SjNijJj F ^FiA^re^ v. RSUS

Singie Bench : Hon'bteiShri Satlsh K.: Agnihotri, J. Present :• Shri Prafull Bharat, counsei forthe petitloner. Shri Sanjay'K. Agrawai, counsei for respondent No..1. Shri' A.S. Kachhawaha, counsei for respondent No.2. - (Passed on this 1 Decsmber, ;2009) 'as .

1. .. Chailenge in thls petition to the o'rder dsted 1-2-11-2S05 .(Annexure—-P/4) passed by the Qeneral Manag-er, Canara Bank, Staff .Section (Worki-nen), CIrcie' Offiee, Mumbai, whereby the services ofthe petJtloner the basls of recommendation given by the Ghhattisgarh Scheduied Trlbe Commission (for short ssthe CGmmission'1) holding tne petltioiier does" not belong to Schedyled (^: Tribe category (forshort SSST category'!). ^.1

2. The indjsputable facts, in nutshell, ds projected by the petitloner, are that the petltioner entered. Irito theservice of •Canara Bank on 4-4-1994 againstthe reserved post beionglng 4o ST category. Earlier In the year, 1972 on the of some complaint rnade by ooe Laxman against the father of the petitioner that he had produced a forged castecertiflcate ursder the seai and ssgnature of the then Tahsiidar of Raipur.'the then.Oeputy CoJlector condycted an enqylry and to the CoSiector, Tribai Weifare, Raipur. Thereafter, a criminai was registered crjminai No.838/77.(S^ie of Pradesft ys. against the 'rather of the petjtioner Tor the offence pynishabie under Sections 487 471 of-the Indian C-ode. The Chief Judiclal I^agistrate, Ralpur, vlde its judgment dated 9-2-1888 (Annexure - P/1) acqultted the father of the petltioner from the criminai case.

3. of more than/lwo the petitloner recelved a notice from the Commissiori on 12at8-2Sy2 wlth verjfication of her sociai status, The petrtlorier reply. Thereafter, the investjgatloii about the of the petitioner was handed to the CID wing of Chhatfisgarh Pollce. . aggrieved by the. action, the brother of the petltloner as as the;petitloiier'preferred a writ petitlon this Court belng W.P. {Goverdhan Prasad Gupta & Othei-s vs. of Chhattisgarh & Qthers). In the said writ petltion, the coordinate Bench of this Court vlde order S-4-2005 an jnterim to the "the staysd,[tiH th& next ofhear'mg." However, ali of a sudden the petltioner received the impygned'order of terminatJon (Annexure ~ PM). Thus, this petitlon«

4. From perusal of the records, it the writ petition No.SSSO of 2002 {Gov&rdhan Prasad Gupta (supra)}, wherein the petltloner i.e. Smt. Jyotl is .petltlonef No.3, pending conslderation during pendency of the said- writ 'l^ petltion, the Impygned order of termirsatlQn (Annexure - Pi4) has been passed by the

5. Shri Bharat learned; couaisel appearing fo?" the petltione-r, wouid submit that it is settied principle of iaw that the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee aione is competent to •verlfy and deciare the sociai status to be valid. Iri • the present case, the Commission has petitloner Tribe category and, as such, fhe orde-r oftermination. on the recommendation of the Comriiisslon dated 2-12-2004 (Annexure - R2/5) is not in the eye of law. 'The .c ^ommission Tribe category and, as such, her appointriierit agalnst the reserved quote has in a nianner. Shri Bhara'l would fyrther thaf.the iiiegal, as the of a report^ which by an aythority, whlch has no lurisdictioii to such a recommendation or deciaration. Shri Sharat in support of his contention. reliance upon the decislons of the Supreme Court Paff/ and v. Tn'bai Qeveiopment and Oth ars, QM, 'indian Bank v. R. Rani andAnothei^. Per contra Agrawa!, coy-nsei Tor the respondent No.1, would wifhout by the Coinmisslon, the could not 1 2 (1994)6SCC241 (2008) 2 3CC (L&S) 956 . :4 /). (l\ ^ challenge the order of terminatlon passed by the respondent Bank. The petitioner has not obtained the caste certiflcate from the compefent authority i.e. Sub Divisional Officer. of his conmntion Shri Agrawai placed reliarsce' upon the decision ofthe Supreme Court renderea5 in •i4 MX. K^nhikannan ' NambiBr ^adiiVil (Dead) and Othsrs . <?; Shri' Kachhawaha, coynsei appearing for responderst No»2, woyid.syb'nriit that the, recornniendation of •the Com'mjasion is not binding, as 11 is an advice« It is the Commission enquired the 'lacts on the basis of certain complainants,. but the advice/recoriimeirdation - is not binding.

8. 1 have heard iearned counsei •a.ppearing for the-parties, and the documents appendedthereto,

9. The contentlon of Shri Agra'wal, coynsel for the responderit'.No.l, that since the petitioner 'nas chalienged the recommersdatlon of-the Commissloii, thus, the attained fjnality is to be^rejected on a ground .order: on .the basis of recommendation of the Conirnisslon alone, There was no other materiai available the authority before the •inipygnecl order. The decision i»e. (sypra) by : learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 is not appllcable to the of the present case« (1996)1 SCC435

10. • In (supra), the Sypreme Coyrt observed as untier: . ! o ^ SS15. The qyestlon then is whether the appeal found vitlated is- not a court when records a finding of fact, by the Coyrt In considering the Is vltiated by an error of 'of law. HIgh Court appreciate the evidence. The Committee which is empowered.to evaluate the evidence placed before Jt to prevall unless judjclai revievv of any High Court 4o. Siniitatlons of interference with flndings of fact. The Committee facts and records ;a finding, though another vlew, as a court of appeai rrsay be posslbte. it Is not a groynd to rever.se the findirrgs»Thecourt has to see whether the Commlttee consldered all the relevant pJaced before it or has not appljed Its mlnd to relevant facts whlch have ied the Committee yitlmately record the In, the finding/ Each backdrop of Its owra.facts.55 conslders a!I the subject - 11, The Supreme Court In r. S-tefe and Others4. reiterated the view taken In (supra)»

12. 3n State of and Others. v. Ravi Parmar and anothef, the Supreme Court observed as under : ^-' "31. Reliance Gayatrilaxmj Bapurao wherein Madhuri Patil on the therein opined : been . piaced v, Coort referrjng to sltuatjon obtaining

17. Appiylng the above test to the facts of the present case, we are satlsfled the Committee falled to corssider all piaced before i4 "'Sl. No. 9" which Jed' the reievant dld not apply Its mind IQ an important document Committee yltimately 4o reeord a against By a 4 5 (1996)38cc 685 (2007) 1 SCC 80 --T- N ^ he^she wlll the caste certificate to the denial of carididate, genyine deprlved of the privljeges conferred •ypon him/her'by the-Constitytiorg. Therefore before greater granting or rejecting any claim for caste certificate. .carel myst be ~1 before reached . piaced acceptlng

18.' The High Gourt without .apprecjating the probative valye of.the documents . has dlsmissed the wrlt petjtion flled by the simply appellant the second concjusJons respondent Ciommlttee. Undoubtedly, m cases of this 1|ype, the byrden heavjiy lies on .the appijcant who seeks such .a not mean. that.ttie certiflcate, That aythoritieB have no ro!e to piay in fjndlng out the correctness or otherwise of the clairn for issue of a caste certlficate. We the authorities ar6 of role .in concerned rnust also play a assisting the Committee to arrlve at a correct decision.-ln thls case, except the documents produced by the appslSant, nothing has authorltles concemed to arrive at a dlfferent condusion. been produced by the iview The dedsion, therefore, is aiso an 32- authorlty for the proposltlon thatthe Committee can go into.ihe questJon as to whether a caste certiflcate has-rlghtly been Issued or not. The authonties cancerned were also found to have some role to -play in flndlng out the correctness or otherwlse of the cjalm for Issue of a caste certjflcate/? v'-' \^

13. The Supreme-Court In GM^ (supra) observed as under:

7. The directlons given m adhwi Patll have relterated in the case of Dlrector of Tribai Welfare, Government of A»P. vs. Laveti Girl which while reiterating it ¥^as observed that the the matter India shoy'ld Govemmerst of examined in greater detail and{bring aboyt a unlform leglslation In relatlon to\ these matters. !n Baswant vs. State of Maharashtra this CQUrt heid that the constitytion of the Committee was not In accordance wlth the declslon rendered by thls Court In Madhuri Patll, as such the appeal ^ ^ In Patil It was the Conimittee in Court afresh.'The said directions of to constltyte. of the decision of this the matter this Court m constitytlon . of Committee have been approved by a 3-Jydge in Sydhakar Vithal lench of Kumbhare v. Statejof m which.the • regardlng ihis Gourt PatiS' was, ' not referred (,.: \- .that properly Commlttee in terms of dlrectlons given in theappeal was ailowed and it was constituted dlTected 'ln vlew of Comrnittee shali declde the matter. the foregoing dlscyssions it cannot be said that In Madhyri Patil were the djrectlons gyjdellnes. In our view, the law iald down in the case of Madhuri Patil has been reiterated times without number not only by 2-Judge Benches fout. even by a 38aJydge Bench-of this Court.

14. The of the Commlssion that the petltioner not belong to ST Ss not bindlng, The ihe genyineness.of of a particuiar person»

15. The DJvisJon of th3s Court in Ajit P.X- Jogi v. .Natlioiial Comniission for ScheduSed Castes-and Schedyled Tribes & Others0, whiie consldering the power of the National 'Tor as : Schedujed Tribes, "20. We do not the provlsions of Artlcle 338 (5) (a) (b) of the ConstlSutlon would come to the aid ofthe Commission to daim that It has jurjsdjction to of an jndivlduaj like ths petitloner. By no jmaglnafion, bv Shrl Shankar to ha.ve the Commlssion could Prasad, jurisdlctlon to enqulre Into the: caste or iike the petitioner. The status of an Commlssion cannot cialm aid of the provisjcns of Article 338 (5) (a) (b). for arrogating to Itseif the jurisdlction to make enquiry into the - '2007(1)CGU14S ^•y^""%,. "'.. '^ ^•f. f. % ^ on!y 1 means the. Constitytion, the deprivation of jmpjjcatlons, truthfylness or of an JndividyaJ's caste or.sociai status-.. to the Sanguage empioyed IIn the provjslons of Article 338 (5) of the power of the cotT!!p3alnts wlth regard.to by necessary .various vls-a-vjs^ the State.which provisions of the ConstJtytIori Thus. the Commlssion at the most investjgate into the complain'ts pertaining to depriyation ofthe safeguards jn reiatlon to the the .petitjoner. 338 (6) not an The provjslons contained in (7$ spell out m ofthe Constltytion."

18. Appiying the princlpies af law for'the reasons hereinabove, slnce the .dated 12-11-20G5 (Annexure - PM) on the basls of recommendatlon by the Commlssiori, which has no jurisdiction, the same.is with'a31 conseqyentia! benefits, However, !iberty is to the respondent to get the of the Power Caste Scrutiny from the accordingly on the basls of report of'the HIgh Power Scrytiny Comniittee. 17» In the resuit^ the to the above. No costs. Qowrl Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge