Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1502 (JHR)

Pius Lakra v. State of Jharkhand

2009-11-26

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2009
Order Heard the parties and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. 2. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to explain as to why and under what circumstances, the Caste Certificate dated 13.12.1989 and 17.5.1993 as contained in Annexures-3 and 4 to this writ petition, have been issued by the• Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in favour of the Respondent No. 6-Sanjeet Bakshi in complete contravention of Circular and Orders of the State Government as well as the Central Government and thereby illegally declared him to be the member of Scheduled Tribe. 3. According to the writ petition. the father of the Respondent No. 6-Sanjeet Bakshi i.e. Late A.P. Bakshi, was a non-tribal belonging to 'KAY ASTH' by caste. He married to one Shanti Minz, a member of Scheduled Tribe, and out of their wed- lock, five children were born including the Respondent NO.6. 4. It is stated that the petitioner appeared for 42nd Combined Public Service Commission, Patna as a Scheduled Tribe candidate. The petitioner subsequently came to know that the respondent no. 6 also appeared as a member of Scheduled Tribe on the basis of the Caste Certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner, declaring him to be Scheduled Tribe. The candidates belonging to the Scheduled Tribe, who obtained marks up to 705, were recommended for appointment against the posts reserved for the Scheduled Tribes. The petitioner alleges that the name of Respondent No. 6-Sanjeet Bakshi was recommended under the category of Scheduled Tribe whereas, the name of the petitioner, who was in fact a member of Scheduled Tribe, was not recommended. 5. The petitioner further alleges that the Respondent No. 6-Sanjeet Bakshi claims to be the member of Scheduled Tribe on the basis of the Caste Certificate issued in his favour by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi dated 13.12.1989, as contained in Annexure-3 as well as the Certificate dated 17.5.1993 as contained in Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition and on the basis of the Certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner appeared in the competitive examination held by the Bihar Public Service Commission as a Scheduled Tribe candidate and in that category, the name was recommended for appointment and ultimately, he was appointed as a Deputy Collector on 26.7.2001. 6. 6. On the other hand, the Respondent No. 6-Sanjeet Bakshi, who has appeared through his counsel, has submitted that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 582 of 2001, the controversy regarding his case has been settled at rest since this Court, after finding that the petitioner was declared successful in the competitive examination, directed the respondent-State of Bihar to issue a formal order of appointment in his favour. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the point in issue as to whether an offshoots from the non-tribal father of a tribal mother can be said to be a member of Scheduled Tribe, has already been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Anjan Kumar vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2006)3 SCC 257 [ : 2006(2) JLJR (SC)186] wherein, it has been held that condition precedent for granting Tribe Certificate being that one must suffer disability wherefrom one belongs. The offshoots of the wedlock of a Tribal woman married to a non-tribal husband calls forward class (KAY ASTHA in the present case) cannot claim Scheduled Tribe status. The reason being such offshoot was brought up in the atmosphere of forward class and is not subjected to any disability. A person not belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, claiming himself to be member of such caste by procuring a bogus caste certificate is a fraud under the Constitution of India. The impact of procuring fake/bogus caste certificate and obtaining appointment/admission from reserved quota will have a far-reaching great consequences: The meritorious reserved candidates may be deprived of reserved category for whom, the post is reserved. The reserved post will go into non deserving candidates and in such cases, it would be violative of Articles 14 and 21 of th8 Constitution of India. 8. Following this decision of the Supreme Court, the Division Bench of this Court also, in the case of Tribal Medical Association Jharkhand vs. State of Jharkhand and Others reported in 2007(4) JCR 84 (Jhr.)[: 20077(3) JLJR 440], in a similar case, cancelled the admission given to the respondent no. 6 in that case on the basis of such caste certificate as he was also an offshoot out of wedlock of non-tribal and a tribal mother. 9. 6 in that case on the basis of such caste certificate as he was also an offshoot out of wedlock of non-tribal and a tribal mother. 9. So far the present case is concerned, I find that it is not in dispute that the Respondent No. 6 was appointed on 26.7.2001 as Deputy Collector pursuant to the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 582 of 2001. Since till date the respondent no. 6 is enjoying benefits of reserved category of Scheduled Tribe, in my view, he is not entitled to such benefits in view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Anjan Kumar (supra) and order of this Court it') the case of Tribal Medical Association Jharkhand (Supra). Though in fact he ought not to have been appointed in reserved category but now, after about more than eight years from the date of appointment of respondent no. 6, his appointment cannot be disturbed on that ground but considering the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above, this Writ Petition is being disposed of with a direction that the respondent no. 6-Sanjeet Bakshi, in future, shall not be given any benefits on the ground that he belongs to a member of Scheduled Tribe. The Caste Certificate issued in favour of the Respondent NO.6 (Annexures-3 and 4) are hereby quashed. It is made clear that the benefits, which has already been given to the petitioner, shall not be cancelled or withdrawn but in future, he shall not be given any benefits on the ground that he belongs to a member of Scheduled Tribe. 10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the State of Bihar as well as the State of Jharkhand for appropriate and necessary execution in the matter. .