Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 28 (GAU)

Prabir Kumar Das v. State of Tripura

2006-01-04

A.B.PAL

body2006
A.B. PAL, J.— The correctness and legality of the impugned orders cancelling Caste certificates of the petitioners in all the above cases on the ground that no reasonable opportunity of representation was afforded to them has been called in question and since similar question of law and fact are involved in all these cases, it is proposed to disposes of them by this common judgment. FACTS IN CIVIL RULE NO. 195 OF 1998 2. The petitioner claimed that he belonged to Mahishya community, which is recognized as Scheduled Caste by the Presidential Order issued under Articles 341 (1) and 342 (2) and after an elaborate inquiry into his claim, the competent authority granted in his favour a Scheduled Castes certificate on 6.5.1984. On the academic side, the petitioner is a holder of Master degree in History and a Diploma in Sanitary Inspector ship. He applied for a post of Sanitary Inspector in the Agartala Municipal Council following which he was interviewed and selected. But later, another person was appointed as Sanitary Inspector in his place quite illegally and arbitrarily prompting him to approach this court by filing Civil Rule No. 153 of 1993. The said writ petition was allowed with a direction to the respondents to provide the petitioner with a post of Sanitary Inspector, but that direction was challenged before a Division Bench of this court in a writ appeal filed by the respondents herein. The writ appeal having been dismissed the Agartala Municipality appointed the petitioner as Sanitary Inspector and since then he has been serving in that post. On 13.6.1996, the Sub-Divisional officer, Sadar (for short 'S.D.O.',) issued a notice asking the petitioner to show cause why his Scheduled Caste certificate should not be cancelled on the ground that an inquiry held in that connection established that he is not a member of the Scheduled Castes community. During the said inquiry, as disclosed from the letter of the SDO, the petitioner was not informed or afforded any opportunity to make his representation against the question raised about his caste-status and as a result, an ex parte finding was arrived at by the inquiring authority that the petitioner does not belong to any Scheduled Caste community whereupon the show cause notice was issued by the SDO on 13.6.1996. On 4.10.1996, a similar show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the same authority only for correcting the first show cause notice with regard to the number of the Caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. On 17.10.1996, he submitted a reply to the show cause asserting his Scheduled Caste status and questioning the inquiry done at his back, but on 1.6.1998, the said authority cancelled the Scheduled Castes certificate of the petitioner, which was issued in 1984. The order of cancellation dated 1.6.1998 after a period of 14 years from the date of its issue has been called in question in this writ petition. 3. The State respondents contested the case by filing counter-affidavit contending, inter alia, that though a Scheduled Caste certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner after elaborate inquiry, it came to notice later that the said certificate was wrongly issued. Though the petitioner himself claimed in the writ petition by swearing an affidavit that he belongs to Mahishya community, the Scheduled Caste certificate he was holding showed him as a member of Jalia Kaibartya community. Thus on the face of record, it is contended, the claim of the petitioner suffers from contradictions, which make it evident that the Scheduled Caste certificate obtained by him is a sham document. It has been further contended that as per the provisions of the Tripura Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in Services & Posts) Act, 1991 (for short' the Act') and the Rules framed there under, the competent authority issuing the certificate, if satisfied later on that the same was obtained by misrepresentation, can cancel the same and that has exactly been done in the present case. As regards procedure adopted for cancellation, it has been emphasized that after the inquiry established that the certificate was wrongly issued, the petitioner was given opportunity to show cause why the same should not be cancelled and this amounts to substantial compliance with the requirement of natural justice. FACTS IN CIVIL RULE NO. 477 OF 1998 4. The petitioner who is a Science Graduate was appointed as Chemist under the Directorate of Health Services, Govt. of Tripura in the year 1988 against the reserve quota of the Scheduled Caste candidates on the strength of a certificate obtained by him on 25.6.1981 issued by Sub-Divisional Officer, Udaipur. FACTS IN CIVIL RULE NO. 477 OF 1998 4. The petitioner who is a Science Graduate was appointed as Chemist under the Directorate of Health Services, Govt. of Tripura in the year 1988 against the reserve quota of the Scheduled Caste candidates on the strength of a certificate obtained by him on 25.6.1981 issued by Sub-Divisional Officer, Udaipur. By that certificate he was recognized as a member of the Namasudra community which is indisputably a Scheduled Caste community and the said certificate was issued after an elaborate inquiry about the status of the petitioner. On 10.3.1994, the Director of Health Services asked the petitioner to submit his original Scheduled Caste certificate within seven days and accordingly, the petitioner submitted the same. The petitioner had reason to believe that the authority had received certain complaints about him that he did not belong to any Scheduled Caste community following which his original certificate was called for. The petitioner had also in his possession identity card issued by Tripura Tapashili Samannay Samity, Udaipur Sub-Divisional Committee showing him as a member of the Namasudra community. Apprehending that he might be harmed by such allegation, he applied to said committee to make necessary inquiry about his status and accordingly, the said committee after necessary inquiry took a resolution that the petitioner belongs to Namasudra community. By a notice dated 1.11.1994, the Director of Health Services asked the petitioner to meet the Sub-/ Inspector of Police (Vigilance) on 2.11.1994 and accordingly, on that day he met the Police Officer, who recorded his statement. By another notice dated 25.6.1997, the S.D.O., Udaipur asked the petitioner to show cause why his Scheduled Caste certificate should not be cancelled. It has been specifically mentioned in the said notice that from the report of the Deputy Collector (Revenue), Udaipur,it was seen that the petitioner did not belong to Scheduled Caste community. It is contended that the said Deputy Collector while submitting report regarding his caste status contrary to the certificate issued in the year - 1981 did not afford any opportunity to him to submit representation, which is contrary to the principles of natural justice and on that ground the impugned order of cancellation is unsustainable in law. 5. It is contended that the said Deputy Collector while submitting report regarding his caste status contrary to the certificate issued in the year - 1981 did not afford any opportunity to him to submit representation, which is contrary to the principles of natural justice and on that ground the impugned order of cancellation is unsustainable in law. 5. The State respondents while contesting the writ petition contended, inter alia, that the “certificate of the petitioner issued in 1981 by the SDO, Udaipur was later found to be based on false representation. It is contended that in order to cancel such fake certificate suitable provisions have been made in the Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in the Services and T Posts) Rules, 1992 (for short 'the Rules') and following the procedure laid down therein the said certificate has been cancelled after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and therefore, the impugned order of cancellation cannot be examined by this court. FACTS IN W.P. (Q NO. 569 OF 1999 6. The petitioner obtained a Scheduled Caste certificate on 24.9.1985 showing him as a member of the Mahishyadas community, which is recognized as Scheduled Caste community. The petitioner is an Honours Graduate in Political Science and applied for a post of Kanungo under the Directorate of Land Records and Settlement. After the selection process, which included written and Viva voce tests, the petitioner was selected and recommended for appointment and accordingly in 1997, he was appointed as Kanungo against a post reserved for Scheduled Caste community. To his surprise he received a notice dated 18.2.1999 from the SDO, Sonamura asking him to show cause why the caste certificate issued in his favour in 1985 should not be cancelled in accordance with the provision of Rule 6 of the Rules. It has been stated in the said notice that after a subsequent inquiry it was revealed that the petitioner did not belong to Mahishyadas community, without disclosing who made the inquiry and in what manner, but alleging that the petitioner had obtained the Scheduled Caste certificate by misrepresentation. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not aware of such an inquiry though serious allegation about misrepresentation against him was the subject matter and keeping him totally in dark a report was submitted which formed the basis for issuing the show cause notice. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not aware of such an inquiry though serious allegation about misrepresentation against him was the subject matter and keeping him totally in dark a report was submitted which formed the basis for issuing the show cause notice. By the said notice the petitioner was directed to appear before the SDO, Sonamura on 9.3.1999 with necessary documents in support of his claim that he was a member of the Scheduled Caste community. But before he could appear on 9.3.1999, the said SDO by another notice cancelled the earlier notice and directed the petitioner not to appear. On 22.12.1999 the impugned order has been issued cancelling the caste certificate of the petitioner, which was issued on 24.9.1985, thus denying him reasonable opportunity of personal representation, which was fixed on 9.3.1999. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the caste certificate issued in his favour was a genuine one and was issued after an elaborate inquiry, the subsequent inquiry as mentioned in the notice was done at the back of the petitioner without affording him any reasonable opportunity and, therefore, the same is violative of the principles of natural justice. It is contended that for that reason alone the impugned order of cancellation is not sustainable in law. 7. The writ petition has been contested by the State respondents contending, inter alia, that the petitioner obtained the certificate by misrepresentation of facts as he did not belong to Mahishyadas community. It is contended that on the request of the Director of Welfare for Scheduled Castes and O.B.C., the Block Development Officer, Melaghar made an inquiry about the caste status of the petitioner through SC Welfare Sub-Committee, Melaghar Block and the said Committee reported that the petitioner actually belongs to Other Backward Community, not Mahishyadas community. On the basis of the report of the said Sub-Committee, the BDO submitted a report, which formed the basis for issuing show cause notice and after receiving the reply from the petitioner, the competent authority has cancelled the caste certificate of the petitioner, which was issued wrongly and illegally. It has been further contended that reasonable opportunity in the form of issuing show cause notice was afforded to the petitioner before cancellation of the caste certificate and, therefore, it is not competent for the writ court to examine the correctness and legality of the impugned order. It has been further contended that reasonable opportunity in the form of issuing show cause notice was afforded to the petitioner before cancellation of the caste certificate and, therefore, it is not competent for the writ court to examine the correctness and legality of the impugned order. FACTS IN W.P. (C) NO. 120 OF 2000 8. When the petitioner was a student, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Belonia issued a Scheduled Caste certificate in his favour after an elaborate inquiry during which the certificate issued by a Member of the Legislative Assembly of Tripura and other documentary evidence were relied on recognizing the petitioner as a member of the Mahishyadas community. The certificate was issued on 18.3.1985. On 25.11.1981, long before issue of the Scheduled Caste certificate, he was appointed as Police Constable, but later after obtaining the caste certfficate, he applied for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police against a reserved post for Scheduled Castes. He was accordingly selected and appointed as S.I. of Police in the year 1989 and since then he has been serving in that post. He also completed successfully his pre-promotion examination for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police. But on some anonymous allegation, the Superintendent of Police under whom he was working asked him about the same whereupon he filed representation on 21.3.1995 with request to the said authority to make necessary inquiry. The SDO, Belonia by his letter dated 26.3.1997 asked the petitioner to show cause why his SC certificate issued on 18.3.1985 should not be cancelled after a period of about 12 years. In the said show cause notice, it was stated that after a further verification of the caste status of the petitioner, it revealed that he did not belong to any community recognized as Scheduled Caste. No reference was made therein about any inquiry conducted by any competent authority to render invalid the caste certificate issued in 1985 after elaborate inquiry. The petitioner responded on 5.6.1997 assuring that he belongs to Mahishyadas community (Boatman). Thereafter, the said SDO issued another show cause notice on 4.5.1999 asking the petitioner to show cause why his caste certificate should not be cancelled. It was not clear to the petitioner why a second show cause notice couched in same language was issued by the same authority. Thereafter, the said SDO issued another show cause notice on 4.5.1999 asking the petitioner to show cause why his caste certificate should not be cancelled. It was not clear to the petitioner why a second show cause notice couched in same language was issued by the same authority. However, on 21.5.1999, the petitioner again submitted a reply stating his position, which he already stated in his representation dated 5.6.1997. The SDO, Belonia passed the impugned order on 7.3.2000 cancelling the SC certificate of the petitioner on the ground that from a reference of the Director of Welfare for Scheduled Castes and OBCs., it was found on verification that the petitioner did not belong to any SC community. The grievance of the petitioner is that the inquiry/verification as stated in the impugned order was conducted behind his back without affording him any reasonable opportunity to make representation and, therefore, the said order suffers from procedural irregularity, which amounts to gross violation of natural justice and on that ground alone the impugned order is not legally sustainable. 9. This writ petition has been counted by the State respondents, who filed counter-affidavit contending, inter alia, that the petitioner did not belong to any of the Scheduled Castes communities and by sheer misrepresentation, he obtained a SC certificate by virtue of which he got an appointment as S.I. of Police against the post reserved for SC community. This fact came into light during a verification/inquiry conducted later and on the basis of the inquiry, which was done at the instance of the Director of Welfare for Scheduled Castes and OBCs., the impugned order was passed after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to represent his case before the competent authority. As such, it has been contended that the entire exercise has been done in accordance with the procedure, which is consistent with the principles of natural justice and for the reason, the impugned order cannot be called in question in a writ proceeding. FACTS IN W.P. (C) NO. 325 OF 2002 10. The petitioner claimed that he belongs to Jalia Kaibartya community, which is recognized as Scheduled Caste. Accordingly, on his prayer on 5.3.1994 when he was a student, the competent authority issued a certificate in his favour recognizing him as a member of the Jalia Kaibartya community. FACTS IN W.P. (C) NO. 325 OF 2002 10. The petitioner claimed that he belongs to Jalia Kaibartya community, which is recognized as Scheduled Caste. Accordingly, on his prayer on 5.3.1994 when he was a student, the competent authority issued a certificate in his favour recognizing him as a member of the Jalia Kaibartya community. The members of his family including his brothers and paternal uncle enjoyed the said status and as a matter of fact, his uncle obtained a caste certificate as back as in 1974. The petitioner to his shock and surprise received a show cause notice dated 22.9.2000 from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar asking him to show cause why the SC certificate issued in his favour should not be cancelled. It has been mentioned therein that from a report of the SC Welfare Sub-Committee, Agartala Municipal Council, it has been established that the petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Castes community, which prompted the said authority to issue the notice giving him only seven days time. It is the grievance of the petitioner that during the inquiry allegedly made by SC Welfare Sub-Committee, which is a non-statutory body, the petitioner was given no opportunity to represent his case. He was thus denied the right of natural justice. The petitioner was also asked by the said authority to personally appear with all relevant documents on 3.10.2000. Accordingly, during his personal hearing the submitted all the documents in support of his claim that he belongs to Jalia Kaibartya community, but the same fell into deaf ear. He had to appear again personally before the SDO, Sadar following a letter dated 26.5.2001. Thereafter, the Commissioner-cum-Secretary of the Department of Welfare for Scheduled Castes, OBCs. and minorities asked him to remain present in his chamber on 12.7.2001. Though no further encounter had taken place on 13.8.2001, the end result was the impugned order dated 10.1.2002 whereby the caste certificate of the petitioner was declared invalid. It has been urged by the petitioner that the procedure adopted in cancelling caste certificate after such a long period is not transparent and has not afforded reasonable opportunity making me impugned order unsustainable in law. 11. The State respondents have taken similar stand that the caste certificate issued earlier was on misrepresentation of the petitioner that he belongs to Jaliya Kaibartya community which later on full inquiry was found to be incorrect. 11. The State respondents have taken similar stand that the caste certificate issued earlier was on misrepresentation of the petitioner that he belongs to Jaliya Kaibartya community which later on full inquiry was found to be incorrect. It is contended that the petitioner is a member of the Boroijibi Community, which has been recognised as one of the other Backward classes. As regards the other members and relatives of the family, whose SC status had been recognized as back as in 1974, the respondents contended, inter alia, mat the fresh investigation in respect of their status is again under process and, therefore, the same cannot be a ground to prove that the certificate of the petitioner is a genuine one. FACTS IN W.P. (O NO. 361 OF 2002 12. The petitioner claims to belong to Mahishyadas community in recognition whereof he obtained a certificate on 8.7.1977 from late Samar Chowdhury, a Member of the Tripura Legislative Assembly, who later became a Cabinet Minister and also a Member of the Parliament. On 12.7.1977, the Sonamura Divisional Scheduled Castes Association issued a certificate in his favour recognizing him as a member of the Mahishyadas community. On 8.11.1979, Shri SumantaDas another Member of the Tripura Legislative Assembly also issued a certificate to the petitioner giving him similar recognition. On 17.11.1977, the Additional District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura, Agartala issued a SC certificate in his favour after an elaborate inquiry when he was only a student of Class-X. Like him, his brothers, sisters and other relatives belonging to Mahishyadas community applied for similar certificates and were allowed the same by the competent authority. But on 6.6.2002, the petitioner received a notice from the District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura, Agartala asking him to show cause why the SC certificate issued in his favour should not be cancelled on the ground that a subsequent local inquiry into his caste status brought to light that he does not belong to the SC community claimed by him. The grievance