent authority comes to a conclusion that there are 24 sufficient reasons for rejecting the application for such certificate, it shall record the reasons of rejection in writing and inform the applicant accordingly. (2) A Social Status Certificate issued by the Competent Authority under sub section (1) of this Section, shall be a document of permanent nature, the validity of which shall not be limited by time: Provided that duplicate copy of the Social Status Certificate may be issued by competent authority only when the applicant declares the loss of the original certificate. (3) Social Status Certification issued by an person, officer or authority other than the Competent Authority shall not be accepted for the purpose of any public employment, admission to an educational institution or for availing any benefit accruing to the Scheduled Castes or a Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes. 6. District Level Certificates verification Committee and its powers.- (1) There shall be a District Level Certificates Verification Committee with such composition as may be prescribed for verification of Social Status Certificate issued by the Competent Authority under Section 4, as may be notified by the State Government having jurisdiction over one or more districts. 25 (2) A district Level Certificates Verification Committee shall on its own motion or on receipt of any information or reference made to it, in regard Social Status Certificate(s), issued by the competent Authority, verify such Certificate(s) in the manner as may be prescribed: Provided that the reference made to the District Level Certificates Verification Committee by an employer, an Educational Institution, a Local Authority, the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, for verification of Social Status Certificate(s), shall be in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed and it shall be the duty of the District Certificates Verification Committee or report its findings to the employer, the Educational Institution, the Local Authority, the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the reference. (3) Where there is prima-facie reason to believe that the Social Status Certificate(s) have been wrongfully or fraudulently obtained, the District Level Certificates Verification Committee shall refer all information and relevant document along with record of its findings to the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee. Provided that where the District Level Certificates Verification Committee arrives at 26 an adverse finding, it shall not refer the case to High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee unless a reasonable opportunity of being heard is given to the person, whose Social Status Certificate is disputed. (4) The District Level Certificates Verification Committee shall follow such procedure for verification of Social Status Certificates and adhere to such time limit for reference to the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee under sub-section (3) of this Section, as may be prescribed. 7. High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee- (1) The State Government shall constitute, by notification in the Official Gazette, one or more High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee or Committees, for conducting enquiry into Social Status Certificate(s) referred to it by District Level Certificates Verification Committee under Section 6 or by the State Government, and it shall be the duty of the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee to examine the report of the District Level Certificates Verification Committee and to proceed in this matter as prescribed under Chapter IV of this Act. (2) The High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed : 27 Provided that where the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee decides to arrive at an adverse finding, it shall not do so unless a reasonable opportunity of being heard is given to the person whose Social Status Certificate is disputed. 8. Cancellation and confiscation of false Social Status Certificate. (1) If after enquiry under Section 7 of this Act, High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee is of the opinion that, the social status certificate was obtained wrongfully or fraudulently, it shall, by an order in writing, cancel and confiscate the certificate by following such procedure as may be prescribed. (2) The order passed by the High Power Certificate Scrutiny Committee under this Act, shall be final and conclusive subject to the proceedings under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India only.” 22. Now, coming to the present case, the first and foremost question is whether the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) has committed a jurisdictional error by which he has cancelled the caste certificate of the petitioners, which is not within his domain as for that under the law, the Caste Scrutiny Committee has to verify and decide the caste of any person, while conducting a complete inquiry as determined by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil case (supra), and only on the basis that one person has shown his place of residence at some place which is not his original or 28 native place, it cannot be held that he does not belong to any particular caste. For determination of his caste, the Caste Scrutiny Committee is required to verify the caste of a person from his original place where his forefathers were residing. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) cannot himself cancel a caste certificate of any person if it had been issued by any person or authority at any point of time. He is required to refer the matter to the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee or to direct the petitioner(s) to get it verified by the Committee. 23. In the instant cases, the order dated 05.06.2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg in WPC No.1873/2012 as well as the order dated 17.05.2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg in WPC No.1968/2012 while holding the petitioners to be not entitled to get benefit of schedule caste being Mahar is not in accordance with law as the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) is not having power or authority as also the competence to cancel the caste certificate of any person. 24. The verification of the Social Status/Caste would be upon the District Level Caste Verification Committee and thereafter, by the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee which after due enquiry and after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person whose social status certificate is disputed and to pass order after due verification of the caste of any person. The first and foremost thing in this enquiry is to grant reasonable 29 opportunity of hearing to the person concerned and if any, reasonable opportunity has not been granted to the person concerned, the enquiry would be meaningless and in such circumstance there would be no hesitation in quashing/setting aside the orders passed either by the competent authority or the Caste Scrutiny Committee as stated above. In the present matters, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) without having any authority of law has cancelled the caste certificates in an erroneous manner and that too without having jurisdiction and authority to do so. The petitioners were also not granted any opportunity of hearing before cancelling their caste certificates. As such, keeping in view of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) and further considering the Act of 2013, this Court hereby quash the impugned order dated 05.06.2012 (in WPC No.1873/2012 as well as the impugned order dated 17.05.2012 (in WPC No.1968/2012) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg. 25. So far as WPC No.1968/2012 is concerned, since the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) is not competent to verify and decide the caste of any person therefore, he has wrongly held that the petitioner is not entitled to get caste certificate of Schedule Tribe. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) was required to refer the matter to the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee or should have directed the petitioner to get it verified by the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee. Insisting of document prior to year 30 1950, and holding that the petitioner or his forefathers belonged to erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, as such he cannot be issued caste certificate, is totally misconceived. The said issue has already been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court that documents alone cannot be treated as material to verify facts, there are certain other aspects which are required to be seen and examined. 26. Time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well this Court has decided the said issue in en number of cases like Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) as such, the impugned order dated 17.05.2012 is wholly without jurisdiction and as such, the same is also quashed is in respect of the petitioner-Sumit Kumar Gajbhiye. 27. In the result, the writ petitions being WPC No.1873/2012 and WPC No.1968/2012 are allowed. The impugned orders dated 05.06.2012 and 17.05.2012 are hereby quashed. The matters are remanded back to the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg, District Durg and the respondent authorities are at liberty to refer the matter for enquiry regarding caste of the petitioners as per directions given in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) as well as in compliance with the Act of 2013. 28. As a fallout, writ petition being WPS No.2329/2017 filed by the same petitioner in WPC No.1873/2012 namely, Aavesh Kumar Nagwanshi is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 31 05.05.2017 terminating his service is hereby quashed. The petitioner is allowed to work in his present place of posting. 29. In view of the above, interim order dated 02.11.2012 passed in WPC No.1873/2012 and interim order dated 18.05.2017 passed in WPS No.2329/2017, stand vacated. 30. With the aforementioned directions/observations, all the writ petitions stand allowed. There shall be no order as to cost(s). Sd/-/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh