Nafr High Court
Case Details
YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.04.22 12:45:25 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:17407 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1902 of 2025 Mohammad Subhan S/o Mohammad Israil Aged About 58 Years R/o House No. 386/a Camp-2, Sharda Para, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh versus ... Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Tribal And Scheduled Caste, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Naib Tehsildar Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge 16.04.2025 Order on Board 1 Heard Mr. B.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Satish Gupta, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents. 2 2 The petitioner has filed this petition with the following relief(s):- “10.1 That the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside the rejection of application and direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to submit the inability memo instead of Dakhil kharij. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to restore the application of the petitioner and accept the inability memo as per the rules, 2013. 10.3 That any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be granted in favor of the petitioner safeguarding his interest.” 3 The facts of the present case are that the petitioner belongs to ‘Kunjda Caste’ and is a permanent resident of the State of Chhattisgarh and has been residing in the said State for the past several decades. The petitioner belongs to the Other Backward Class (‘OBC’) category and is entitled to obtain an OBC certificate as per the provisions of the Chhattisgarh SC, ST, and OBC (Regulation of Social Status Certificate) Act, 2013 (for short, “Act of 2013”), and the rules framed thereunder. In pursuance of obtaining the said OBC certificate, the petitioner submitted an application through the online portal www.edistrict.cgstate.gov.in on 23.05.2024 and complied with the requisite formalities, including the submission of supporting documents such an 3 affidavit affirming the petitioner's claim to OBC status. As per the prescribed procedure, the petitioner possesses necessary documentary evidence in support of the application, including the income certificate and the voter ID card of the petitioner's father, which established the continuous residency of the petitioner's family in Chhattisgarh and the eligibility of the petitioner for an OBC certificate. Despite due submission of the application and the supporting documents, the status of the petitioner's application remained stagnant at the stage of 'want of document, specifically concerning the submission of a 'Dakhil Kharij document, which was neither prescribed as mandatory under the applicable law nor within the petitioner's capacity to furnish. The petitioner, being unable to provide the said document, has made an affidavit of inability, but without any opportunity of submitting the same, the petitioner’s application was rejected. 4 It is further case of the petitioner that notwithstanding the fulfillment of all legitimate requirements, the application of the petitioner was arbitrarily rejected on 20.03.2025 on the ground that the petitioner failed to be present with all original documents at the time of verification. The rejection was communicated through an electronically generated notice, which does not align with the procedural safeguards provided under the Act of 2013. 5 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned rejection of the application is, illegal, arbitrary and bad in law as 4 the petitioner and his family has been a resident of the State of Chhattisgarh for several decades and is entitled to be recognized under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category as per the Act of 2013. He further submits that the petitioner belonging to Kunjda caste which comes under the OBC category, as such, he has submitted an application for issuance of an OBC certificate in compliance with Rule 3(1) of the Chhattisgarh SC, ST, and OBC (Regulation of Social Status Certificate) Rules, 2013 (for short, “Rules of 2013”) along with all requisite documents including an affidavit (Form-2A), an income certificate of the preceding year, and other supporting documents verifying his eligibility, but his application remained stagnant at the stage of "want of document" due to alleged non-submission of the Dakhil-Kharij (Admission Register), which is listed as one of the acceptable documents under Rule 3(3)(e)(IX), but is not a mandatory requirement under the Act of 2013. It has been contended that rejection of the petitioner's application on 20.03.2025 solely on the ground that the petitioner was not present with all original documents is legally unsustainable, as the Act and Rules do not mandate physical presence at the time of application submission, except during the inquiry stage under Rule 8. It has been further contended that the petitioner, having complied with all legal requirements and is ready to submit an affidavit in lieu of an unavailable document as per Rule 6, has been wrongly deprived of his OBC certificate, causing severe hardship and affecting his social and educational 5 opportunities. It has been argued that the application of the petitioner was rejected contrary to the provisions of the Rules of 2013. It has been further submitted that there is no mandatory provision in the Rules of 2013 to submit the documents as sought by the Naib Tehsildar, hence, there was no reason or occasion for the Naib Tehsildar to direct the petitioner to submit Dakhil-Kharij (Admission Register) thus, the order passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Bhilai District Durg dated 20.03.2025 is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. 6 On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the submissions put forth by the counsel for the petitioner and submit that on failing to submit Dakhil-Kharij (Admission Register), the application sought for the Social Status Certificate was rejected by the Naib Tehsildar, Bhilai, District Durg. Thus, he prayed that the instant petition may be dismissed. 7 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 8 Rules 6 & 8 of the Rules, 2013 are reproduced herein below for ready reference:- “6. Inability Memo. - (1) An applicant belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, who has applied for obtaining Certificate, inspite of adequate efforts could not get the required document under sub-rule (3) of Rule 3, may give an affidavit about his 6 inability to submit such document in prescribed FORM-3C, printed on the back of Return Memo. (2) On receipt of Inability Memo, the Competent, Authority shall not demand for the required document or documents under sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 and shall proceed to inquire the claim of the applicant under Rule 8: Provided that the applicant shall present himself during such inquiry before the Competent Authority or before the inquiry officer indicated by him and shall give all necessary assistance to ensure the presence of related persons, so as to prove his claim of social status. 8. Inquiry. - (1) The Inquiry Officer, shall inquire about the residence, permanent address, revenue records, immovable property, occupation of applicant’s family, name in voter list and other evidence, which are relevant to prove the permanent residence on the Date of Presidential Notification or Notification Date relating to Other Backward Classes, as the case may be, and shall verify the social status claimed by the Applicant. (2) The Competent Authority may, apart from documents mentioned in sub-rule (3) of Rule 3, inquire into documents of local bodies, for example, of Gram Panchayat, Janpad 7 Panchayat, Zila Panchayat, Nagar Panchayat, Municipality and Municipal Corporation also. (3) Inquiry officer may also record oral statements, as evidence, of village Kotwar, Village Sarpanch, Halka, Patwari, local ward member, other public representatives of the area, gazetted officers residing in the locality, other local members of that caste already having Certificate and knowing the applicant properly. (4) Inquiry officer, where he is not a Competent Officer, after inquiry shall furnish his written Report having clear outcome, along with documentary evidence and recorded oral statements to the Competent Authority, within fifteen days of receiving inquiry orders.” 9 After going through Rule 6 of the Rules, 2013, it is quite vivid that in the absence of the relevant documents, the person concerned may submit an inability memo before the authority concerned, which shall proceed to inquire about the claim of the petitioner under Rule 8. In the present case, the petitioner could not produce the documents relating to his admission and on that count, the Naib Tehsildar, Bhilai, District Durg, rejected the application of the petitioner for the Social Status Certificate. 10 Since the petitioner claims that he belongs to the Other Backward Class (‘OBC’) category and is entitled to obtain an OBC certificate 8 as per the provisions of the Act of 2013 as also the Rules framed thereunder. He has submitted an application on 23.05.2024 and complied with the requisite formalities, including the submission of supporting documents , but his application has been rejected on 20.03.2025 due to 'want of document’. 11 Further, the Naib Tehsildar, Bhilai, District Durg failed to comply with Rule 6 of the Rules, 2013 and in a cryptic manner, rejected the application of the petitioner, therefore, the order dated 20.03.2025 issued by the Naib Tehsildar, Bhilai, District Durg is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Naib Tehsildar, Bhilai, District Durg to decide it afresh, in accordance with Rule 6 and 8 of the Rules of 2013. 12 In view of the above discussion, the instant petition is hereby
Decision
disposed of. 13 The Registry is directed to supply a copy of this order to the petitioner. Yogesh Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge