Prakash Rao Thaware S/o Krishna Rao Thaware, Aged About 64 Years Caste Mahar, R/o v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Tribal Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:34782 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 3803 of 2025 Prakash Rao Thaware S/o Krishna Rao Thaware, Aged About 64 Years Caste Mahar, R/o 41/a, Maitrivihar, Supela, Teh. And District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Tribal Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector/ Upper Collector, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer, (Revenue) Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Love Kumar Ramteke, Advocate
Legal Reasoning
For State-Respondents : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 22/07/2025 Heard. VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.07.22 17:16:35 +0530 2 1. The petitioner has been filed this writ petition on the following relief(s) : “ 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the respondents. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent authority to issue Permanent Social Status Certificate (Caste Certificate) to the Petitioner's children's. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly note that respondent no. 3 is intentionally violating the act repeatedly. For which he should be punished and departmental action should be taken. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief or pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice.” 2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by Respondent No. 2/ Collector-cum-appellate authority under Section 5 of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013 (henceforth “Act of 2013”), whereby the appellate authority affirmed the decision of Respondent No. 3/ SDO(R) in dismissing the application on the ground that petitioner is not eligible for the Social Status Certificate under the provisions of Rule 12 of Act of 2013. 3 3. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner belongs to the “Mahar” caste which is a Scheduled Caste. Father of petitioner is an employee of Bhilai Steel Plant who came to Bhilai-Durg after his first appointment in the year 1958 and continuously worked since 1958 till the date of attaining age of superannuation in the year 1991. Petitioner is also an employee of Bhilai Steel Plant and appointed on 17.11.1986. Petitioner submitted an application for grant of permanent Social Status Certificate for his children which was rejected on one of the grounds that petitioner has not submitted documents of residents within territorial jurisdiction of Chhattisgarh of prior to year 1950. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that in view of the decision passed in WPC No. 5505/2011 (Yogendra Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh), the respondents authorities could not insist on production of land records prior to the year 1950. He would also submit that petitioner being a resident of Chhattisgarh in terms of Circular issued by the State of Chhattisgarh dated 10.10.2022 and therefore also the respondents- authorities ought not to have insisted upon to submit the documents prior to year 1950. Birth of petitioner and his children are in State of Chhattisgarh. It is next contended that as the father of petitioner migrated for service, petitioner is entitled for the Social Status Certificate in accordance with the Rule 12 of the Act of 2013 and the similar 4 observation is also made by this Court in its order dated 17.12.2019 passed in WPC No. 4635 of 2019 (Prakash Rao vs. State of Chhattisgarh). In view of the Circular issued by the State Government dated 10.10.2022 defining the permanent resident of State of Chhattisgarh as also the order dated 17.12.2019, the order passed by SDO(R) as also the appellate authority be set aside and the Respondent No. 3 be directed to issue permanent Caste Certificate in favour of petitioner as Mahar caste belonging to the Scheduled Caste. 4. Learned State counsel would oppose the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that there is no error apparent in the order passed by the SDO(R) dated 07.02.2020 dismissing the application of petitioner for grant of social status certificate as also the order of the appellate authority dated 20.07.2021 in dismissing the appeal. By the order dated 07.02.2020, SDO(R) rejected the application submitted by petitioner for grant of Social Status Certificate of his son and daughter by detailed order. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents on record.
Decision
6. From the pleadings in the writ petition itself, it is clear that the forefathers of petitioner were residents of the State of Maharashtra. Father of petitioner was also residing in 5 Maharashtra prior to 1950 who came to Bhilai-Durg, Madhya Pradesh (Now in Chhattisgarh) in the year 1958 to join the service in Bhilai Steel Plant. The status of father of petitioner was of migrant from one State to another for the purposes of issuance of Social Status Certificate as provided under the Act of 2013 and rules framed thereunder. 7. It is not the case of petitioner that prior to reorganisation of State of Madhya Pradesh in the year 2000, father of petitioner is an employee in the State of Madhya Pradesh and was having the status of Scheduled Caste as notified in State of Madhya Pradesh and on account of reorganisation his service was allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh. 8. In view of the above, sofar as the ground of permanent Caste Certificate, the status of petitioner or his children would also be of migrant. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and others [(1990) 3 SCC 130] has considered the status of applicant for grant of Social Status Certificate as permanent resident in a State only when he/she is residing in the State from where he want to obtain the Social Status Certificate prior to issuance of Presidential notification ie., dated 10.08.1950 and 06.09.1950 and held thus: 6 “16. We may add that considerations for specifying a particular caste or tribe or class for inclusion in the list of Scheduled Castes/Schedule Tribes or backward classes in a given State would depend on the nature and extent of disadvantages and social hardships suffered by that caste, tribe or class in that State which may be totally non est in another State to which persons belonging thereto may migrate. Coincidentally it may be that a caste or tribe bearing the same nomenclature is specified in two States but the considerations on the basis of which they have been specified may be totally different. So also the degree of disadvantages of various elements which constitute the input for specification may also be totally different. Therefore, merely because a given caste is specified in State A as a Scheduled Caste does not necessarily mean that if there be another caste bearing the same nomenclature in another State the person belonging to the former would be entitled to the rights, privileges and benefits admissible to a member of the Scheduled Caste of the latter State "for the purposes of this Constitution". This is an aspect which has to be kept in mind and which was very much in the minds of the Constitution-makers as is evident from the choice of language of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution......