Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 551 (GAU)

Gautam Kr. Deb Barma v. State of Tripura

2004-11-16

BIPLAB KUMAR SHARMA

body2004
JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. The real issue involved in both the writ petitions filed by the writ Petitioners who are brothers of full blood is no longer res-integra and has already been decided by this Court by judgment and order dated 03.08.93 passed in Civil Rule No. 231/90 which has attained its finality. However, the manner and method in which the issue has been dealt with is the subject matter of dispute. 2. The Petitioner in Civil Rule No. 121 /95 is aggrieved by the order dated 24.01.1995 issued by the District Magistrate and Collector, West Tripura, Agartala canceling the Schedule Tribe Certificate which was issued in favour of the Petitioner way back in 1977 (27.06.77). He is also aggrieved by the order dated 07.02.1995 consequential to the order dated 24.01.1995 reverting him to the post of Fishery Officer from the post of Superintendent of Fishery to which post he was promoted on ad hoc basis by order dated 06.07.91. His such promotion on ad hoc basis continued with various orders beginning from 06.07.1991 providing duration of six (6) months every time. The Petitioner was issued with ST Certificate dated 27.06.1977 from the office of the District Magistrate, West Tripura certifying him as belonging to Tripuri Community which is a Schedule Tribe under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order 1950. 3. The show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner on 19.06.1993 asking for documentary evidence in support of the aforesaid Caste Certificate issued to the Petitioner, on the ground that on enquiry it was established that the Petitioner was in fact a member of Laskar Community not included as Scheduled Tribe in the constitutional order. The Petitioner by his letter dated 22.06.1993 responded to the show cause notice praying for stay of the proceeding in view of the pendency of the writ petition being Civil Rule No. 231/1990 filed by his brother Shri Dilip Kumar Deb Banna who incidentally is the other writ Petitioner in Civil Rule No. 341/1995 on the same issue as was raised by the show cause notice. However, by letter dated 06.07.93 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, West Tripura the Petitioner was directed to produce all relevant documents on 15.07.93. The Petitioner once again by his letter dated 27.06.93 requested for stay of the proceeding on the ground specified above. However, by letter dated 06.07.93 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, West Tripura the Petitioner was directed to produce all relevant documents on 15.07.93. The Petitioner once again by his letter dated 27.06.93 requested for stay of the proceeding on the ground specified above. Eventually, by reply dated 10.02.1994 the Petitioner responded to the show cause notice by furnishing documents etc. including the purported sale deed bearing No. 11672 dated 05.10.1943 stated to be executed by his grand father. The description of the executor as "Khatria" and "Deb Barma" was according to the Petitioner a sufficient proof of his ST status. However, by communication dated 25.04.1994 issued by the SDO, Sadar, West Tripura, the Petitioner was intimated that his representation could not be accepted as it had already been ascertained that he and his family members did not belong to ST (Tripuri) Community but belonged to "Laskar" Community. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid communication dated 25.04.94 the Petitioner approached this Court by filing Civil Rule No. 277/94 which was disposed of by an order dated 23.05.1994 providing that the SDO Sadar might receive the aforementioned sale deed also as evidence. However, it was made clear that consideration directed to be given did not mean that the sale deed should be taken as a proof to hold that the Petitioner was a member of Scheduled Tribe. The Petitioner furnished the copy of the order of this Court to the SDO, Sadar. The Petitioner was directed to appear before the SDO, Sadar on 28.06.1994 along with the original sale deed and other relevant papers. The Petitioner duly appeared before him and submitted documents including the copy of the said sale deed. 5. After the aforesaid development the impugned Memorandum dated 14.01.1995 was issued by the District Magistrate and Collector, West Tripura, canceling the ST Certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner in 1977 (27.06.1977). As a consequence thereof the Petitioner was also reverted from the post of Superintendent of Fishery to his substantive post of Fishery Officer. As noticed above, the Petitioner was promoted as Superintendent on ad hoc basis. 6. As a consequence thereof the Petitioner was also reverted from the post of Superintendent of Fishery to his substantive post of Fishery Officer. As noticed above, the Petitioner was promoted as Superintendent on ad hoc basis. 6. Before the impugned order dated 24.01.1995 canceling the ST Certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner the department in which the Petitioner had been working i.e. the Department of fisheries, issued a corrigendum dated 05.02.94 in respect of the seniority list circulated on 28.12.1993 wherein the name of the Petitioner was included at S1. No. 45 indicating him as ST. by the said corrigendum the status of the Petitioner as ST was corrected as UR (un-reserved). Thus that course of action was adopted before the cancellation of the ST Certificate by the impugned order dated 24.01.95. 