JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Siddharth Verma, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. 2. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of. 3. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 28th February, 2011 passed by Tehsildar, Tehsil Sakaldiha, District Chandauli cancelling the scheduled caste certificate granted to the petitioner dated 20th August, 2001 and 25th September,2010 on complaint filed by respondent No. 4. The petitioner, who is the resident of District Chandauli, made an application for issuing a caste certificate of scheduled caste category i.e. ‘Gond’. The caste certificate was issued by Tehsildar Sakaldiha Chandauli. A complaint was filed by respondent No. 4 to the effect that petitioner does not belong to scheduled caste. A notice dated 4th January, 2011 was issued to the petitioner to show-cause as to why the caste certificate be not cancelled. The Tehsildar, after hearing the petitioner and the materials brought before him, passed an order dated 28th February, 2011 cancelling the scheduled caste certificate granted to the petitioner. The petitioner, aggrieved by the said order, has filed this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. He submits that in event the respondent No. 4 was aggrieved with the scheduled caste certificate granted to the petitioner, it was open for him to request for verification of the caste certificate by Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted by the State Government. 5. Refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 contends that the Tehsildar had every jurisdiction to cancel the certificate. He has also referred and relied the government order dated 5th January, 1996 as well as government order dated 27th January, 2011 filed as Annexure C.A. 1 and C.A.2. 6. Before we proceed to consider the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and facts of the present case, it is necessary to note the relevant provisions and the government order issued from time to time by the State of Uttar Pradesh regulating the issuance of caste certificate and mechanism for verification of such caste certificate. 7. 6. Before we proceed to consider the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and facts of the present case, it is necessary to note the relevant provisions and the government order issued from time to time by the State of Uttar Pradesh regulating the issuance of caste certificate and mechanism for verification of such caste certificate. 7. The Apex Court, while considering the issue of caste certificate and its verification, has issued certain general directions in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, 1994 (6) SCC 241 . The Apex Court, in the said judgment, has issued general directions for issuance of social status certificates (caste certificate, their scrutiny and approval). 8. In the State of Uttar Pradesh, an enactment has been passed namely Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994. Section 9 of the said Act provides for caste certificate, which is the following effect. “For the purposes of reservation provided under this Act, caste certificate shall be issued by such authority or officer in such manner and form as the State Government may, by order, provide.” 9. The State Government, taking into consideration the general directions issued by the Apex Court in Madhuri Patil’s case (supra) as well as power given under Section 9 of the Act, has issued the detail government order dated 5th January, 1996 providing for procedure for issuance of caste certificate and procedure for verification of caste. By the said government order, a Scrutiny Committee, headed by Principal Secretary Social Welfare Department, was constituted to verify the caste certificates. 10. A Division Bench of this Court, while considering a challenge to an order of District Magistrate rejecting the claim of issuance of caste certificate, issued certain directions in Writ Petition No. 1611 (MB) of 2008 Taramuni Tharu v. State of U.P. and others. Following observations made by the Division Bench of this Court, which is quoted as under. “Considering the submissions made during the course of arguments and looking to the fact that this Court is flooded with the cases, where the caste certificates issued by the District Magistrate are in question, we find that there is no appropriate forum, where such a grievance can be raised by the persons who approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Writ jurisdiction does not allow us to enter into the disputed questions of fact or to reassess or re-appreciate the findings recorded by the District Magistrate, unless, of course, it is established that the finding is perverse or absolutely arbitrary. We also take notice of the fact that in the matters like the present one, suit for declaration would also not be maintainable, in view of the ratio of the judgment in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, (1994) 6 SCC 241 . In the similar circumstances, this Court had earlier in some cases, required the Chief Standing Counsel, to take instructions as to why an appellate forum be not provided but for one reason or the other, the instructions could not be made available. We, under the circumstances, provide that the State Government may consider this question and it does not appear to be very difficult to provide a forum for the purpose, may be the Commissioner of the Division itself. Let this order be communicated to the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. for taking appropriate action for providing appellate forum for the purpose of deciding the disputes regarding issuance of caste certificates, against the orders passed by the concerned issuing authority.” 11. In pursuance of the aforesaid observations of the Division Bench, the State government issued a government order dated 27th January,2011 providing for appellate forum headed by Divisional Commissioner to scrutinize the caste certificates and to provide a forum to aggrieved persons from the decision of Collector, Sub-Divisional Officer/Tehsildar regarding caste certificate to file an appeal within 90 days. 12. Another, the Division Bench while hearing the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 1396 of 2011 Tharu Shakti Samiti and another v. State of U.P. and others, again issued directions on 12th January, 2011. The Division Bench of this Court has made the following directions. “In the State of U.P., it appears that there is only one Committee to consider the caste certificates. There appears to be no mechanism by which caste certificate issued by the Tehsildar/Deputy Collector/District Magistrate is to be verified. The reserved post or admission in professional colleges are only meant for those who are entitled to. “In the State of U.P., it appears that there is only one Committee to consider the caste certificates. There appears to be no mechanism by which caste certificate issued by the Tehsildar/Deputy Collector/District Magistrate is to be verified. The reserved post or admission in professional colleges are only meant for those who are entitled to. Utmost care should be taken to see that a person who claims admission/appointment is a genuine person and not a person who has got admission/appointment on a certificate which may be false or fabricated. It is impossible to accept that in the State of U.P. that one committee will do the entire exercise. Considering the above, the respondents to produce the following materials before this Court : Firstly, as to whether the Committees had been constituted in terms of the Government Order dated 5.1.1996 for SC/ST/OBC and the Constitution of the Members, including the nominated members. Secondly, whether the Vigilance Cell has been attached to the Committee, the strength of the Vigilance Cell and the persons selected for the Vigilance Cell. Thirdly, since the inception, the number of caste certificates which have been scrutinized by the Scrutiny Committee. Apart from that, the State Government also to place before this Court, considering the population of SCs, STs and OBCs in the State of U.P., the need to have such Scrutiny Committees at District Level so that all caste certificates issued in respect of which admissions have been obtained against reserved category posts/seats that these persons who occupy are genuine persons.” 