The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 16102 of 2015 Antaryami Pradhan ..... State of Odisha & Ors. -versus- ..... CORAM: Petitioner Ms. S. Mohapatra, Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 27.01.2025 Order No. 28 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 23.12.2024 and 20.01.2025, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate contended that no such record is available with the Department where the Petitioner was serving regarding production of SC and/or ST certificate by him to get the benefit of appointment and so also promotion.
Legal Reasoning
3. Heard Ms. S. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S.K. Jee, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 4. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.30.06.2015 so passed by Opp. Party No. 3 under Annexure-4 in FCC Case No. 72/2012 and the order of termination passed on 13.08.2015 under Annexure-7 removing the Petitioner from his services taking into account the final order passed in the aforesaid FCC Case No. 72 of 2012. 5. It is contended that since Petitioner belongs to Pano Hindu, he was issued with the caste certificate by the District Welfare Officer, Page 1 of 5. Phulbani on 04.08.1978 under Annexure-9. It is further contended that the caste certificate obtained by the Petitioner under Annexure- 9 was never used by him to get the benefit of appointment and/or promotion. It is also contended that certificate issued in RMC Case No. 646 of 1975 under Annexure-1 is not a caste certificate and it only describes that the Petitioner belongs to Converted Christian with his Sub-caste as Pano. 5.1. It is contended that since Petitioner at no point of time used the certificate obtained by him under Annexure-9 to get the benefit of appointment and/or promotion during his entire service career and the certificate issued under Annexure-1 is not a caste certificate having been issued by the competent authority at the relevant point of time, the proceeding initiated in FCC Case No. 72 of 2012 is not maintainable. 5.2. It is also contended that since Annexure-1 is not a caste certificate in the eye of law, there was no occasion to cancel the same vide impugned order dtd.30.06.2015 under Annexure-4 and consequential termination of the Petitioner vide
Decision
order dtd.13.08.2015 under Annexure-7. 5.3. It is contended that Petitioner since belongs to Pano Hindu, he was issued with the certificate under Annexure-9. But the certificate issued under Annexure-9 since was never used by him to get the benefit of appointment and/or promotion, termination of the Petitioner basing on the impugned order passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee on 30.06.2015 under Annexure-4 is also not sustainable in the eye of law. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order passed under Annexure-4 by Opp. Party No. 3 in Page 2 of 5. FCC Case No. 72 of 2012 is not only illegal but also the order of termination passed on 13.08.2015 under Annexure-7. 6. Mr. S.K. Jee, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand placing reliance on Annexure-1, contended that since in Annexure-1 Petitioner was treated as Converted Christian with Sub-Caste Pano, he should not have been issued with the certificate produced by the Petitioner under Annexure-9. It is also contended that Annexure-9 does not reflect any Case number basing on which the proceeding was initiated for issuance of such a caste certificate in favour of the Petitioner. 6.1. It is vehemently contended that since Petitioner is a Converted Christian with Sub-Caste Pano as reflected in Annexure-1, he should not have been issued with the certificate produced by the Petitioner under Annexure-9. But it is fairly contended that Annexure-9 was not the subject matter of issue before the State Level Scrutiny Committee (in short Committee). It is also fairly contended by the learned AGA that Annexure-1 is not a caste certificate in the eye of law, as no caste of the Petitioner was indicated in the said certificate nor it was issued by the competent authority by describing the Petitioner having belong to SC and/or ST. 6.2. However, it is contended that since Petitioner by producing the certificate issued under Annexure-9 got the benefit of appointment as a SC category candidate and got the benefit of promotion while in service basing on the final order passed under Annexure-4, Petitioner has been terminated from his services. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the Page 3 of 5. proceeding in question in FCC Case No. 72 of 2012 was initiated against the Petitioner basing on the report submitted by the Inspector, Vigilance Cell, D.P.O., Kandhamal –cum- Addl. I.I.C., G. Udayagiri P.S. enclosed to the show-cause dtd.17.10.2012 under Annexure-2. 7.1. As found from the said report, the enquiry officer raised a contention that Petitioner was issued with a caste certificate from Tahasildar, G. Udayagiri vide RMC No. 646 of 1975 so available under Annexure-1. It is found that the enquiry officer taking into account the description of the caste of the Petitioner in Annexure-1 held that Petitioner does not belong to SC and accordingly basing on the said report proceeding in question was initiated in FCC No. 72 of 2012. 7.2. In the reply submitted by the Petitioner under Annexure-3 Petitioner also admits that such a certificate was issued in his favour vide RMC No. 646 of 1975 so available under Annexure-1. Various other stands were also taken by the Petitioner in the reply that she having belong to Pano Hindu, he has been rightly issued with the caste certificate under Annexure-9. But it is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that such a caste certificate was never used by him. 7.3. In view of the submissions made, this Court is of the view that certificate available under Annexure-1 so issued vide RMC No. 646 of 1975 is not a caste certificate in the eye of law. It is also the view of this Court that Annexure-9 certificate so produced by the Petitioner is not a caste certificate in the eye of law nor the same has Page 4 of 5. been issued in terms of any proceeding initiated by the District Welfare Officer. 7.4. In view of such irregularities, which is apparent on the face of the record, this Court is of the view that the matter requires fresh adjudication by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. Since in the meantime a fresh set of Rules have been notified vide notification dtd.06.01.2024 i.e. the Odisha Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes (Regulatioin of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificates) Rules, 2023, this Court directs the Committee to re-decide the matter in terms of the aforesaid 2023 Rule and take a fresh decision as to whether Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community and whether any such certificate was issued in his favour in accordance with law, which was used by him. If on verification it will be found that Petitioner does belong to Scheduled Caste, then appropriate order be passed. The order of removal passed against the Petitioner vide Annexure-7 shall be subject to final outcome of the order to be passed by the Committee as directed. The Committee is directed to redecide the issue by giving due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Committee along with a copy of this order on 7th February, 2025. 8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Sneha Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:10:36 (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Page 5 of 5.