Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1165 (MP)

Meharlata v. State of M. P.

2005-11-21

A.M.NAIK

body2005
ORDER 1. Case of the petitioner is that she belongs to 'Mannewar' Tribe recognised as a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Madhya Pradesh. A certificate to the effect was granted to her by the Deputy Collector, Jabalpur, which has been cancelled by the Screening Committee vide the impugned order dated 8.11.2001. The petitioner has challenged this order in the present writ petition. 2. Shri Harvinder Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is vitiated because the Screening Committee has proceeded under a misconception that 'Mannewar' is a sub-tribe of 'Gond' Tribe of Madhya Pradesh, mentioned in the Schedule Part-VIII Madhya Pradesh, at Sl. No. 16. He submitted that the caste of the petitioner has been duly established and the impugned order has been passed without taking into consideration various important pieces of evidence. Demonstratively, he submitted that the Screening Committee has considered the report of Superintendent of Police and on its basis it has found that the original caste of the petitioner is 'Telugu'. Learned counsel submitted that 'Telugu' is a language and not a caste. Learned counsel further submitted that the grandfather of the petitioner namely, Shri Linganna Yeddey was a representative of 'Mannewar Samaj' and had represented Nagpur in the conference held in the year 1920. He referred to documents at pages No. 52 and 53 annexed to the writ petition. Accordingly, Shri Harvinder Singh, 'learned' counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner as contained in Annexure P-5 is liable to be restored. 3. Shri P.N. Dubey, learned Deputy Advocate General supported the impugned order. He contended that the petitioner having failed to establish that she belongs to 'Mannewar' tribe, the caste certificate in her favour was rightly cancelled. 4. Considered the submissions and perused the impugned order in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ku. Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others reported as AIR 1995 SC 94 and in State of Maharashtra v. Milind and others reported as (2001) 1 SCC 4 . The apex Court in the case of Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra) has held : "It is therefore necessary that the certificates issued are scrutinised at the earliest and with atmost expedition and promptitude. The apex Court in the case of Ku. Madhuri Patil (supra) has held : "It is therefore necessary that the certificates issued are scrutinised at the earliest and with atmost expedition and promptitude. For that purpose it is necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of a social status certificate, their scrutiny and their approval which may be the following : 1. The application for grant of social status certificates shall be made to the Revenue Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the Certificate shall be issued by such Officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level. 2. The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be shall file an affidavit duly sworn and attested by a competent gazetted officer or non-gazetted officer with particulars of castes and sub castes, tribe, tribal community, parts or groups, of tribes or tribal communities, the place from which he originally hails from and other particulars as may be prescribed by the concerned Directorate. 3. Application for verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee shall be tiled at least six months in advance before seeking admission into educational institution or an appointment to a post. 4. All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely, (1) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the concerned department; (II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal welfare/Backward Class welfare, as the case may, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates. In the case of Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities. 5. Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in over all charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer should personally verify collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. The vigilance officer should personally verify collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He also should examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in the proforma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the concerned casts or tribes or tribal communities. 6. The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the vigilance officer if he found the claim for social status to be "not genuine" or "doubtful" or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue show cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post with acknowledgment due or through the head of the concerned educational institution in which the candidate is studying or employed. The notice should indicate that the representation or reply, if any, would be made within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice and in no case on request not more than 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice. In case, the candidate seeks for an opportunity of hearing and claims an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the Director on receipt of such representation/reply shall convene the Committee and the Joint/Addl. Secretary as Chairperson who shall give reasonable opportunity to the candidate/parent/guardian to adduce all evidence in support of their claim. A public notice by beat of drum or any other convenient mode may be published in the village or locality and if any person or association opposes such a claim, an opportunity to adduce evidence may be given to him/it. After giving such opportunity either in person or through counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-a-vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof. 7. After giving such opportunity either in person or through counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-a-vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof. 7. In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken accept where the report or particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed. 8. Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the parents/ guardian also in case candidate is minor to appear before the Committee with all evidence in his or their support of the claim for the social status certificates. 9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day-to-day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. If after inquiry, the caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or spurious, they should pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and confiscate the same. It should communicate within one month from the date of conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the parent/guardian and the applicant. 10. In case of any delay in finalising the proceedings, and in the meanwhile the last date for admission into an educational institution or appointment to an officer post is getting expired, the candidate be admitted by the Principal or such other authority competent in that behalf or appointed on the basis of the social status certificate already issued or an affidavit duly sworn by the parent/guardian/candidate before the competent officer or non-official and such admission or appointment should be only provisional, subject to the result of the inquiry by the Scrutiny Committee. 11. The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 12. No suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie. "It has been further held : "In case, the certificate obtained or social status claimed is found to be false, the parent/guardian/the candidate should be prosecuted for making false claim. 12. No suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie. "It has been further held : "In case, the certificate obtained or social status claimed is found to be false, the parent/guardian/the candidate should be prosecuted for making false claim. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude, disqualification for elective posts or officers under the State or the Union or elections to any local body legislature or the Parliament." 5. The apex Court in the case of Milind (supra) has further held : "The power of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India while exercising the power of judicial review against an order of inferior Tribunal being supervisory and not appellate, the High Court would be justified in interfering in the conclusion of the Tribunal, when it records a finding that the inferior Tribunal's conclusion is based upon exclusion of some admissible evidence or consideration of some inadmissible evidence, or the inferior Tribunal has no jurisdiction at all or that the finding is such, which no reasonable man could arrive it, on the materials on record". 6. In paragraph 3 of the impugned order contained in Annexure P-1, it is mentioned by the Screening Committee that it has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner does not belong to 'Mannewar' tribe. It is on the basis of examination of the report of Superintendent of Police and other factors. It has been mentioned in paragraph 4 that the original caste of the petitioner, is 'Telugu', which is strengthened by the educational certificate of the petitioner. Similarly, in sub-para 4 of paragraph 4, it has been mentioned that the petitioner failed to establish that she belongs to 'Mannewar' sub-tribe of 'Gond' tribe of Madhya Pradesh. Thus, the Screening Committee has treated 'Mannewar' tribe as a sub-tribe of 'Gond' tribe found in the State of Madhya Pradesh. I examined the report of the Screening Committee, as contained in Annexure P-1. The Committee has, observed in sub-para 5 of paragraph 4 that the petitioner is Telugu speaking which does not substantiate that she belongs to 'Manewar' tribe recognised in the State of Madhya Pradesh. 7. I examined the report of the Screening Committee, as contained in Annexure P-1. The Committee has, observed in sub-para 5 of paragraph 4 that the petitioner is Telugu speaking which does not substantiate that she belongs to 'Manewar' tribe recognised in the State of Madhya Pradesh. 7. It be seen that the Screening Committee has not adverted itself to the status of grand father of the petitioner who is stated to have represented Nagpur in the conference of 'Mannewar Samaj'. Obviously the petitioner could not have much deposed about the caste/tribe to which she belongs. In view of this the Screening Committee ought to have considered firstly, whether the 'Marnewar Samaj' of Madhya Pradesh is 'Mannewar' tribe in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Secondly, whether the 'Mannewar Samaj' was formed by merely the persons belonging to 'Mannewar' tribe and whether the association in the name of 'Mannewar Samaj' was of the persons belonging to 'Mannewar' tribe. Similarly, the learned Screening Committee has not taken into consideration that the father of the petitioner was a Central Government employee and she status of the caste/tribe of the petitioner could have been ascertained from the service record of the petitioner's father. This could have been a pivotal point for deciding the issue before the Screening Committee. 