Anju Pathre v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) passed by
Case Details
1 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.05.02 10:43:45 +0530 2025:CGHC:19547-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 260 of 2025 Anju Pathre D/o Herawat Ram Pathre Aged About 28 Years R/o City Kotwali Police Line Dantewada, District Dantewada (C.G.) versus ... Applicant(s) 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary (Law), Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - High Court Of Chhattisgarh Through Registrar General, Bodari, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee Through Commissioner, Aadim Jati Tatha Anusuchit Jati Vikas, Block D, Ground Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Collector Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.) 6 - Atanu Prasad D/o Ramashankar Prasad Aged About 25 Years R/o C/o Family Court Judge, Kanker, District Kanker (Uttar Bastar) (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) For Respondent No.1 For Respondent No.2 For Respondent No.3 : : : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan alongwith Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocates. Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Deputy A.G. Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 30.04.2025 1. Heard Mr. Raghavendra Pradhan alongwith Ms. Prachi Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Y.S. Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondent No.1 as well as Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 21.02.2025 (Anju Pathre vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1353 of 2025, whereby, the writ petition filed by appellant herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. The facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement inviting applications for the total post 49 of Civil
Decision
Judge (Jr. Div.). Pursuant to the advertisement the writ petitioner appeared as a ST Candidates in the preliminary examination and cleared it. Thereafter she also cleared the main examination and appeared in Viva voice. The respondent No. 2 declared the result on 11.12.2024 and the name of writ petitioner appeared at Sr. No. 1 of the ST candidates (At Sr. No. 29- 2308107375) of the waiting list. The marks (55) obtained by the writ petitioner and the last selected candidates (ST) Jagriti Dhruw at Sr. No. 49 of the Select 3 list were same but because of the latter was older in age therefore she was given preference and her name appeared in the select list. One selected candidate Atanu Prasad (At Sr. No. 33 Roll No. 2308101155) has been shown in the ST category. As per the information of the writ petitioner that the said candidate Atanu Prasad does not belong to "Manjhi" caste (ST category) and her selection in the ST category is unjust. The father of Atanu Prasad (Shri Ramashankar Parsad) has filed an application before the SDO (R) Baikunthpur for correction of his caste as Manjhi (ST) which was rejected and the appeal filed by him was also rejected by the Collector Koriya (C.G.) vide order dated 17.12.2024. As per the caste list issued by the CG ST Commission the caste Manjhi is treated as Scheduled Tribe but there is no caste "Kewat" shown in the list of ST category, therefore Respondent No. 6 (Atanu Prasad) not being the Manjhi caste does not come under the ST category. The writ petitioner is at Sr. No.1 in the waiting list of ST category and her right has been deprived by the candidate who does not belongs to ST category. Being aggrieved by the said fact, the writ petitioner / appellant herein preferred WPS No. 1353 of 2025, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 21.02.2025. Hence this writ appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge ought to the order dated 21.02.2025 is illegal, arbitraty and against the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore, is liable to be set-aside. Further, the learned Single Judge ought to 4 have considered the fact that the father of the respondent No.6 namely Ramashankar Prasad filed one appeal before the Collector, Koriya-Baikunthpur, where he has admitted that the land revenue record from 1954 to 1955, his caste was mentioned as Kenwat, which comes under the OBC Category and he prayed before the Collector, Baikunthpur to change their category in the revenue record from Kenwat to Manjhi and that appeal was dismissed by the said Collector. In the selection list (as per Sl.No.33 Roll No.2308101185) to R.S.No.6 (Atnu Prasad), has been shown in the ST Category, but as per the revenue records and Khasra Panchsala of the respondent no.6, she does not belongs to the Schedule Tribe Category and her selection in the Scheduled Tribe Category is unjust. The great grandfather of respondent No.6 namely Late Mohar Sai was having children and one of his son named Badri Prasad, who is grandfather of respondent No.6 and Badri Prasad is father of Umashankar, Ramashankar and also four daughters and the respondent No.6 is the daughter of Ramashankar Prasad. Some lands are recorded in the name of father and uncle of respondent No.6 in Village Baikunthpur, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.) and the said village is the native village of respondent No.6, where her forefather were residing and the said land is the ancestor property of respondent No.6 and the said lands are presently recorded in the name of her father and uncle and also other family members and in the particulars about the name of land owner/lease holder, 5 the caste of his father and uncle and mentioned as "Kenwat", which makes it clear that the respondent No.6 is originally belongs to Kenwat caste, which falls under OBC Community, whereas the respondent No.6 have submitted her caste certificate for Schedule Tribe Community. Also, the authority who has issued the caste certificate of respondent No.6 has not duly followed the Rule of Chhattisgarh Regulation of Social Status Certification Act, 2013. The selection list of the post of Civil Judge has been issued wherein the respondent No.6 has been selected in the Scheduled Tribe Community and the appointment order may be issued at any point of time. Learned counsel for the appellant lastly submits that the writ petitioner made complaint before the District Level Certificate Verification Committee, District Koriya (C.G.) upon which the committee has passed the order dated 09.04.2025 and the District Level Certificate Verification Committee has found in prima- facie the father of respondent No.6 does not belong to the ST community. 5. Learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 6. They further submit that the order dated 09.04.2025 passed by the District Level Verification Committee, District- Koriya (C.G.), 6 on the basis of which, the appellant is seeking cancellation of candidature of respondent No. 6 is absolutely invalid, as the committee itself is unanimous in the conclusion that the case should be presented before the High Level Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Raipur for in-depth and detailed investigation to confirm that respondent No.6 belongs to the Tribal category or not on the basis of the documents submitted regarding her caste and her socio-cultural environment and background. The same cannot be a ground for setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition i.e. WPS No.1353 of 2025 vide order dated 21.02.2025, holding that in the order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the Collector, it is quite vivid that it is only a rejection order of appeal and the Collector has refused to make necessary correction in respect of social status of the respondent No.6 in the Revenue record as the Revenue Authority was not having jurisdiction to make such correction in the record because earlier the entries in this regard have been made on the basis of Dakhil Kharij register, service book and on the basis of occupation of ancestors of the respondent No.6. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for 7 the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet