The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 9626 of 2013 Ashalata Pradhan ..... State of Odisha & Ors. -versus- ..... CORAM: Petitioner Mr. T. Barik, Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 20.11.2024 Order No. 18 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. T. Barik, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging the final order passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee on 28.01.2013 in fake certificate case No. 43 of 2012. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner belong to Pano Christian and the said caste was declared as having belong to SEBC category vide Govt. of Odisha, Department of Tribal Welfare Resolution No. 25455 dtd.10.09.1993 published in the Orissa Gazette on 01.10.1993. 4.1. It is contended that Petitioner after being declared as having belong to SEBC category, she was issued with the certificate in that regard under Annexure-2 by the Tahasildar, G. Udayagiri in RMC No. 2452 of 2003. It is contended that Petitioner by utilizing the certificate so issued in her favour under Annexure-2 got the benefit Page 1 of 5. of engagement as a Sikshya Sahayak vide order dtd.20.02.2004 under Annexure-3. 4.2. However, while so continuing when a proceeding was initiated against her before the State Level Scrutiny Committee with the allegation that Petitioner by utilizing ST caste certificate issued in her favour got the benefit of admission to prosecute C.T. course and subsequently got the benefit of appointment as a Sikshya Sahayak, Petitioner on being communicated with the enquiry report appeared before the State Level Scrutiny Committee and filed a detailed show-cause inter alia contending that Petitioner has never availed any benefit having belong to ST category nor any caste certificate was issued in her favour by showing her having belong to ST category. 4.3. It is contended that on the face of such reply filed to the show- cause so issued by the Committee, when the Committee passed an order on 26.08.2009 by holding that Petitioner by utilising ST caste certificate has got the benefit, the same was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 17891 of 2009. It is contended that this Court vide order dtd.02.08.2011 while remitting the matter to the Committee for fresh disposal, quashed order dt.26.08.2009. 4.4. It is contended that after such remittance of the matter by this Court and as directed, Petitioner recorded her statement on 18.05.2012 indicating therein that Petitioner belong to SEBC category, her sub-caste being Pano Christian. It is also contended that Petitioner in her evidence also clearly indicated that she has never utilized any certificate issued in her favour having belong to ST category. Page 2 of 5. 4.5. It is contended that Petitioner all through got the benefit of appointment as having belong to SEBC category and on misconception and basing on the enquiry report, the proceeding in question was initiated against her in FCC No. 43 of 2012. It is also contended that Petitioner in the meantime retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2024 and because of the pendency of the proceeding Petitioner is not getting her retiral benefits. 4.6. It is contended that since Petitioner at no point of time has utilized any certificate issued in her favour showing that she belongs to ST category, the proceeding in question could not have been initiated against her. It is also contended that the Committee without proper appreciation of the show-cause and the evidence laid by the Petitioner on remand of the matter, could not have passed the impugned order vide order dtd.28.01.2013. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit and the stand available in the case record so produced in Court contended that even though Petitioner was issued with the certificate showing her having belong to SEBC category, but she got the benefit of CT training by showing her having belong to ST category. It is also contended that Petitioner prosecuted her primary education by showing her having belong to ST category. It is contended that since Petitioner prosecuted her education by showing that she belong to ST category, she could not have got the benefit of engagement as Sikshya Sahayak having belong to SEBC category. Page 3 of 5. 5.1. It is however not disputed that Petitioner at no point of time has been issued with any caste certificate showing her having belong to ST category. It is also contended that on remand of the matter, Committee after allowing the Petitioner to lead the evidence, has rightly passed the impugned order and it requires no interference. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner was issued with the certificate showing her having belong to SEBC category vide certificate issued under Annexure-2. Basing on the said caste certificate Petitioner was engaged as a Sikshya Sahayak vide order dtd.20.02.2004 under Annexure-3. No document has been filed by the State showing that the Petitioner by availing any caste certificate issued in her favour having belong to ST category has got any benefit. No cogent material has also been placed by the State showing that Petitioner prosecuted her primary education as well as acquired CT training by utilizing the ST caste certificate issued in her favour. 6.1. Since Petitioner as found from the record has never utilized any certificate issued in her favour having belong to ST category and all through she having belong to SEBC category got the benefit of appointment, this Court is of the view that the Committee without proper appreciation of the reply filed by the Petitioner and the evidence laid after remand of the matter wrongly held the Petitioner to have got the benefit having belong to ST category. 6.2. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to quash order dtd.28.01.2013 so passed by the Committee under Annexure-6 in Page 4 of 5. FCC No. 43 of 2012 so far as it relates to the Petitioner. While quashing the same, this Court allows the writ petition. Sneha (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 29-Jan-2025 11:26:53 Page 5 of 5.