Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 149 (MP)

Kalpana Karatkar v. State of M. P.

2009-01-29

RAJENDRA MENON

body2009
ORDER 1. Challening the order Annexure P-5 dated 24.12.1998 passed by the Director, Adim Jaati Anusandhan Sansthaan, Bhopal terminating the services of the petitioner and the findings recorded by the High Power Committee vide Annexure P-9 dated 12.3.2003 petitioner has filed this petition. 2. Petitioner claims to be a person belonging to caste 'Dhobi' by birth, which is notified as Scheduled Caste in the District of Bhopal, under Appendix I Part IX to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders, 1976 at serial No.22 in the Districts of Bhopal, Raisen and Sehore. Claiming herself to be a person staying in Bhopal after her forefathers had migrated in the year 1949 petitioner sought appropriate certificate from the competent authority. The Tahsildar concerned in the year 1992 granted certificate to the petitioner after due enquiry vide Annexure P-l on 22.9.1993 declaring the petitioner to be a person belonging to 'Dhobi' community, a scheduled caste person. 3. Based on the aforesaid certificate and taking advantage of the reservation policy, petitioner sought appointment on the post of Stenographer/Typist in Adim Jaati Anusandhan Sansthan, Bhopal and she was appointed vide order Annexure P-2 dated 20.12.1995. It seems that during the scrutiny of her caste certificate by the office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Tahsil Huzur District Bhopal, it transpired that the petitioner does not belong to the scheduled caste community of 'Dhobi' and, therefore, vide order Annexure P-3 dated 28.9.1998 the Sub-Divisional Officer, Huzur cancelled the caste certificate granted to the petitioner vide Annexure P-l dated 22.9.1993. Thereafter, vide Annexure P-4 dated 4.12.1998 the Collector, Bhopal intimated respondent No.1 about cancellation of petitioner's caste certificate. As a consequence thereof, respondent No.1 cancelled appointment of the petitioner vide Annexure P-5 dated 24.12.1998. 4. Being aggrieved thereof, petitioner preferred an application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Bhopal being O.A. No.949/98 and a bench of the Tribunal vide Annexure P-6 dated 27.4.2002 directed the matter to be referred to the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted by the State Government in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Developmentand others [ (1994)6 SCC 241 ]. The High Power Committee constituted by the State of Madhya Pradesh conducted enquiry into the matter. The High Power Committee constituted by the State of Madhya Pradesh conducted enquiry into the matter. Petitioner appeared and submitted various documents collectively filed as Annexure P-7 and by the impugned report Annexure P-9 dated 12.3.2003 the committee having negated the claim of the petitioner and having declared not to be a member belonging to the scheduled caste community of 'Dhobi', the petitioner is before this Court challenging the order passed by the respondent No.1 terminating her services and findings recorded by the High Power Committee in its report Annexure P-9. 5. Shri Akshay Dharmadhikari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by taking me through the findings recorded by the High Power Committee in its report Annexure P-9 the requirement to be complied with and the procedure to be followed by the committee while conducting the enquiry in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Madhuri Patil (supra), emphasized that the committee has totally misdirected itself and has recorded a finding which is perverse and contrary to the material available on record. Referring to the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal on 11.7.2002, the findings recorded by the Superintendent of Police, which is accepted by the committee itself. Shri Dharmadhikari emphasized that ignoring these factors, the committee again placed reliance on the communication of the Collector Annexure P-4 dated 4.12.1998 and recorded a finding which is not based on the list of scheduled caste category applicable in the State of Madhya Pradesh but is based on the list of scheduled caste persons notified for the State of Maharashtra. Emphasizing that once as per the direction of the High Power Committee the Superintendent of Police had submitted a report on 11.7.2002 the committee committed an error in placing reliance on the earlier report of the Collector dated 4.12.1998 and, therefore, Shri Dharmadhikari submits that the High Power Committee has committed error, which warrants interference. Contending that the report of the Superintendent of Police clearly indicates that the petitioner belongs to 'Dhobi' community, a scheduled caste category notified in the State of Madhya Pradesh, entitled to the benefit of said caste, Shri Dharmadhikari prays for interference into the matter by quashing the impugned order and action. 6. Contending that the report of the Superintendent of Police clearly indicates that the petitioner belongs to 'Dhobi' community, a scheduled caste category notified in the State of Madhya Pradesh, entitled to the benefit of said caste, Shri Dharmadhikari prays for interference into the matter by quashing the impugned order and action. 6. Refuting the aforesaid and taking me through the findings recorded by the Collector in his report Annexure P-4 dated 4.12.1998 and the fact that the petitioner's caste is not found to be belonging to scheduled caste category as notified in the State of Maharashtra, Shri S.S. Bisen, learned counsel argued that on a proper enquiry being conducted by the High Power Committee and the report submitted, no case is made out for interference. Shri S.S. Bisen argued that the report of the High Power Committee has to be accepted and as the High Power Committee has given the report to the· effect that the petitioner does not belong to the scheduled caste community no interference into the matter is called for. Placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the bench of this Court in the case of Domudas Dhakate v. State of M.P. and others [ 2008(III) MPWN 80 =ILR (2008) M.P. 1448], Shri Bisen seeks for dismissal of this petition. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 8. Before adverting to consider the rival contentions, it is thought appropriate to take note of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Madhuri Patil (supra), and the procedure and method to be followed by the High Power Committee for verification and for granting social status certificate as pointed out by Shri Akshay Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner, in paragraph 13 of the judgment, certain procedure has been indicated by the Supreme Court for the purpose of issuing social status certificates, the procedure to be followed for the scrutiny and the approval. Clause (5) of the aforesaid procedure contemplates that a vigilance cell should be constituted in such Directorate consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police to be the over-all in-charge along with such members of police staff to investigate into the claim for social status. Clause (5) of the aforesaid procedure contemplates that a vigilance cell should be constituted in such Directorate consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police to be the over-all in-charge along with such members of police staff to investigate into the claim for social status. The procedure contemplated therein warrants the Inspector to go to the local place of residence and the original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides and in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which the candidate originally hailed from. The procedure contemplates the vigilance officer to personally verify and collect all the facts with regard to the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian as the case may be. Thereafter, in para 6 the consideration of the report by the Director and the Scrutiny Committee is proposed and finally in para 7 it is held that in case the report is in favour of the candidate and it is found to be genuine and true no further action need to be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained. If the case in hand is scrutinized in the backdrop of the aforesaid procedure contemplated by the Supreme Court, it would be seen that when the matter was placed before the High Power Committee, the committee directed the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal to conduct an enquiry and submit the report. Even though this report is at the instance of the High Power Committee and it is not at the instance of the Directorate but the same is seen to be in accordance to the requirement of law laid down in the case of Madhuri Patil (supra). 9. Record indicates that in pursuance to the direction issued, Superintendent of Police had directed the police station incharge Bairagarh to conduct an enquiry and submit his report. The said police officer, it is seen, had visited the spot, conducted the enquiry in accordance to the requirement laid down in the case of Madhuri Patil (supra), and on 6.1.2003, the Superintendent of Police had submitted the report..to the High Power Committee. The committee in Annexure P-9 has referred to the aforesaid report of the Superintendent of Police and the finding recorded is reproduced in para 9, which indicates that petitioner Ku. The committee in Annexure P-9 has referred to the aforesaid report of the Superintendent of Police and the finding recorded is reproduced in para 9, which indicates that petitioner Ku. Kalpana Karatkar is staying in Bairagarh, Bhopal since her birth. Her father was a resident of village Murabba Tahsil Mutijapur District Akola, Maharashtra and prior to 1949 he has migrated and is staying in Bairagarh. In the certificate issued with regard to education of the petitioner, the petitioner is shown to be a person belonging to 'Dhobi' caste. Finally after analyzing the facts collected in the enquiry, the conclusion of the Superintendent of Police in Hindi is quoted by the High Power Committee and when translated into English the same would read as under: "On considering the entire enquiry and the evidence and the documents collected, it can be concluded that the applicant Ku. Kalpana Karatkar is 'Dhobi' by caste, which is a scheduled caste, and her family is residing in Bhopal Bairagarh Madhya Pradesh prior to 1949." 10. Thereafter reference is made to the order Annexure P-4 dated 4.12.1998 submitted by the Collector and based on a sale-deed executed on a stamp paper, photocopy of which was produced before the Collector, it is indicated that in this sale-deed petitioner's father is shown to be a 'Maratha' by caste. The High Power Committee after taking note of this fact in para 3 has recorded a finding that in accordance to the notification issued by the Government of India Ministry of Home dated 19.10.1956 in the then State of Bombay "Karatkar" caste is not included in the caste of 'Dhobi' and, therefore, it is said that petitioner cannot claim the benefit of being a scheduled caste (Dhobi) in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Finally in para 4 it is held that even though forefathers of the applicant had migrated to Bairagarh in Madhya Pradesh prior to 1950 but finding that no documents are filed it is held that she is not entitled to the benefit of a scheduled caste person in the State of Madhya Pradesh. This finding of the High Power Committee is wholly perverse and this Court has no hesitation in accepting the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to that effect. This finding of the High Power Committee is wholly perverse and this Court has no hesitation in accepting the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to that effect. When the law laid down by the Supreme Court mandates enquiry to be conducted by a police officer and acceptance ofl the same by the committee or permits rejection of the same on being found to be untenable it was incumbent upon the committee to accept the report dated 6.1.2003 submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal or give cogent reason for deviating from the said report. The manner in which the case was dealt with by the committee indicates that the committee does not find any fault with this report of the Superintendent of Police dated 6.1.2003. In para 9 it is seen that the committee has accepted this report but placing reliance on an earlier report dated 4.12.1998 (Annexure P-4) submitted by the Collector and after considering the fact that the caste Karatkar is not notified as a Scheduled Caste in the State of Maharashtra, benefit is refused to the petitioner. This approach, in the considered view of this Court, is not only perverse but seems to be wholly misdirected and away from the issue in question. 11. When on the earlier occasion action was taken in accordance to the report of the Collector dated 4.12.1998 (Annexure P-4) and when the matter travelled to the State Administrative Tribunal, the Tribunal thought it appropriate to refer the matter to the High Power Committee. The High Power Committee directed the Superintendent of Police to conduct an enquiry and submit report. Once the report of the Superintendent of Police was available and when this report is based on a fact finding enquiry conducted by the police authorities after visiting the place and area where the petitioner was staying, the High Power Committee should have accepted this report in its totality. Thereafter referring to the earlier report dated 4.12.1998 submitted by the Collector was not the proper approach to be adopted. That apart in the face of the finding recorded in the report dated 6.1.2003 by the Superintendent of Police, the report Annexure P-4 dated 4.12.1998 submitted by the Collector seems to be wholly untenable. Thereafter referring to the earlier report dated 4.12.1998 submitted by the Collector was not the proper approach to be adopted. That apart in the face of the finding recorded in the report dated 6.1.2003 by the Superintendent of Police, the report Annexure P-4 dated 4.12.1998 submitted by the Collector seems to be wholly untenable. This report available at Annexure P-4 indicates that it is not a report at all, it is the communication made by the Collector to the Director, Adim Jaati Anusandhan Sansthaan with reference to his communication dated 12.10.1998. In this communication, the Collector has based his finding on the basis of a mention with regard to the petitioner's father being a "Maratha" as indicated in a sale-deed executed in the year 1972 while purchasing a house. However, this communication indicates that when some enquiry was being conducted by the Collector and by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Huzur, petitioner had filed various documents which included this sale-deed. Without taking note of other documents, the sale deed was only picked up to hold that petitioner is not a member of the scheduled caste community i.e. 'Dhobi' because her father's caste in the' sale-deed is shown as "Maratha". However, while doing so the other relevant documents, which were submitted by the petitioner, were ignored. That being so, in the face of the enquiry report submitted by the Superintendent of Police on 6.1.2003, which is based on a proper enquiry conducted after visiting the places where petitioner and her family reside since 1949 and also meeting the requirements contemplated by the Supreme Court in the case of Madhuri Patil (supra). Placing reliance on the letter Annexure P-4 dated 4.12.1998 and rejecting the claim of the petitioner was not proper. This approach is per se illegal and unsustainable. That being so, this Court is of the considered view that the ultimate finding recorded by the committee runs contrary to the report of the Superintendent of Police and is based on consideration of extraneous material which was not relevant once the enquiry report dated 6.1.2003 was available. 12. Even though during the course of hearing, Shri S.S. Bisen placing heavy reliance on the law laid down by this Court in the case of Domudas Dhalwte (supra), tried to submit that the action of the respondents are correct. 12. Even though during the course of hearing, Shri S.S. Bisen placing heavy reliance on the law laid down by this Court in the case of Domudas Dhalwte (supra), tried to submit that the action of the respondents are correct. This Court is of the considered view that the law laid down in this case does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the case of Domudas Dhalwte (supra), the question was as to whether 'Halba' and 'Halbi' community and members belonging to 'Koshti' community belonging to scheduled caste or backward class and by relying upon a earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Milind [ AIR 2001 SC 393 ], finding recorded is that 'Halba' and 'Halbi' community and 'Koshti' do not fall within the category of scheduled caste or backward classes. 13. In the present case, there is no such dispute as to whether a 'Dhobi' community falls within the scheduled tribes or scheduled castes category or not nor is the question involved in this petition relating to a dispute pertaining to 'Halba', 'Halbi' or 'Koshti' community. In the present case, it is a admitted fact that 'Dhobi' community falls in the scheduled caste category and the only dispute is as to whether petitioner belongs to 'Dhobi' community or not. That being so, the dispute involved in the present petition and the one which was considered by this Court in the case of Domudas Dhakate (supra), are entirely different and the said judgment does not apply in the present case. 14. Having held that the report of the High Power Committee (Annexure P-9) dated 12.3.2003 is perverse and is based on improper appreciation of the material available on record, the question would be as to whether the matter has to go back to the committee for fresh consideration or a decision can be taken by this Court on the basis of material available on record. It is seen that petitioner is litigating the matter since 1998 when she had filed O.A. No.949/1998. That apart in the report of the High Power Committee (Annexure P-9) also filed by the respondents as Annexure R-2, reference is made to the report of the Superintendent of Police dated 6.1.2003. It is seen that petitioner is litigating the matter since 1998 when she had filed O.A. No.949/1998. That apart in the report of the High Power Committee (Annexure P-9) also filed by the respondents as Annexure R-2, reference is made to the report of the Superintendent of Police dated 6.1.2003. As is evident from para 9 of the said report and in sub-para (1) the finding recorded is that Superintendent of Police has held on enquiry that petitioner Ku. Kalpana Karatkar is 'Dhobi' by caste, which is a scheduled caste community and prior to 1949 the family has migrated to the State of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, Bairagarh and staying there. This is a finding of fact based on proper enquiry by the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal and this report has to be accepted as the report of the High Power Committee (Annexure P-9) does not in any manner indicate that this report suffers from any defect or lacuna. In the notification issued under Schedule I to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976, the entry 'Dhobi' finds place in Part IX pertaining to the State of Madhya Pradesh and they are declared to be scheduled caste in the District of Bhopal. When petitioner and her family are staying in Bhopal since 1949 and she is found to be a person belonging to 'Dhobi' community and when the said community is declared to be a scheduled caste community in the State of Madhya Pradesh as per the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders, there is no reason now for remanding the matter back for any further consideration or enquiry. The observation of the Collector in his report dated 4.12.1998 and the reliance placed by the High Power Committee into the fact that Karatkar community (Dhobi) is not declared as a scheduled caste community in Maharashtra is wholly irrelevant and is of no consequence when the petitioner is found to be born in Bhopal, her forefathers migrated to Madhya Pradesh in the year 1949 and she is claiming the benefit of being a member of the scheduled caste not on the basis of caste which is declared as scheduled caste in Maharashtra and claiming the benefit on migration but her claim is made on the basis of a caste to which she belongs and which is declared to be a scheduled caste community as per the SC and ST Orders in the State of Madhya Pradesh. 15. Under such circumstances, this Court does not deem it appropriate to remand the matter for any further enquiry. The material available on record are enough to hold that petitioner belongs to 'Dhobi' community which is a scheduled caste community in the State of Madhya Pradesh and entitled to all the benefits available to a scheduled caste person. 16. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Order impugned Annexure P-5 dated 24.12.1998 passed by the respondent No.1 and the report Annexure P-9 dated 12.3.2003 submitted by the Madhya Pradesh State Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Scrutiny Committee are quashed and it is directed that petitioner shall be held to be a member belonging to 'Dhobi' community, a scheduled caste person, entitled to all the benefits accruing to and her status in this regard is declared to be so. 17. Petition stands allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid without any order as to costs.