7. It is the case of the Petitioner that he belongs to ST Community and his ST Certificate was cancelled by the impugned order by adopting a mechanical approach and in a most arbitrary and illegal manner in gross violation the principle of natural justice. 8. In Civil Rule No. 341/1995, the Petitioner who is the full blood brother of the Petitioner in Civil Rule No. 121/94 has prayed for a declaration to the effect that the Petitioner belongs to Tripuri Community and for issuance of ST Certificate on that basis to the Petitioner's son. He has also prayed for setting aside and quashing of the Memorandum dated 24.03.94 by which the ST Certificate issued in his favour on the same date as that of his brother, the writ Petitioner in Civil Rule No. 121/1995 i.e. 27.06.1977 was cancelled, on ground of issuance of the Certificate due to mis-representation of facts. The Petitioner was also directed to appear before the SDO, Sadar to show cause as to why he had obtained two certificates on two different dates, one in 1970 and another in 1977 indicating him as belonging to "Laskar Community and "ST Community" respectively. Be it stated here that in the first certificate issued to the Petitioner in 19.08.70, the Petitioner, although was described as belonging to Laskar Community, but was recognised as ST. In the subsequent Certificate dated 27.06.77 which was issued after seven years of the first certificate, the Petitioner like that of the other writ Petitioner was described as Tripuri (Community) unlike the first one in which he was described as Laskar (Community). In the subsequent Certificate dated 27.06.77 which was issued after seven years of the first certificate, the Petitioner like that of the other writ Petitioner was described as Tripuri (Community) unlike the first one in which he was described as Laskar (Community). However, both the certificates led to recognition of the Petitioner as ST. 9. In the instant case also like that of the first case, the Petitioner submitted his representation against the show cause notice dated 13.10.93. However, by the impugned Memorandum dated 24.03.94, the ST Certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner on 27.06.77 was cancelled. 10. The Petitioner on an earlier occasion approached this Court by filing Civil Rule No. 231/90 claiming the benefit of ST status to his three sons and for a direction to the Respondents to issue ST Certificates to each one of them. Before that also he had filed another writ petition being Civil Rule No. 195/90 raising the same claim and the same was disposed of by order dated 25.07.90 directing the Respondents to consider the application submitted by the Petitioner and to dispose of the same. On 31.07.90, the application submitted by the Petitioner for issuance of the ST Certificate to his sons was rejected which was made the subject matter of challenge in Civil Rule No. 231/90. The claim of the Petitioner was rejected by judgment and order dated 03.08.93 refusing to interfere with the action of the Respondent. However, in paragraph 4 and 5 of the said judgment, the following observations were made: 4. Assuming that the Petitioner's aforesaid contention is tenable, I find that Annexures H to J applications do not contain any claim to the effect that the applicants have been accepted by the Scheduled Tribe community as members thereof. In this view 3rd Respondent cannot be found fault with the passing the impugned order. 5. This judgment will not stand in the way of the Petitioner and his sons from moving the appropriate authority for issuing a Scheduled Tribe Certificate putting forward detailed grounds in support of the claim and the authority concerned from deciding the question according to law. 11. After cancellation of the ST Certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner and refusal to issued ST Certificate to his sons, the Petitioner once again approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. 12. 11. After cancellation of the ST Certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner and refusal to issued ST Certificate to his sons, the Petitioner once again approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. 12. In both the cases, the Respondents have filed their counter affidavit to which the Petitioners have filed their re-joinder. Referring to the decision of this Court as reported in : AIR 1987 Gau 24 Srish Kumar Choudhury v. State of Tripura and Ors. affirmed by the Apex Court by its judgment reported in : AIR 1990 SC 991 Srish Kumar Choudhury v. State of Tripura and Ors. it is the case of the Respondent that issue is no longer res-integra and the Petitioners are not entitled to any relief by approaching this Court again and again. In the counter affidavits filed by the Respondents, they have highlighted as to how on 27.06.77, the Petitioners alongwith their another brother Shri Pradip Kumar Deb Barma and their father Shri Radha Charan Deb Barma had obtained individual ST Certificate from the same authority. It is the case of the Respondents that consequent upon cancellation of any one of the said certificates, naturally all other certificates also stood cancelled. In any case, the Respondents contend in their counter affidavit, that after the aforesaid judgment of this Court, nothing survives to be decided in the instant writ petitions. 