JUDGMENT By the Court.—The petitioner was elected as President of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Behtaur, District Bijnor, which was reserved for OBC candidate. At the time of his nomination, the petitioner had filed a caste certificate issued by the Tehsildar dated 28th October, 2000 certifying that the petitioner belonged to Sheikh Sarwari caste. The petitioner was declared elected on 25th November, 2000. 2. It appears that the caste certificate dated 28th October, 2000 was cancelled by the Tehsildar, Dhampur, District Bijnor by order dated 25th November, 2000. This order was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 54742 of 2000, which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 25th October, 2005 on the ground that the order of the Tehsildar cancelling the caste certificate was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Tehsildar was granted liberty to pass fresh order in accordance with law. In pursuance of the order passed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid writ petition, the Tehsildar considered the matter and has passed the order dated 15th April, 2006 rejecting the caste certificate of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner does not belong to the Sheikh Sarwari caste and that the petitioner was rather ‘Sheikh’ which is an upper caste. This order dated 15th April, 2006 has been challenged in the present writ petition. 3. Two Election petitions were also filed against the declaration of the result of the petitioner one by Nizamuddin and the other by Buniyad Ali. Both the election petitions were unsuccessful. Buniyad Ali has filed writ petition No. 33582 of 2002 against the order of the Election Tribunal while Nizamuddin has filed writ petition No. 28570 of 2002 against the same order of the Election Tribunal. 4. It is not in dispute that the term of the election of the petitioner is over and that in the fresh elections subsequently held the petitioner was again elected on the post of President, but neither Buniyad Ali nor Nizamuddin contested the fresh elections. It is stated by the learned counsel for the parties that the fresh election has been challenged by one Khalil Ahmad who is not a party in the present writ petition. It is stated by the learned counsel for the parties that the fresh election has been challenged by one Khalil Ahmad who is not a party in the present writ petition. Sri M.A. Qadeer wanted to raise agruments challenging the order of the Election Tribunal on merits but in view of the fact that the term of the election is already over, the writ petitions filed by Buniyad Ali and Nizamuddin have become infructuous and are dismissed as such and it is not necessary to consider the case on merits. 5. We have heard Sri Mukhtar Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner in writ petition No. 54695 of 2006 and Sri M.A. Qadeer, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 of this writ petition. 6. It is not in dispute that ‘Sheikh Sarwari’ is covered under OBC. The question which falls for determination in this writ petition is whether the petitioner belongs to Sheikh Sarwari caste. In support of his finding that the petitioner does not belong to this caste, the Tehsildar has relied upon the following documents : (1) Sale deed dated 23.7.1975 executed by the father of Rashid Ahmad. In this sale deed, Rashid Ahmad is described as Sheikh. (2) Sale deed executed by the custodian in favour of Jamir Ahmad father of the petitioner Rashid Ahmad dated 11.4.1961 in which too Jamir Ahmad is described as Sheikh. (3) Description of Jamir Ahmad as Sheikh in case No. 198 of 1968, Shabbir Hussain v. Jamir Ahmad. (4) Mark-sheet relating to the children of the petitioner in which they are described as Sheikh. 7. Clarification made by the Backward Caste Commission in reply to the letter by an Ex.MLA that Sheikh caste is not covered under OBC, but is an upper caste. 8. On the basis of the aforesaid materials, the Tehsildar recorded a finding that the petitioner is Sheikh and belongs to the upper caste. In the operative part of the order, the Tehsildar has observed that his findings are also based on the enquiries made at the local level. 9. 8. On the basis of the aforesaid materials, the Tehsildar recorded a finding that the petitioner is Sheikh and belongs to the upper caste. In the operative part of the order, the Tehsildar has observed that his findings are also based on the enquiries made at the local level. 9. Sri Mukhtar Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the recital in the sale deed describing the petitioner as Sheikh was irrelevant and that even if the rectal in the sale deed describing the petitioner as Sheikh is assumed to be correct, no conclusion can be drawn therefrom that the petitioner is not Sheikh or that he belongs to the upper caste. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of a learned Single Judge in the case of Shamiuddin v. Addl. District Judge, Mathura and others, 1998 (16) LCD 424. In that case, the learned Single Judge has referred to various dictionary meaning including the meaning of the word ‘Sheikh as given in Encyclopaedia Britannica-1968 Edition Vol. 20, Webster’s Third New International Dictionary Volume III and according to Collins Dictionary, Sheikh means the head of an Arab tribe, village etc. The view taken by the learned Judge on the basis of the aforesaid material is that Sheikh is a title of respect. Such title is not the exclusive privilege of a member of upper/Forward class. Learned Judge observed as follows : "Meaning of the word ‘Sheikh’ as given in Encyclopaedia Britannica-1968 Edition Vol. 20, may aptly be quoted here as under : “Sheikh (SHEIKH OR SHAYKH), an Arabic title of respect dating from Pre-Islamic authority, strictly means a venerable man, of more than 50 years of age. It is specifically borne by heads of religious orders, head of Colleges (e.g. AI Azhar in Cairo), Chiefs of tribes and headman of villages and of separate quarters of town. It is also applied to learned men, especially members of the class of ‘ulama’ (q.u.) and has been applied to any one who had memorized the whole Koran, however young he might be." It is thus evident that ‘Sheikh’ is a title of respect. Such title, it cannot be gainsaid, is not the exclusive privilege of a member of Upper/Forward class. A person belonging to Muslim Backward class may also be given such a title of respect by the people of his community." 10. Such title, it cannot be gainsaid, is not the exclusive privilege of a member of Upper/Forward class. A person belonging to Muslim Backward class may also be given such a title of respect by the people of his community." 