Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 260 (CHH)

SALINA v. STATE OF C. G.

2011-08-01

RADHE SHYAM SHARMA, SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI

body2011
JUDGMENT As per Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. :- 1. This intra-court appeal arises from the order dated 10.05.2011 (Annexure A/I) passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2503/2011 (Smt. Salina v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) wherein the appellant (petitioner therein) impugned the legality and validity of the order dated 02.05.201] (Annexure P/8 to the writ petition) passed by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee (for short 'the HPC'). The HPC, after verification, held that the certificate dated 24.02.1995 issued by the Naib Tahsilar, Rajnandgaon, holding the appellant to be 'Gond', a scheduled tribe, was bad and illegal. 2. The appellant contends that the communication aated 26.09.2007 (Annexure P/2 to the writ petition) issued by the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog (for short 'the Ayog') to the Collector, wherein it was found that the complaint was wrong and the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, was correct, is binding on the HPC and after the said communication, the HPC has no justification to verify the social status of the appellant and pass a contrary order. Further, it was raised that no reasonable opportunity of hearing was afforded to the appellant by the HPC. Learned Single Judge did not appreciate the. above stated submissions of the appellant in the writ petition properly. The learned Single Judge held that the HPC alone was competent to verify the social status of the petitioner and the communication issued by the Ayog has no bearing on the decision. 3. The learned Single Judge, after having examined all the aspects of the matter, came to the conclusion that there was a proper enquiry conducted through the Vigilance cell by the HPC and in the enquiry, it was found that A. John, father of the petitioner, was not the son of Sitaram as it was stated by Kanta, wife of A. John and mother of the petitioner, that she used to reside in the house of Sita Ram and A. John was working in the house of Sita Ram. The Vigilance Cell recorded the statement of other persons also before coming to the conclusion that she failed to establish that Sita Ram was her ancestor. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. 4. The Vigilance Cell recorded the statement of other persons also before coming to the conclusion that she failed to establish that Sita Ram was her ancestor. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. 4. Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that once the Ayog has taken a decision that the complaint against the appellant with regard to grant of forged social status certificate was found false, the HPC was not competent to verify the social status of the appellant, as held by the competent officer i.e. Naib Tahsildar, Rajnandgaon. 5. The Aayog was constituted under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Anusuchit Janjati Ayog Adhiniyam, 1995 (for short 'the Adhiniyam). The functions and jurisdiction of the Commissioner of the Ayog is defined in section 9 of the Adhiniyam, 1995. The function of the Commissioner is to act as a watch-dog Commission for the protection afforded to the members of the Scheduled Tribes, to recommend to the State Government to take steps to add particular Tribes or tribal communities or parts of of groups within Tribes or Tribal communities in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, to watch the proper and timely implementation of various programmes meant for welfare of Scheduled Tribes and to suggest improvement in such programmes of the State Government or any other body or authority responsible for such programmes, to tender advice regarding reservation for scheduled Tribes in public services and admission in educational institutions and to perform such other functions as may be assigned to it by the State Government. Thus, the Ayog has no jurisdiction and power to verify the social status certificate issued by the competent authority. Even otherwise, the communication dated 26.09.2007 (Annexure P/2 to the writ petition) is not a confirmation of the certificate issued by the Naib Tahsildar but the Ayog has simply rejected the complaint made against the petitioner with regard to grant of social status certificate. 6. The Supreme Court, in Ku. Madhuri Patil & Another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & Others1, in para 13(4) directed the State Governments to constitute a committee namely High Power Caste Scrutiny' Committee for verification of the social status certificates issued by the competent authority. The same was affirmed in Directorate of Tribal Welfare, Government of A.P. Vs. Laveti Giri & Anothe,J-. 7. Recently, in G.M Indian Bank Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & Others1, in para 13(4) directed the State Governments to constitute a committee namely High Power Caste Scrutiny' Committee for verification of the social status certificates issued by the competent authority. The same was affirmed in Directorate of Tribal Welfare, Government of A.P. Vs. Laveti Giri & Anothe,J-. 7. Recently, in G.M Indian Bank Vs. R.Rani & Another', the Supreme Court held that the directions given in Ku. Madhuri Patil1, were not mere guidelines but the same became law as has been reiterated with approval in umpteen number of cases. Even this Court in several decisions has held that the HPC alone is competent to verify the social status certificate of a person and no other authority. Even the Ayog has no jurisdiction and power to verify the social status certificate. Thus, the observation of the learned Single Judge is just and proper. 8. We have perused the pleadings, order passed by the learned Single Judge and the order dated 02.05.2011 passed by the HPC, impugned in the writ petition, it is found that the Vigilance Cell has verified all the documents. and recorded statement ,of mother Kanta, wife of A. John, who had clearly , stated that she was orphan and was staying with Sita Ram. A. John was also living with Sita Ram. They were working as domestic servants and A. John was not the son of Sita Ram who was 'Gond' by caste. The Vanshilvali produced by the appellant cannot be a conclusive proof. The village Kotwar and Patwari were also examined. They clearly stated that the earlier Vanshavali prepared by Rajesh, clerk of the revenue department, was incorrect. The Patwari, in his statement has stated that on enquiry, it was found that Sita Ram was not the father of A. John. Thus, it was held that the appellant had no relation with Sita Ram, except that he was working in the house of Sitaram. There after, the appellant was afforded proper opportunity of hearing in by communication dated 14.02.2011, 14.03.2011 and 04.04.2011. The appellant could not produce any proof before the HPC and as such, the finding recorded by the HPC is just and proper, needs no interference. 9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we do not find any infirmity or error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Thus, the appeal is dismissed. 10. No order asto costs. The appellant could not produce any proof before the HPC and as such, the finding recorded by the HPC is just and proper, needs no interference. 9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we do not find any infirmity or error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Thus, the appeal is dismissed. 10. No order asto costs. Appeal Dismissed.'