8. The petitioner earlier had filed WP No. 2193/98 before this Court. On 3.4.2000, this Court vide its order had disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the Screening Committee that it shall take decision after holding an enquiry in accordance with law. In the said writ petition also it was contended that 'Telugu' is not a caste but it is merely a language. The Screening Committee has not adverted itself to this aspect of the matter. On the contrary the Screening Committee has concluded in paragraph 4 that the original caste of the petitioner is 'Telugu' and the same stood verified by the academic certificates. The Screening Committee does not appear to have taken the matter with seriousness and gravity, as it ought to have. Since, the Scheduled Tribes are a nomadic class of citizens whose habitats being generally hilly regions or forest, results in their staying away from the main-stream of the national life. The Screening Committee does not appear to have taken the matter with seriousness and gravity, as it ought to have. Since, the Scheduled Tribes are a nomadic class of citizens whose habitats being generally hilly regions or forest, results in their staying away from the main-stream of the national life. Therefore, the State is enjoined under our Constitution to provide facilities and opportunities for development of their scientific temper, educational advancement and economic improvement so that they may achieve excellence, equality of status and live in dignity. The petitioner has been in service for last more than 25 years and has been treated throughout as a member of tribe. The cancellation of caste certificate in her favour would be having a serious impact on her service career. Keeping this in view, the Screening Committee ought to have passed an order after giving consideration to the matter from all the possible angles. The apex Court in the case of Madhuri Patil (supra) has observed : "The preamble to the Constitution promises to secure to every citizen social and economic justice, equality of status and of opportunity assuring the dignity of the individual. The Scheduled Tribes are inhabitants of intractable terrain regions of the country kept away from the main stream of national life and with their traditional moorings and customary beliefs and practices, they are largely governed by their own customary Code of Conduct regulated from time to time with their own rich cultural heritage, mode of worship and cultural ethos. The Constitution guarantees to them who are also Indian citizens of equality before law and the equal protection of law. Though Articles 14 and 15(1) prohibits discrimination among citizens on certain grounds, Article 15(4) empowers the State to make special provisions for advancement of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Article 16(1) requires equality of opportunity to all citizens in matters of appointment to an office or a post under the Union or a State Government or public undertakings etc. But Article 16(4) empowers the State to make provisions for reservation of appointments or posts in favour of classes of citizens not adequately represented in the services under the State. Article 46 enjoins the State by mandatory language employed therein, to promote with special care the educational or economic interest of the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes and to protect them from 'social injustice' and 'all forms of exploitation'. Article 46 enjoins the State by mandatory language employed therein, to promote with special care the educational or economic interest of the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes and to protect them from 'social injustice' and 'all forms of exploitation'. Article 51 A(h) enjoins every citizens to develop scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform. Again Articles 51 A(h) requires every citizen is strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement. It is, therefore, a fundamental duty of every citizen to develop scientific temper and humanism and spirit of inquiry to reform himself in his onward thrust or his strive to improve excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity." 9. Similarly, the Screening Committee has assigned no reason to hold that 'Mannewar' is a sub-caste/tribe of 'Gond' tribe. The Screening Committee has observed so in sub-para 4 of paragraph 4 of Annexure P-1, without any foundation. Various Scheduled Tribes at Sl. No. 16 of Part VIII Madhya Pradesh of the Schedule arc as under: "16. Gond, Arakh, Arrakh, Agraia, Asur, Badi Maria, Bada Maria Bhatola, Bhimma, Bhuta, Kooabhuta, Koliabhuti, Bhar, Bisonborn Maria, Chota Maria, Dandami Maria, Dhuru, Dhurwa, Dhoba, Dhulia, Doria, Gaiki, Galla, Gatti Gaita, Gond Gowari, Hill Maria, Kandra, Kalanga, Khatola, Koitar, Koya, Khirwar, Khirwara, Kucha Maria, Kuchaki Maria, Mandia Maria, Mana, Mannewar, Moghya, Mogia, Monghaya, Mudia, Muria, Nagarchi, Nagwanashi, Ojha, Raj, Sonjhari Jhareka, Thatia, Thotya, Wade Maria, Vade Maria, Dorai." This Schedule nowhere mentions that 'Mannewar' is a sub-tribe of 'Gond' tribe. It is not clear from the impugned order that what made the Screening Committee to hold that 'Mannewar' is a sub-caste/tribe of 'Gond' tribe. The Screening Committee was under an obligation to decide whether the petitioner belongs to 'Mannewar' tribe, as described in the aforesaid Schedule with or without any nexus with any of the other Tribes mentioned in the Schedule. 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-1 is hereby quashed. The Screening Committee, respondent No.2 is directed to re-decide the matter afresh, within a period of 4 months. The Screening Committee will be within its rights to hold a fresh/additional enquiry for the same, if found to be necessary, after giving opportunity to the parties. No order as to costs.