13. I have heard Mr. C.S. Sinha, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. U.B. Saha, learned senior Govt. Advocate assisted by Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Advocate. Referring to the above quoted observations made in the earlier judgment of this Court, Mr. Sinha, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Respondents were required to consider the case of the Petitioners in a meaningful manner taking into account all relevant documents including the sale deed dated 05.10.1943 which according to him conclusively established the ST status of the Petitioners. 14. Mr. U.B. Saha, learned senior Govt. Advocate on the other hand refuted the claim of the Petitioners by making elaborate submissions and referring to the following reported cases. 14. Mr. U.B. Saha, learned senior Govt. Advocate on the other hand refuted the claim of the Petitioners by making elaborate submissions and referring to the following reported cases. He submitted that after the decision of this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the Petitioner in Civil Rule No. 341/95, the Respondents rightly took action in the matter as was required of them and that the further approach of the Petitioner by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The decisions on which Mr. Saha placed reliance are as follows: 1. AIR 1987 Gau 24 Srish Chandra Choudhury v. State of Tripura and Ors. 2. AIR 1990 SC 991 Srish Kumar Choudhury v. State of Tripura and Ors. 3. AIR 1995 SC 94 Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner 4. AIR 1995 SC 1506 Director of Tribal Welfare v. Laveti Giri 5. AIR 1998 Bom 226 Ku. Bandana Narayan Sonkusare v. State of Maharashtra 15. According to the Respondents, the Petitioner belongs to Laskar Community which is not recognised as ST in the State of Tripura. Deshi Tripura (Laskar) Community is neither included nor is apart and parcel of the Tripura Tripuri Tippera Tribe, which is a Scheduled Tribe in Tripura. A division Bench of this Court in the aforementioned case of Srish Kumar Choudhury (Supra) as reported in AIR 1987 Gau 24 , after elaborate discussion of the attending circumstances and materials held that undoubtedly the Deshi Tripura (Laskar) Community as such had never been included in the Presidential (ST) Order at any stage. The Division Bench held that the question as to who was Scheduled Tribe had to be decided on the basis of the Presidential Order only and that it was not permissible for the State Government either to add or to exclude any Tribe or Tribal Community from the order. However, the Division Bench of this Court also made the following observations: It would, however, be open to interpret an entry in the Presidential (Scheduled Tribes) Order and to identify the tribe or tribal community in the State. However, the Division Bench of this Court also made the following observations: It would, however, be open to interpret an entry in the Presidential (Scheduled Tribes) Order and to identify the tribe or tribal community in the State. There is evidence to show that until the impugned cabinet decisions were taken and the impugned memorandum dated 22.09.1978 was issued, the members of the Deshi Tripra (Laskar) community were treated as to have been included, within the Tripura tribe and Scheduled tribes certificates issued and other benefits conferred on them; but that would not estop the Government of Tripura from the taking the correct constitutional stand if the Laskar Community did not belong to Scheduled Tribes, inasmuch as there could be no estoppel against a statute much less against Constitutional provisions. In Paragraph 39 of the judgment the Division Bench also made the following observations: We are also of the view that no evidence can be led to show that the Deshi Tripura (Laskar) Community, as a community, is a Scheduled Tribe being part and parcel of the Tripura, Tripuri, Tippera tribe. It would, however, be open for any individual, irrespective of whether he belongs to the Laskar Community or not, to adduce evidence of show that he belongs to the Tripura, Tripura, Tippera Tribe. It may be open for the members of the Laskar Community, not as a community, to adduce evidence to show that they belong to the Tripura, Tripuri Tippera tribe though commonly known as Laskar Community. But the evidence will not be acceptable to show that the Deshi Tripura (Laskar) community is the same as Tripura, Tripuri, Tippera tribe. We are also of the view that 'Tripuri' and 'Tippera are synonyms of Tripura and are not sub-tribes or sub-groups thereof. For justifying an individual's claim to have belonged to the Tripura tribe the decision in Wilson Reade (supra) may be heldful. The 'Anglo Khasi' in common parlance indicated a mixture of blood but that itself was held, not enough to exclude them from their membership of the Khasi tribe. Similarly the Deshi Tripura (Laskar) community may indicate mixture of blood but that by itself may not be enough to exclude its members from the Tripura tribe. The 'Anglo Khasi' in common parlance indicated a mixture of blood but that itself was held, not enough to exclude them from their membership of the Khasi tribe. Similarly the Deshi Tripura (Laskar) community may indicate mixture of blood but that by itself may not be enough to exclude its members from the Tripura tribe. The adoption of some Hindu customs may not also be enough to exclude them as throughout India the process of adoption into Hindu hierarchy is common and the Rajamala and the Census Bibarani indicate such a process having taken place among the Scheduled tribes of Tripura. It will depend on the extent of adoption into the Hindu fold on the one hand and abandonment of the tribal heritage, customs and practices on the other. Purity of blood would not be the sole criteria but all the surrounding circumstances shall have to be looked into. 16. As to the consequence of canceling the certificate already issued, it was observed that the same would operate prospectively and not retrospectively and that those who had already enjoyed the benefit by virtue of the ST Certificates, they should not be deprived of the benefits which they had already enjoyed and the Memorandum in question would be effective from its date prospectively. 17. The aforesaid decision of this Court was carried on appeal and the Apex Court affirmed the judgment of this Court by its judgment as reported in AIR 1990 SC 991 Srish Chandra Choudhury v. State of Tripura and Ors. The Apex Court on the basis of the authorities discussed in the judgment held that the entries in the Presidential Order had to be taken as final and the scope of enquiry and admissibility of evidence was confined within the limitation indicated in those authorities. The Apex Court held that even if historically Laskar Tribe was covered by the general description of Deshi Tripuri Tripura, that by itself might not justify its inclusion in the order as a Schedule Tribe. However, in paragraph 20 and 21 of the judgment, the Apex Court made the following observations: 20. The two Constitution Bench judgments indicate that enquiry is contemplated before the Presidential Order is made but any amendment to the Presidential Order can only be by legislation. However, in paragraph 20 and 21 of the judgment, the Apex Court made the following observations: 20. The two Constitution Bench judgments indicate that enquiry is contemplated before the Presidential Order is made but any amendment to the Presidential Order can only be by legislation. We do not think we should assume jurisdiction and enter into an enquiry to determine whether the three terms indicated in the Presidential Order include Deshi Tripura which covers the Laskar Community, but we consider it appropriate to commend to the authorities concerned that as and when the question is reviewed it should be examined whether the claim of the Appellant representing the Laskar Community to be included in tribes is genuine and should, therefore, be entertained. 21. Reservation has become important in view of the increasing Competition in Society and that probably had led to the anxiety of the Appellant and the people in his community to claim reservation. As pointed out by the Constitution Bench judgments which we have referred to above the basis on which inclusion into or exclusion form the enumerated list made under Article342 is contemplated is the changing economic, educational and other situations of the members of any particular tribe. Keeping that in view the State Government may initiate appropriate proposals for modification in case it is satisfied and after appropriate enquiry if the authorities are satisfied that the claim is genuine and tenable, amendment may be undertaken as provided by the Constitution. 18. In the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), the Apex Court found that the Caste Certificate issued in favour of the Appellant by the Executive Magistrate, Greater Bombay was without proper enquiry and investigation, besides being without jurisdiction inasmuch as the fattier of the Appellant, as per the school record, indicated him to be a different Caste than that of the Appellant. It observed that a party that seeks equity, must come with clean hands and that there is no estoppel as no promise of the social status is made by the State when a false plea was put forth for the social status recognised and declared by the Presidential Order under the Constitution, which is later found to be false. It observed that a party that seeks equity, must come with clean hands and that there is no estoppel as no promise of the social status is made by the State when a false plea was put forth for the social status recognised and declared by the Presidential Order under the Constitution, which is later found to be false. Answering the question as to whether the approach adopted by the High Court in the matter in not considering the case elaborately, was vitiated by an error of law, the Apex Court observed as follows: The High Court is not a Court of appeal to appreciate the evidence. The Committee which is empowered to evaluate the evidence placed before it when records a finding of fact, it ought to prevail unless found vitiated by judicial review of any High Court subject to limitations of interference with findings of fact. The Committee when considers all the material facts and record a finding, though another view, as a Court of appeal may be possible, it is not a ground to reverse the findings. The Court has to see whether the Committee considered all the relevant material placed before it or has not applied its mind to relevant facts which have led the Committee ultimately recorded the finding. Each case must be considered in the backdrop of its own facts. 19. In the case of Laveti Giri (supra), the Apex Court while indicating the procedure of issuance of certificates, their scrutiny and their approval held that burden of proof as to social status is always on the person who propounds it to seek Constitutional socio-economic advantage and that it is not part of duty of the State to disprove or otherwise. 20. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ku Bandana Narayan Sonkusare (supra) placing reliance on the Apex Court decisions observed that: It is, therefore, well established principle in law now that even though an applicant before the scrutiny Committee rely upon the documents pertaining his/her father to show that the father was belonging to the Schedule Tribe, such documents are not required to be accepted as it is and the Petitioner-applicant is required to establish that such documents have more probative value.... 21. The Divisional Bench found that the Scrutiny Committee discussed at length oral evidence brought before it during the personal hearing granted to the Petitioner. 21. The Divisional Bench found that the Scrutiny Committee discussed at length oral evidence brought before it during the personal hearing granted to the Petitioner. Reiterating the scope of judicial review in such matter, the Division Bench held that while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is not entitled to sit in an appeal over the findings recorded by the Screening Committee, unless such findings are grossly erroneous or perverse. 22. In the instant case, the earlier round of litigation has come to an end finding no fault with the Respondents towards cancellation of the Caste Certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner in Civil Rule No. 341/95 and refused to issue such certificate in favour of his sons. However, at the same time this Court left it open for the Petitioner and his sons from moving the appropriate authority for issuing ST Certificate putting forward detail grounds in support of the claim and the authority concerned was decided to decide the question according to law. Such an observations found support from the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court and so also the Apex Court in the case of Srish Kumar Choudhury (Supra). In this connection the relevant observations made by the Division Bench have already been quoted above as per which it would be open to interpret an entry in the Presidential (ST) Order and to identify the Tribe or Tribal Community in the State. It also recorded that there was evidence to show that until the impugned Cabinet decision was taken and the impugned Memorandum in that case dated 22.09.78 was issued, the members of the Deshi Tripuri (Laskar) Community were treated and included within the Tripuri Tribe and ST Certificates issued and other benefits conferred on them. However, the Division Bench also observed that the same would not estop the Government of Tripura from taking the correct Constitutional stand if the Laskar Community did not belong to ST inasmuch as there could be no estoppel against statute much less against Constitutional provision. 23. The Apex Court also while affirming the aforesaid judgment of the Division bench and rejecting the claim of the Appellant indicated that the observations made in the judgment should be kept in view. 23. The Apex Court also while affirming the aforesaid judgment of the Division bench and rejecting the claim of the Appellant indicated that the observations made in the judgment should be kept in view. Such observations have been quoted above in terms of which as and when the question was to be reviewed, it should be examined whether the claim of the Appellant representing Laskar Community to be included in Tribes was genuine and should, therefore, be entertained. 24. Both the Petitioners placed reliance on the certain documents including the original Sale Deed of 1943, which according to them was clinching evidence in support of their claim that they belongs to ST Community. This Court while disposing of the earlier writ petition (Civil Rule No. 277/94) filed by the Petitioner in Civil Rule No. 121/95 provided that the SDO, Sadar would receive the said sale deed also and consider the same. The Respondents also while issuing show cause notice to the Petitioners directed them to furnish documentary evidence, which according to them they had furnished. However, nothing was indicated in the impugned order as to the consideration thereof. The impugned order dated 24.01.95 does not indicate consideration of any of the document furnished by the Petitioners including the sale deed which was directed to be taken into consideration by this Court. It only refers to the enquiry conducted by the SDO, Sadar and his report dated 22.06.1994 and the communication dated 30.03.89 from the Tribal Welfare Department intimating that the members of Laskar community did not belong to ST of Tripura. Similarly in the case of the Petitioner in Civil Rule No. 341/95, the impugned order canceling his ST Certificate does not indicate the reason except stating that the Petitioner had obtained the Caste Certificate by mis-representation of facts. Like that of the Petitioner in Civil Rule No. 121/95, he was also issued with show cause notice etc. responding to which he had submitted documents including the aforesaid sale deed to prove his ST status. However, in the impugned order dated 24.03.94 no discussion of those documents have been made which leads to an impression that the proceeding initiated by show cause notice etc. were mere formality and the impugned decision was a forgone conclusion. 25. There is another aspect of the matter so far as the Petitioner in Civil Rule No. 121/95 is concerned. However, in the impugned order dated 24.03.94 no discussion of those documents have been made which leads to an impression that the proceeding initiated by show cause notice etc. were mere formality and the impugned decision was a forgone conclusion. 