13. The State government again came with government order dated 28th February, 2011 which has been produced before us by learned standing counsel by which for scrutiny of caste certificate a Committee at District Level has been constituted under the Chairman-ship of the Collector. 14. The government order dated 28th February, 2011 also noticed that large number of disputes come before the High Court with regard to caste certificates in which directions are issued for deciding the matter, the District Level Committee has been constituted for the aforesaid purpose. 15. Another, Division Bench decision of this Court which is to be noted is the case of Hizwana Bano v. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (1) ADJ 440 , where the Division Bench considered in detail the entire mechanism regarding verification of caste certificate. 15. Another, Division Bench decision of this Court which is to be noted is the case of Hizwana Bano v. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (1) ADJ 440 , where the Division Bench considered in detail the entire mechanism regarding verification of caste certificate. The government order dated 5th January, 1996 has been extracted in the said division bench judgment as well as the judgment of the Apex Court in Madhuri Patil’s case (supra). 16. In paragraph No. 8 of the said judgment, it has also been observed that the authority issuing the caste certificate, may not assume jurisdiction to cancel the caste certificate except in the cases of fraud on the face of the record. Following observations was made in paragraph Nos. 8, 9 and 11. “In Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), the relevant directions of the Supreme Court are contained in direction Nos. 4 to 9. In other words, the caste certificate issued in terms of direction No. (1) to be valid, can only be verified by the Committee and not by the Revenue Officers, like Sub-Divisional Officers, Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner, in the present case, the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2, for the purpose of granting a caste certificate, has to consider what has been set out in para 3 of the Government Order, which is in consonance with the direction No. 2 of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). It is only in the event, the respondent No. 2 is satisfied, based on the material produced before him that the applicant belongs to the caste/tribe, then only the certificate would be verified. Once that be the procedure, it is not open to the respondent No. 2 to assume jurisdiction to cancel the caste certificate except may be in a case of fraud on the face of the record, as fraud vitiates all actions. Respondent No. 2, therefore, ordinarily would have no jurisdiction to reconsider the issuance of the caste certificate and pass orders cancelling the certificate or otherwise. Respondent No. 2, therefore, ordinarily would have no jurisdiction to reconsider the issuance of the caste certificate and pass orders cancelling the certificate or otherwise. When a complainant contends that a caste certificate was wrongly issued or obtained by suppressing facts or the like, then in that event, it would be open to the complainant, even if the complainant is a stranger as long as his rights are affected, to move the Caste Scrutiny Committee, to verify the caste certificate by setting out the reasons and objections as to why the caste certificate should not be verified. Para 3 of the Government Order would show that verification is not only with regard to admission in any educational institution or appointment in any service but also for other reasons. Therefore, whenever a person seeks to rely on a caste certificate for claiming any benefits, he would be entitled to, then in that event, if a complainant intervenes to oppose the verification of such caste certificate or independently applies before the Caste Scrutiny Committee, the procedure for verification shall be followed and necessary orders shall be passed by the Committee after following due procedure. If the issue is now considered in the light of the above discussions, it would be clear that the respondent No. 2 would cease to have jurisdiction, once the caste certificate was issued. The Tehsildar in these circumstances would have no authority to recall or cancel the same, except may be in a case of fraud. Respondent No. 2, however, would have the power to correct clerical or artificial mistakes. The jurisdiction to verify the caste certificate and whether it should be validated or invalidated is of the Caste Scrutiny Committee.” 17. In view of the foregoing discussions, it is clear that a person aggrieved by issuance of caste certificate has remedy to approach the Caste Scrutiny Committee in event the matter has not come before the Scrutiny Committee in normal course. Now in view of the government order dated 27th January, 2011 and 28 February, 2011 as noticed above a Committee has been constituted for scrutiny of caste certificate. An aggrieved person as well may approach the said Scrutiny Committee raising his grievance. However the authority issuing the caste certificate has also jurisdiction to cancel a caste certificate which has been obtained by playing fraud or concealing the relevant facts. An aggrieved person as well may approach the said Scrutiny Committee raising his grievance. However the authority issuing the caste certificate has also jurisdiction to cancel a caste certificate which has been obtained by playing fraud or concealing the relevant facts. An order issued by the authority can always be recalled where it has been obtained by practising fraud. 18. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, on a complaint, submitted by respondent No. 4, the Tehsildar has cancelled the caste certificate by order dated 28th February, 2011. No finding has been recorded by Tehsildar that caste certificate was obtained by the petitioner by playing fraud on the authority. The facts of this case are fully covered by the division bench judgment of this Court in the case of Hizwana Bano (supra). 19. In the result, the order dated 28th February, 2011 is set aside. However, liberty is given to respondent No. 4 to submit a detail application alongwith relevant materials before the Committee headed by Collector of the District as per the government order dated 28th February. 2011 within one month from today. The Collector after receiving the appropriate complaint against issuance of caste certificate, may issue notice to respondent No. 4 and give opportunity to him to file his representation and thereafter take a final decision regarding the entitlement of the petitioner to the caste certificate of scheduled caste. 20. It goes without saying that caste certificate issued to the petitioner dated 20th August, 2001 and 25.9.2010 shall abide by the decision of the District Committee and aggrieved person from the such decision shall have also right to file an appeal before the appellate forum constituted by the government order dated 27th January, 2011. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. —————