of the petitioner is that during the so called inquiry he was kept in dark as no opportunity was afforded to him to make representation about his status. He was not aware who was making the inquiry and on what ground, particularly when by an elaborate inquiry the caste certificate was issued in his favour 25 years back. The grievance of the petitioner is that during the so called inquiry he was kept in dark as no opportunity was afforded to him to make representation about his status. He was not aware who was making the inquiry and on what ground, particularly when by an elaborate inquiry the caste certificate was issued in his favour 25 years back. However, in response to the notice, he submitted his reply to the District Magistrate & Collector on 10.7.2002. The Addl. District Magistrate & Collector asked him to personally appear on 30.7.2002 along with all documents and certificates and though the appeared accordingly on the date and time fixed, he was practically given no opportunity of hearing. The District Magistrate & Collector by issuing the memorandum, dated 22.8.2002 impugned herein, has cancelled the caste certificate of the petitioner issued on 17.11.1977. Aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed. 13. The State respondents have filed counter-affidavit in order to contest the writ petition contending, inter alia, that after receiving certain complaint about genuineness of the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner, an inquiry was considered necessary, which was done by the SDM, Sonamura. In the report submitted after inquiry, the SDM stated that the Scheduled Castes Sub-Committee of Sonamura Sub-Division expressed the view that the petitioner and his family members do not belong to SC community. After receiving the report of the SDM about views of the said Committee, the District Magistrate & Collector issued a notice on 6.6.2002 to the petitioner to show cause why the said certificate should not be cancelled. After receiving the reply and giving him a personal hearing, the said certificate was cancelled by the order impugned herein. It has been specifically stated in the order of the District Magistrate that the petitioner belongs to Barui community, which has not been recognized as SC community and, therefore, the certificate issued earlier was liable to be cancelled. 14.1 have heard Mr. B. Das, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. U.B. Saha, learned senior Govt. Advocate, assisted by Mr. A. Ghosh, Mr. T. D. Majumder and Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsels for the State respondents. 15. 14.1 have heard Mr. B. Das, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. U.B. Saha, learned senior Govt. Advocate, assisted by Mr. A. Ghosh, Mr. T. D. Majumder and Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsels for the State respondents. 15. It is no longer res integra that a writ court is not competent to decide whether a particular certificate issued by the competent authority in accordance with the procedure laid down in the relevant Rules is genuine or not and looking from that angle, the present controversy in all above writ petitions remains confined to the only question whether reasonable opportunity was afforded and procedural justice was rendered in cancelling the caste certificate, which was issued in favour of the petitioners after elaborate inquiry by the issuing authority. It is not in dispute that all the caste certificates in favour of the petitioners were issued by the competent authorities after elaborate inquiry and that after a long lapse of time when the petitioners are comfortably settled in their respective positions, the new set of authorities competent to issue or cancel such certificate considered it necessary to undertake a fresh inquiry to verify whether all such certificates issued more than a decade ago by their predecessors were genuine. It is also not in dispute that on the strength of such certificates issued by the competent authorities at the relevant time some of the petitioners entered into service and have been serving for a long period. The new authorities who decided to conduct fresh inquiry in order to examine whether the certificates issued by their predecessors are genuine or not followed certain procedure, which has been called in question in the above writ petitions on the ground that the same is not transparent and afforded no reasonable opportunity to the petitioners. It is evident that the verification or inquiry was made either by a Sub-Divisional Scheduled Castes Sub-Committee or by a Deputy Collector or a Block Development Officer or by Sub-Divisional Officer. During such inquiry or verification neither the petitioners nor their parents or others on their behalf were examined in order to afford them an opportunity to make representation in support of their caste status. The grievance of the petitioners is that the nature of such inquiry remains one-sided and ex parte, which is violative of the principles of natural justice. During such inquiry or verification neither the petitioners nor their parents or others on their behalf were examined in order to afford them an opportunity to make representation in support of their caste status. The grievance of the petitioners is that the nature of such inquiry remains one-sided and ex parte, which is violative of the principles of natural justice. After receiving the report from the Sub-Committee or the Deputy Collector or the Block Development Officer, as noted above, the competent authorities issued notice without even enclosing a copy of the inquiry report or verification report in order to enable them to make suitable representation. In one case even the petitioner, who was directed to attend the office of the competent authority for personal hearing was later denied the same by cancelling the appointment earlier fixed. After obtaining representation from the petitioners concerned the next steep taken by the competent authority was to issue the impugned order of cancellation. 