25. There is another aspect of the matter so far as the Petitioner in Civil Rule No. 121/95 is concerned. The status of the Petitioner till issuance of the impugned order dated 24.01.95 was all along ST. However, even before that, the departmental authorities in which the Petitioner had been working started treating the Petitioner as a member of the unreserved community. The impugned order of reversion was passed on 07.02.95 as a consequence of the impugned Memorandum dated 24.01.95 canceling the ST Certificate of the Petitioner. Before issuing the order of reversion dated 07.02.95 by which time the Petitioner had completed almost five (5) years in the promotional post, the Petitioner was not issued with any notice providing an opportunity to have his say in the matter. It is not known as to whether the Petitioner had earned his promotion as ST. Even if he had earned his promotion with the recognition as ST candidate, it is not discernible as to whether even otherwise also he was eligible and suitable for such promotion applying the same yardstick as was applied to the other similarly situated persons. 26. Although as observed above the issue is no longer res-integra but the Respondents were required to carry out the obligation as was entrusted to them in the aforesaid decisions of this Court as well as the Apex Court. It is another thing as to whether the Petitioners could establish their case that they have been accepted by the ST Community as their members as was envisaged in the aforesaid judgment of this Court dated 03.08.93 passed in Civil Rule No. 231/90, but it is another thing as to whether the Respondents could carry out the exercises in its true perspective as was envisaged in the aforesaid judgment. 27. As against the claim of the Petitioner that they belong to ST Community and alternatively even the Laskar Community is recognised as ST within the Tribes indicated in the Constitutional Order, it is the case of the Respondents that the Petitioners being the members of the Laskar Community which is not included in the Constitution (ST) Order are not ST. As against the claim of the Petitioner that they belong to ST Community and alternatively even the Laskar Community is recognised as ST within the Tribes indicated in the Constitutional Order, it is the case of the Respondents that the Petitioners being the members of the Laskar Community which is not included in the Constitution (ST) Order are not ST. However, the respective claims have not been decisively indicated in the impugned orders taking into consideration all materials/documents produced by the Petitioners including the sale deed of 1943. It is in this context, the aforesaid observations of this Court and the Apex Court come into play. 28. Similarly, the impugned order of reversion was passed in respect of the Petitioner in Civil Rule No. 121/95 stating the same to be the consequence of cancellation of the ST Certificates by the impugned order dated 24.01.95 without, however, indicating anything as to whether the Petitioner had earned his promotion as ST candidate and also as to whether even otherwise also the Petitioner was entitled to get his promotion. Notice to him before passing the impugned order of reversion would have met all the requirements. Unfortunately that was not done and the Petitioner was reverted from the promotional post, which he had occupied for about four years. It is not the case of the Respondents that the Petitioner had to be reverted because he was holding the post of promotional post on ad hoc basis. He was reverted as a consequence of cancellation of ST Certificate. 29. In view of the above, the matter is remanded back to the Respondent No. 3 for a fresh decision in the matter taking into account all the relevant factors and materials which have already been produced by the Petitioners including the sale deed of 1943. upon such reconsideration, whatever might be the order, same shall be communicated to the Petitioner. The entire exercises shall be carried out within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment and order by the said Respondent. upon such reconsideration, whatever might be the order, same shall be communicated to the Petitioner. The entire exercises shall be carried out within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment and order by the said Respondent. The consideration now required to be given shall confine only to the limited extent of the observations made by this Court in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 03.08.93 passed in Civil Rule No. 231/90 (Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the judgment) and so also the above quoted observations of the Division Bench and the Apex Court in the case of Srish Kumar Choudhury (supra). If need be, the Petitioners may be given a personal hearing towards issuance of a fresh order. 30. As regards the impugned order or reversion passed against the Petitioner in Civil Rule No. 121/95, the matter stands remanded back to the Respondent No. 2, i.e. the Commissioner of the Government of Tripura in the department of Fishery for a fresh decision in the matter after giving the Petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Director shall consider as to whether the impugned order of reversion was a natural corollary to the cancellation of the ST Certificate or could have been avoided inspite of the issuance of the impugned order dated 24.01.95 which will again be subject to the outcome of the exercise now required to be carried out by the Respondent No. 3 as indicated above. 31. With the above directions and observations both the writ petitions stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.