10. Nothing has been brought to our notice to indicate that the view taken in Shamiuddin’s case is erroneous. We are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in that case. The description of the father of the petitioner as ‘Sheikh’ is not sufficient material for holding that the petitioner is not Sheikh Sarwari or that he belongs to the upper caste. No oral evidence was led before the Tehsildar. In our view, the question as to whether the petitioner belongs to the upper caste or not could not have been decided only on the basis of the description of the petitioner’s family members as “Sheikh”. In the absence of documentary evidence about the petitioner’s caste the question could only be decided on the basis of oral evidence. On the facts of this case, the Tehsildar could not have decided the issue without oral evidence. There was thus no relevant material before the Tehsildar for cancelling the caste certificate and the order of the Tehsildar is liable to be set aside. 11. Apart from this, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the finding recorded by the Election Tribunal that the petitioner belongs to Sheikh Sarwari caste could not have been ignored by the Tehsildar. Sri M.A. Qadeer submitted that the order of the Election Tribunal had been subjected to a writ petition filed against the order which was pending and therefore that order could not have been considered. He also submitted that the finding recorded by the Tribunal does not operate as res judicata. In support of his contention, reliance was placed by learned counsel upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Satrucharla Vijaya Rama Raju v. Nimmaka Jaya Raju and others, AIR 2006 SC 543 . In that case, the Apex Court while considering the effect of the decision given by the Election Tribunal challenging the subsequent election held that the order passed by the Election Tribunal in the previous election does not operate as res judicata. In that case, the Apex Court while considering the effect of the decision given by the Election Tribunal challenging the subsequent election held that the order passed by the Election Tribunal in the previous election does not operate as res judicata. However, in paragraph 10 of its judgment, the Supreme Court has held as follows : "Even if we take it that the earlier judgment is admissible in the evidence, on that, no objection was raised even at the trial, it could be brought in under Section 42 of the Evidence Act on the basis that it relates to a matter of a public nature or under Section 43 of the Evidence Act. In either case, not being inter parties, the best status that can be assigned to it is to say that it is of high evidentiary value, while considering the case of the parties in the present election petition." 12. In our opinion the judgment of the Tribunal may not operate as res judicata but it is a relevant piece of evidence under Section 13 of the Evidence Act as a recognition of the caste of the petitioner. However, it is not determinative of the rights of the parties. 13. We do not see any merit in the other contention raised by the petitioner that the recital in the sale deeds describing the petitioner as Sheikh is altogether irrelevant even for determining whether the petitioner is “Sheikh”. The father of the petitioner is a party to the sale deed. We are of the view that such recital may be relevant as an admission under the provisions of the Evidence Act. However, as we are taking the view that even on the finding recorded by the Tehsildar that the petitioner is “Sheikh” it cannot be said that the petitioner is not Sheikh Sarwari or that he does not fall within the category of OBC, the order of the Tehsildar cannot be sustained. 14. Sri M.A. Qadeer, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order of the Tehsildar is based upon relevant material and, therefore, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot upset the order passed by the Tehsildar and that the remedy of the petitioner is to file a civil suit with regard to his caste status. 14. Sri M.A. Qadeer, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order of the Tehsildar is based upon relevant material and, therefore, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot upset the order passed by the Tehsildar and that the remedy of the petitioner is to file a civil suit with regard to his caste status. In this regard, it is enough to say that the conclusion of the Tehsildar cannot be sustained even on the finding that the petitioner is Sheikh and that in the absence of documentary evidence that the petitioner is or is not of Sheikh Sarwari caste, oral evidence was required to be led. The question of caste of the petitioner would thus have to be decided. In view of the fact that the issue whether the petitioner belongs to a particular caste is one of fact the writ Court cannot decide the said question appropriately as it requires oral and documentary evidence to be led by the parties. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter may be relegated to the Committee which has been constituted under the orders of the Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional Commissioner Tribal Development and others, AIR 1995 SC 94 in pursuance of which Government order dated 5.1.1996 has been issued constituting a High Powered Committee. The Apex Court has laid down the procedure to be adopted by the Committee to be constituted. The Court observed as follows : "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 the receipt of the notice. 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/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 made may be published in the village or locality and if any person or association opposes such a claim, an opportunity to adduced 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. 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. 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. 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 confiscated 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. 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 confiscated 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. 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. The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. No suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie." 16. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Noman Masood v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (2) AWC 1224 , connected with other petitions has considered similar question. The petition related to rejection of candidature for a Municipal election on the ground of rejection of a caste certificate. The issue was whether the candidate belonged to Sheikh Sarwari caste and the Division Bench sent the matter for consideration by the Committee constituted under the aforesaid Government order. 17. In the circumstances, we are also of the view that proper course in the matter would be that the question of caste of the petitioner may be decided by the Committee constituted under Government Order dated 9th April, 1996. 18. Accordingly, while setting aside the order of the Tehsildar, we send the matter to the Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 9th April, 1996 to take a decision regarding the caste of the petitioner following the directions given by the Supreme Court in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the Committee. 19. With these directions, writ petition stands allowed. ————