The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.1085 of 2025 Upendra Takri …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate State of Odisha & Others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 21.01.2025 Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia challenging the final order passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee-Opposite Party No.3 on 21.11.2024 in F.C.C. Case No.7/2015 under Annexure-3. 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner was initially issued with the caste certificate by the local MLA under Annexure-5 on 05.06.1979 in terms of the Notification issued by the Government in the Tribal and Rural Welfare Department vide Resolution No.8481- BSTT(R), 1968, T.R.W. // 2 // 4.1. It is contended that in terms of the certificate so issued in favour of the Petitioner under Annexure-5, where the Petitioner was declared as having belong to Scheduled Tribe, Petitioner entered into service as a L.D Clerk, where he joined on 15.11.1980. (Extract of the service book showing such date of joining in Government service produced in Court be kept in record.)
Legal Reasoning
4.2. It is contended that such a certificate was issued by the MLA in terms of the aforesaid Resolution, as during the relevant time there was no rule being prescribed to deal with the issuance of caste certificate in favour of eligible candidates. However, subsequent to issuance of the caste certificate in favour of the Petitioner under Annexure-5, the Odisha Scheduled Caste (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes), Rules, 1980 (in short ‘Rules’) came into operation. Thereafter, when Petitioner was directed to produce a fresh caste certificate, he obtained the same from the Tahasildar, Koraput in RMC (Caste) No.2814/2004 on dtd.31.12.2004 under Annexure-6. The said certificate was issued in terms of the provisions contained under the aforesaid 1980 Rules. However, it is contented that such a caste certificate issued under Annexure-6 is in continuation to the earlier caste certificate issued by the MLA under Annexure-5. 4.3. It is also contended that Petitioner while continuing in Govt. service, he retired from his services on attainting Page 2 of 7 // 3 // the age of superannuation on 31.08.2017. But in the meantime and after his retirement he was issued with a show cause by Opposite Party No.3 vide letter dtd.01.07.2019 under Annexure-1 in FCC Case No.7/15 to verify the authenticity of the caste certificate issued in his favour. 4.4. It is contended that Petitioner on receipt of the show cause dtd.01.07.2019 submitted his reply on 19.07.2019 under Annexure-2 indicating therein that he was issued with the caste certificate initially by the MLA, who was competent at the relevant point of time in terms of Resolution No.8481 of the year 1968. 4.5. It is contended that though such a plea was taken but while disposing the proceeding in FCC Case No.7/2015 under Annexure-3, the caste certificate issued under Annexure-6 on 31.12.2004 was directed to be cancelled along with other penal directions. 4.6. It is the main contention of the Petitioner that since Petitioner was issued with the caste certificate originally under Annexure-5 by the local MLA in terms of the Resolution governing the field and the said certificate since has not been cancelled vide the impugned order, no further direction could have been issued to cancel the certificate subsequently obtained by the Petitioner under Annexure-6 in continuation of the earlier certificate issued under Annexure-5. Page 3 of 7 // 4 // 4.7. It is also contended that unless and until the caste certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner by the local MLA under Annexure-5 is found to be an illegal one, no direction can be issued to take any penal action against the Petitioner. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.
Decision
5. Even though notice of the Writ Petition has not been issued, but learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State placing reliance on the provisions contained under Section-2(d) of The Odisha Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of the Caste Certificates) Act, 2012 contended that at the relevant point of time, the MLA was the competent authority to issue such a caste certificate. Section-2(d) of the Act reads as follows:- “2(d) “Competent Authority” means an Officer or authority authorized by the Government, by notification, to issue Caste Certificate, for such are or for such purposes as may be specified in the said notification and shall include all the Competent Authorities already designated by the Government before the commencement of this Act, having jurisdiction over the area or place to which the applicant originally belongs, unless specified otherwise”. 5.1. It is contended that in terms of the aforesaid Act, a new set of rules has been framed i.e. Odisha Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificates) Rules, 2023 vide Notification dtd.06.01.2024. Page 4 of 7 // 5 // 5.2. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State accordingly contended that in view of the new Rules which has been framed in terms of the 2012 Act, the issue with regard to caste certificate originally issued in favour of the Petitioner by the local MLA under Annexure-5 can also be dealt with along with the certificate issued subsequently by the Tahasildar under Annexure-6 in RMC Case No.2814/2004. 5.3. It is accordingly contended that the matter be remitted to Opposite Party No.3 to re-decide the issue and the certificates issued in favour of the Petitioner originally under Annexure-5 and subsequently under Annexure-6 be dealt with in accordance with the 2023, Rules. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner does not dispute the framing of the 2023 Rules in terms of the 2012 Act and fairly contended that the issue can be dealt with under the 2023 Rules. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner was issued with the caste certificate by the local MLA on 05.06.1979 under Annexure-5 in terms of the provisions contained under Resolution No.8481 of the year 1968. Subsequently, in continuation of the said certificate, Petitioner was issued with the further certificate by the Tahasildar, Koraput in RMC Page 5 of 7 // 6 // Case No.2814/2004 on 31.12.2004. As found from the impugned order dated 21.11.2014 under Annexure-3, the certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner on 31.12.2004 under Annexure-6 has been declared as illegal with other directions being issued to take penal action against the Petitioner. Since the certificate issued by the local MLA, who as per the considered view of this Court, was competent to issue such a certificate at the relevant point of time has not been dealt with by Opposite Party No.3, this Court in view of such irregularity, which is apparent on the face of the impugned order, and placing reliance on the provisions contained under the 2012 Act read with 2023 Rules is of the view that the certificate issued under Annexure-5 is required to be dealt with in accordance with the 2023 Rules along with the caste certificate issued under Annexure-6. 6.1. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash order dtd.21.11.2024 so passed by Opposite Party No.3 in FCC Case No.7/2015 under Annexure-3. While quashing the said order, this Court remits the matter to Opposite Party No.3 to re-decide the issue and take a final decision with regard to the genuineness and authenticity of the certificates issued in favour of the Petitioner under Annexures-5 & 6 in terms of the provisions contained under the 2023 Rules. This Court directs Opposite Party No.3 to take a fresh decision by giving due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and Page 6 of 7 // 7 // such a fresh decision be taken within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order. In order to avoid delay, Petitioner is directed to appear before Opposite Party No.3 along with a copy of this order on 03.02.2025. On his appearance, Opposite Party No.3 shall take up the issue and proceed with the matter and decide the same within the time as directed. Petitioner is also permitted to file a fresh reply by taking all his stand as available to him under law. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Subrat (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jan-2025 15:45:03 Page 7 of 7