…” “Relying on this statement the Constitution Bench ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to admission to the medical college on the basis that he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe in the State of his origin.” 9. In the aforementioned decision, Hon’ble Supreme Court in clear terms has observed that the benefit of reservation of Scheduled 7 Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Caste in a given State would depend on the nature and extent of disadvantages and social hardships suffered by that caste, tribe or class in that State which may be totally non est in another State. The object of Act of 2013 is to protect the interest of persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and Other Socially and Educationally Backward Classes of citizens in the State from those who fraudulently obtains false Social Status Certification, certifying that the person belongs to these sections of populations; and to provide for punishment of issuing and obtaining false Social Status Certification. From the object of the Act, itself it is clear that the benefit of the Caste Certificate is to protect the interest of persons and citizens in the State. 10. The benefit of social status in a particular State is to be considered from the date of issuance of Presidential notification in the year 1950. According to the notification whosoever on the date of notification is residing in the State has been treated as Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or Other Backward Class of that State. Admittedly, father of petitioner was resident of State of Maharashtra on the date of issuance of Presidential Notification. 11. Father of petitioner is originally resident of Maharashtra, the date of birth of father of petitioner is pleaded as 14.10.1934 8 who migrated from the State of Maharashtra to the Bhilai-Durg (now in Chhattisgarh State) for getting employment in Bhilai Steel Plant only in the year 1958. It is not a case that on the date of joining of services in the year 1958, father of petitioner was resident of undivided State of Madhya Pradesh. The State of Madhya Pradesh came into existence on 01.11.1956 and therefore in the facts of the case, father of petitioner will fall within the category of “Migrant” and not as “in-voluntarily migration” as pressed upon by the counsel for petitioner. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Subhash Chandra and another, vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and others [(2009) 15 SCC 458] has held as under: 29. Concededly, in respect of education or service, there exists a distinction between State Service and State run institutions including Union Territory Services and Union Territory run institutions on the one hand, and the Central Civil Services and the institutions run by the Central Government on the other. Whereas in the case of the former, the reservation whether for admission or appointment in an institution and employment or appointment in the services or posts in a State or Union Territory must confine to the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as notified in the Presidential Orders but in respect of All India Services, Central Civil Services or admission to an institution run and founded by the Central Government, the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other reserved category candidates irrespective of their State 9 for which they have been notified are entitled to the benefits thereof. It is not denied or disputed that services in the Union Territory is essentially different from All India Services. It is also beyond any controversy that machinery for recruitment is also different. Indisputably again, not only the conditions of recruitment but also conditions of service differ. 40. The question which was posed was the effect of specification by the President of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, as the case may be, for the State or Union territory or part of the State. Noticing that the specification was "for the purposes of this Constitution", it was found to be necessary to determine what the expression `in relation to that State' seeks to convey. This Court noticed not only the various provisions of the Constitution but also the earlier decisions governing the field as well as the views of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly, to hold: "22. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to be admitted to the medical college on the basis of Scheduled Tribe Certificate in Maharashtra. In the view we have taken, the question of petitioner's right to be admitted as being domicile does not fall for consideration.” 13. The appellate authority has rightly taken into consideration the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ku. Pooja Awsarmol vs. State of Chhattisgarh passed in WPC No. 2205/2019 and the decision of Full Bench of Bombay High Court in the matter of Kumari Shweta Shantalal Lal vs. State 10 of Maharashtra [2010 (2) Mh.L.J. 904] and dismissed the appeal. 14. The decision of the appellate authority is on appreciation of the facts and considering the provisions under the Act of 2013 and rules framed thereunder as also the decision on the issue, hence, it cannot be said to be erroneous decision calling interference of this Court. 15. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 16. Sofar as, grant of Social Status Certificate is concerned, for the ‘migrants’ specific provisions under Rule 11 of the Act of 2013 is provided. Rule 11 of the Act of 2013 is extracted below for ready reference. “11. Certificate for the Applicant migrated from other State to the State of Chhattisgarh.–– In case, where the Applicant is a migrant from other States, Competent Officer shall issue a certificate in FORM-4C, after marking detailed inquiry, if necessary, through the District Magistrate or Verification Committee or through Vigilance Cell, regrading his social status in that State: Provided that such certificate holder shall be eligible to avail the facilities provided to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes, as the case may be, in that State from which he has migrated. 11 17. In view of the specific provision under the Act of 2013, petitioner will be at liberty to submit an application under Rules 11 & 12 of Act of 2013 and in the event petitioner submits an application, the concerned authority shall pass appropriate order on the application expeditiously in accordance with law. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant