Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1115 (PAT)

Suneet Singh v. State Of Bihar

2002-10-10

AFTAB ALAM

body2002
Judgment 1. In the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination, 2002, the petitioner Suneet Singh, son of Tulsi Prasad has been selected for admission in the M.B.B.S. course on one of the seats reserved for the scheduled tribes. He is required to produce his caste certificate at the time of counselling which is scheduled for October 17 & 18, 2002. It is the case of the petitioner that he went to the sub-divisional officer, Sadar, Patna for a caste certificate showing him as belonging to Kharwar community, which, according to the petitioner, is one of the scheduled tribes. Failing to get the desired certificate, he came to this court seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to issue him the caste certificate testifying that he belonged to the Kharwar community. 2. By order, dated 9.9.2002, the Sub-divisional Officer was directed to consider the petitioners request and to issue him the caste certificate after due enquiry. In pursuance of the courts order, the Sub-divisional Officer held an enquiry on the basis of which he expressed his inability to issue the certificate as claimed by the petitioner; on the basis of the enquiry the Sub-divisional Officer came to the finding that the petitioner was not a Kharwar but he belonged to Kahar caste (Chandravanshi) which is included in the list of most backward castes. 3. The details regarding the enquiry made by the Sub-divisional Officer are stated in the supplementary counter affidavit filed on his behalf. It appears that in the enquiry the petitioner filed nine documents/ certificates in support of his claim which included the caste certificates issued in favour of his brother and sister and his father. 4. In the supplementary affidavit the Subdivisional Officer has dealt with each of the documents/ certificates submitted by the petitioner. With regard to the certificates issued in favour of his brother and sister, it is stated that those certificates were issued on someones recommendation, without any proper verification. As to the case of the father, it is stated that the petitioners father Tulsi Prasad was an employee of the Bihar Public Service Commission where he was currently placed under suspension and was being proceeded against on the charge of using a fake caste certificate (showing him as a Kharwar) for getting promotion etc. As to the case of the father, it is stated that the petitioners father Tulsi Prasad was an employee of the Bihar Public Service Commission where he was currently placed under suspension and was being proceeded against on the charge of using a fake caste certificate (showing him as a Kharwar) for getting promotion etc. It appears that the Sub-divisional Officer also called for the materials relating to the proceeding against the petitioners father pending before the Bihar Public Service Commission. 5. The Sub-divisional Officer also pointed out that the petitioners family originally belonged to the district of Rohtas and he made a reference to the circular letter issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India bearing no. BC-12025/2/ 76-SCT-1, dated 22.3.1977 (copy at Annexure-H) according to which a caste certificate could only be issued by the revenue authorities of the applicants place of permanent abode at the time of the notification of the relevant Presidential order and, the revenue authority of one district would not be competent to issue such caste certificate in respect of persons belonging to another district. 6. The Sub-divisional Officer, Patna on the basis of the enquiry made by him and in view of the aforesaid circular of the Central Government took the stand that in the first place the petitioner was not a Kharwar and in any event he should have approached the revenue authorities of Rohtas for the caste certificate. 7. Thereafter a bulky amendment petition was filed in this case by the petitioner in which, apart from the nine documents/ certificates produced before the Sub-divisional Officer, many other materials are brought on record. The materials filed along with the amendment petition were not before the Subdivisional Officer and, therefore, he cannot be faulted for not considering those materials. 8. Ordinarily, this court would have declined to proceed further in this matter and would have directed the petitioner to appear before the Collector, Rohtas with the request for the caste certificate, submitting before him all the materials relied upon in support of his claim. 9. Mr. Vibhuti Pandey, however, submitted that in the case of the petitioners father, the Collector, Rohtas had already submitted a report that he was not a Kharwar but a Kahar (Chandrawanshi) and, therefore, he had almost prejudged the matter and it is not likely that he will consider the petitioners case objectively and impartially. Mr. 9. Mr. Vibhuti Pandey, however, submitted that in the case of the petitioners father, the Collector, Rohtas had already submitted a report that he was not a Kharwar but a Kahar (Chandrawanshi) and, therefore, he had almost prejudged the matter and it is not likely that he will consider the petitioners case objectively and impartially. Mr. Pandey further submitted that though originally the petitioners family comes from Rohtas, for the past many years they are living in Patna and the petitioner himself was born and brought up at Patna. 10. To my mind the apprehension expressed by Mr. Pandey is quite unfounded. l am not prepared to accept that, that simply because the Collector had earlier sent a report in the case of the petitioners father, he would close his mind and would not examine the materials which the petitioner may wish to rely upon in support of his claim. 11. But l have a slightly different reason for not sending this matter to the Collector, Rohtas. As noted above, the petitioner has been selected for admission to the M.B.B.S. course and he is in urgent need of the caste certificate. It will be highly unjust, and prejudicial for him to lose admission to this very sought after course for want of the caste certificate even though he might truely belong to the Kharwar community. On the other hand, he must not be allowed admission to a seat reserved for scheduled tribes if he does not truely belong to that category. The matter, therefore, needs to be examined thoroughly and urgently and the Collector with his many fold responsibilities may not be in a position to hold a thorough enquiry in this matter within a short time. 12. Having this in mind, l asked Mr. AAG II to suggest a competent and impartial agency which may be entrusted with the enquiry. Mr. AAG II submitted that the enquiry may be given jointly to two persons, namely, Shri Dwarika Prasad, Member Secretary and Shri Gorakh Prasad, Member of the State Commission for Backward Classes. 13. l think that the suggestion made by Mr. AAG II is quite proper, reasonable and fit to be accepted. 14. Mr. AAG II submitted that the enquiry may be given jointly to two persons, namely, Shri Dwarika Prasad, Member Secretary and Shri Gorakh Prasad, Member of the State Commission for Backward Classes. 13. l think that the suggestion made by Mr. AAG II is quite proper, reasonable and fit to be accepted. 14. This court accordingly, requests Shri Dwarika Prasad, Member Secretary and Shri Gorakh Prasad, Member, State Commission for Backward Classes to jointly hold an enquiry on the issue whether or not the petitioner belongs to the Kharwar community, which according to him is one of the scheduled tribes. Mr. AAG II shall intimate Shri Dwarika Prasad and Shri Gorakh Prasad that they have been entrusted with this enquiry by this court without delay. 15. The petitioner is directed to submit all materials/documents and certificates in support of his claim before Shri Dwarika Prasad by October 18, 2002. The Subdivisional Officer, Patna will similarly submit his enquiry report and all the materials collected during the enquiry made by him in the case of the petitioner before Shri Dwarika Prasad by 18.10.2002. Shri Dwarika Prasad will call for from the Bihar Public Service Commission all the relevant materials relating to the proceeding pending against the petitioners father. He will also call for the relevant materials which may throw light on this issue from the Collector, Rohtas. He will then fix a suitable date for hearing. The District Magistrate, Rohtas will arrange for sending a responsible officer along with all relevant documents on the date so fixed. On that date the enquiry officers will hear both the petitioner and the representative from the Collector, Rohtas and give their report in the light of the materials produced before them. It is expected that the enquiry officers will give their findings/report by November 15, 2002. 16. In the light of the report of the enquiry officers, the Subdivisional Officer, Patna Sadar will issue the caste certificate to the petitioner. 17. As this entire exercise is undertaken to judge the petitioners entitlement to admission on a reserved seat in the M.B.B.S. course, the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board is advised to keep the matter of the petitioners admission in abeyance atleast for six weeks from today. 17. As this entire exercise is undertaken to judge the petitioners entitlement to admission on a reserved seat in the M.B.B.S. course, the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board is advised to keep the matter of the petitioners admission in abeyance atleast for six weeks from today. They may either give the petitioner a provisional admission subject to production of his caste certificate or may keep a seat vacant for him tilt a period of six weeks from today. 18. This writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions and observations. 19. Let a copy of this order be given to Mr. AAG II for onward communication.