16. The Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind, reported in (2001) 1 SCC 4 held that the words 'castes' or 'tribes' in the expression "Scheduled Castes" and "Scheduled Tribes" are not used in the ordinary sense of the term but are used in the sense of the definitions contained in Articles 366(24) and 366(25). Hence, a caste is a Scheduled Caste or a tribe is a Scheduled Tribe only if they are included in the President's orders issued under Articles 341 and 342 for the purpose of the Constitution. Whether a caste is a Scheduled Caste or a tribe is a Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of the entries contained in the Presidential Orders issued under Article 341(1) and 342(2), is to be determined looking into them as they are. Articles 341 (1) and 342 (2) do not permit anyone to seek modification of the said orders by leading evidence that the caste/tribe (A) alone is mentioned in the Order but caste/ tribe (B) is also a part of caste/tribe (A) and as such, caste/tribe (B) should be deemed to be a Scheduled Caste/Tribe as the case may be. Articles 341 (1) and 342 (2) do not permit anyone to seek modification of the said orders by leading evidence that the caste/tribe (A) alone is mentioned in the Order but caste/ tribe (B) is also a part of caste/tribe (A) and as such, caste/tribe (B) should be deemed to be a Scheduled Caste/Tribe as the case may be. The Apex Court further observed that court cannot and should not expand jurisdiction to deal with the question as to whether a particular caste, a group or part of tribe or sub-tribe is included in any one of the entries mentioned in the Presidential Orders issued under Articles 341 and 342. There is, therefore, no scope for inquiry by any authority or court or tribunal to determine whether any caste or tribe not named in the Presidential Orders belong to a caste or tribe named in that order. In B. Basavalingappa Vs. D. Municinnapa, reported in AIR 1965 SC 1269 , the Apex Court made the following observations: "It may be accepted that it is not open to make any modification in the Order by producing evidence to show (for example) that though caste A alone is mentioned in the Order, Caste B is also a part of caste A and, therefore, must be deemed to be included in caste A. It may also be accepted that wherever one caste has another name it has been mentioned in brackets after it in the order. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be open appellant give evidence that the Voddar Caste was the same as the Bhovi caste specified in the Order for Voddar caste is not mentioned in brackets after the Bhovi caste in the Order. " The position that has emerged has been recorded in para 36 of the judgment, which is gainfully quoted below: "36. In the light of what is stated above, the following positions emerge: 1. It is not at all permissible to hold any inquiry or let in any evidence to decide or declare that any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community is included in the general name even though it is not specifically mentioned in the entry concerned in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. . 2. The Scheduled Tribes Order must be read as it is. . 2. The Scheduled Tribes Order must be read as it is. It is not even permissible to say that a tribe, sub-tribe, part of or group of any tribe or tribal community is synonymous to the one mentioned in the Scheduled Tribes Order if they are not so specifically mentioned in it. 3. A notification issued under clause (1) of Article 342, specifying Scheduled Tribes, can be amended only by law to be made by Parliament. In other words, any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe can be included or excluded from the list of Scheduled Tribes issued under clause (1) of Article 342 only by Parliament by law and by no other authority. 4. It is not open to State Governments or courts or tribunals or any other authority to modify, amend or alter the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in the notification issued under clause (1) of Article 342. 5. Decisions of the Division Benches of this Court in Bhaiya Ram Munda Vs. Anirudh Patar and Dina V. Narain Singh did not lay down law correctly in stating that the inquiry was permissible and the evidence was admissible within the limitations indicated for the purpose of showing what an entry in the Presidential Order was intended to be. As stated in Position (1) above no inquiry at all is permissible and no evidence can be let in, in the matter." 17. But before Milind (supra) and despite Basavalingappa (supra), the competent authorities under the State Government issued large number of certificates after making elaborate inquiry as to whether such persons claiming them belong to a particular caste or tribe bearing a name though not mentioned in the Presidential Order, actually belong to a caste or tribe mentioned in that Order. Unfortunately, many of such certificates were not based on correct informations about status of the certificate holders, which called for a suitable mechanism to be devised in order to undertake a cleansing operation to render invalid all those certificates, which do not reflect true and correct status of the certificate holders. In Director, Tribal Welfare Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Unfortunately, many of such certificates were not based on correct informations about status of the certificate holders, which called for a suitable mechanism to be devised in order to undertake a cleansing operation to render invalid all those certificates, which do not reflect true and correct status of the certificate holders. In Director, Tribal Welfare Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Laveti Giri & Anr., reported in (1995) 4 SCC 32 , the Supreme Court has laid down certain guidelines to streamline the procedure for the issuance of the social status certificate through scrutiny and their approval, which have adopted by the State Government and incorporated in the notification dated 12th December, 2003, issued by the Govt. of Tripura in the General Administration (AR) Department. It would appear from the same that a State level committee consisting a Commissioner/ Secretary to the Government of Tripura, SC, OBC and Minority Welfare Department as Chairman with the Director and the Deputy Director of that department as the Member Secretary and Member has been constituted for cancellation of SC certificates issued by the competent authority. The details of the procedure have been laid down in paras 5,6,7, 8 and 9, which are quoted below: "5) Each Director 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 Inspectors would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate bails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally bailed. The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should also 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 them submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in the pro forma, 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 caste or tribes or tribal communities concerned etc. by the caste or tribes or tribal communities concerned etc. 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 acknowledgement due or through the head of the educational institution concerned 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 the 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/Additional 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 obj ections 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 except where the report or the 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 parent/guardian also in case the 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-today proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. 9) The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day-today 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 the conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the parent/guardian and the applicant." 18. It would appear from the above that the Vigilance Officer himself would personally go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides. He should personally verify/inquire and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. The Director has a duty, on receipt of the report from the Vigilance Officer, to issue show cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the Vigilance Officer to the candidate by registered post. The parents or guardians of the candidate are also to be notified and a day to day proceeding not exceeding two months should be conducted for the purpose of deciding the fate of such certificate. 19. A perusal of the procedure followed by the competent authority in the above noted cases would go to show that the inquiry was done keeping the petitioners or their parents/ relatives in dark and without affording any reasonable opportunity to them or their guardians or parents. It is also evident that there was no involvement of any Vigilance Officer or Director of the department in conducting the inquiry. The manner in which the certificates of the petitioners have been cancelled cannot be said to be consistent with the principles of natural justice and, therefore in my considered view, all those orders impugned herein cancelling the caste certificates of the petitioners are not sustainable in law and consequently, they stand quashed and set aside. 20. All the writ petitions are accordingly allowed in the light of the discussions made above with a direction to the State respondents to refer the cases of the petitioners to the scrutiny committee, which is competent to cause an inquiry to be done in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court as noted above and contained in the notification dated 12.12.2003 of the State Government. Till the entire process of inquiry and decision making is completed, the status of the petitioners herein and all the benefits flowing there from shall remain unhindered and unaffected. There shall be no order as to cost.