Kartik Mal v. The State of Jharkhand

06/ 07.02.2023 Heard the parties. ----------- : : ---------- Mr. Shailendra Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Suresh Kumar, SC (L&C)

2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents particularly, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to accept the joining report of the petitioner already submitted before the respondents No. 4 as per the terms and conditions specified in the appointment letter issued by respondent No. 3 vide his letter No. 1239 dated 06.12.2006. 3. As per the factual matrix, the petitioner submitted application dated

10.04.2001 before the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad for appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk under S.T. Category, since by Caste he was ‘MAL’, which is a sub-caste of ‘Mal Paharia Tribe’. Thereafter, the Deputy Collector, Establishment, Dhanbad vide his letter dated 09.05.2006, informed the petitioner that in response to letter dated 26.04.2006, issued by the Ministry of Welfare Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi petitioner is allowed to be appointed to the post of L.D.C. and direction was given to furnish the educational certificate and other certificates including the caste certificates for verification so that his candidature for appointment may be considered. The petitioner submitted all the certificates as desired by the respondents and after being fully satisfied with the same, the petitioner was appointed to the post of LDC by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad vide 2 his letter dated 06.12.2006 and the petitioner was directed to join his duties within a period of 15 days from the date of order of appointment in the office of Deputy Collector, Dhanbad. In response to the said letter, the petitioner submitted his joining and furnished all the certificates. However, the certificates which were already verified by respondent no.4, were once again referred to respondent Nos. 6 and 7 for re-verification, which is pending since long. 4. It is further case of the petitioner that though he was discharging his duties but the respondents prevented him from marking his attendance on the ground that the documents submitted by the petitioner were pending for verification. As a result of which, the petitioner was denied his salary and was subjected to acute financial crisis and has been compelled to live in penury. Inspite of several requests and representations the respondents have not paid any heed and hence, he has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 5. Mr. Shailendra Kr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vociferously argues that the impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law on the ground that caste certificate issued by the Block Development Officer, Dhanbad has been cancelled by the Circle Officer. Learned counsel submits that Circle Officer has no jurisdiction or any authority to cancel the caste certificate issued by the Block Development Officer since the same can only be cancelled by Caste Scrutiny Committee if it is found to be forged one. Learned counsel submits that it would be proper if the matter is remitted back to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, who shall pass appropriate order after following procedure of law and affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- State very fairly submits that Circle Officer has no jurisdiction to cancel the Caste Certificate. Mr. Suresh Kumar relying on the celebrated judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors., reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241, argues that in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the matter may be remanded back to the respondent-authorities to reconsider the same by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. 3

7. Be that as it may, having heard the learned counsel for the parties across the bar and upon perusal of the documents brought on record, this Court is of the considered view that the cancellation of caste certificate of the petitioner by Circle Officer is not tenable in the eyes of law as the same has been issued by the Block Development Officer and it can only be cancelled by the Caste Scrutiny Committee if it is found to be obtained fraudulently. 8. The issue involved in this writ petition is no more res-integra and fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors. (supra). This Court also taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the said case, disposed of the writ petition being W.P.(S). No. 4806 of 2018 (Sandeep Bakshi Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.). 9. In view of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the matter is remitted back to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for passing appropriate order taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors. (supra). 10. The Caste Scrutiny Committee is directed to pass appropriate order after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law and if it is found that petitioner’s caste certificate is a genuine one, the respondents are directed to accept the joining of the petitioner and allow him to mark his attendance and extend all the consequential benefits, for which the petitioner is entitled for in accordance with law. If any adverse order is passed, the same shall be communicated to the petitioner. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of eight weeks. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. kunal/- (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)