ORDER 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the action initiated by the respondents on the basis of a report sent by the revenue authorities with respect to the issuance of a caste certificate of reserved category. It is contended that if at all the genuineness of the certificate issued in favour of petitioner was required to be inquired into, only the High Power Screening Committee constituted in terms of the directions issued by the apex Court was required to conduct an enquiry and to give a report. No such enquiry has been conducted, the matter has not been referred to the High Power Screening Committee and action is taken for the termination of the services of the petitioner, therefore, he is required to approach this Court by way of filing this petition. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a post of Office Assistant, Grade-III, available in the establishment of respondents No. 1 and 2. The petitioner, who belongs to ‘Manjhi’ community of Scheduled Tribe, made an application for appointment on the said post pursuance to a certificate of caste issued by the competent authority, i.e. the Naib Tahsildar, Jabalpur. On selection the petitioner was appointed on the post of Office Assistant Grade-III and he started working. In the year 1995 the petitioner was called upon to submit another caste certificate, which the petitioner obtained and submitted on 9.12.1996. The second caste certificate submitted by the petitioner was sent for verification to the Office of Collector, Jabalpur, who conducted some sort of enquiry through the Sub Divisional Officer, Jabalpur, in this respect and declared that the certificate in question was not issued by any competent authority. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 2.3.2002 calling his explanation as to why the services of the petitioner be not dispensed with. It was pointed out by the petitioner by filing an explanation that in terms of the circular issued by the State Government in General Administration Department on 6.3.1998, the caste certificate was to be verified by a Committee. In terms of the said circular, action was not to be taken against the petitioner. The very same instructions were reiterated in respect of some other sub-caste of tribal community on 18.1.2002 and, therefore, services of the petitioner were not to be dispensed with. In terms of the said circular, action was not to be taken against the petitioner. The very same instructions were reiterated in respect of some other sub-caste of tribal community on 18.1.2002 and, therefore, services of the petitioner were not to be dispensed with. However, since no action is taken by the respondents, there is a threat of termination of services of the petitioner, therefore, he is required to approach this Court by way of filing present writ petition. 3. On issuance of notices of this writ petition to the respondents, return has been filed by respondents No.1 and 2 and it is contended that only on verification of the certificate of caste produced by the petitioner, by the revenue authorities of the State, when the report was submitted that such a caste certificate was a forged one, action was initiated by the respondents No. 1 and 2 against the petitioner by issuing a show cause notice to him. It is contended that since action is not initiated by respondents No.1 and 2 on their own, the stand taken by the petitioner that such an act of the respondents is per se illegal, is incorrect and not sustainable. It is contended that even in the law laid-down by the apex Court, there is no bar that such proceedings cannot be done. It is the contention of the respondents that since the caste certificate is not obtained by the petitioner in terms of the directives of the apex Court, he cannot claim any benefit whatsoever and the writ petition as filed by him is liable to be dismissed. No return whatsoever has been filed by respondents No. 3, 4 and 5, though they were served long back. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 5. It is not in dispute that the certificate of caste produced by the petitioner was the basis of grant of employment to the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that earlier the said certificate was not got verified. Only when the petitioner was called upon to submit yet another caste certificate, he moved another application for grant of caste certificate and since a certificate was issued in his favour on 2.7.1996, the same was produced by the petitioner before the respondents. It is also not in dispute that earlier the said certificate was not got verified. Only when the petitioner was called upon to submit yet another caste certificate, he moved another application for grant of caste certificate and since a certificate was issued in his favour on 2.7.1996, the same was produced by the petitioner before the respondents. It appears that when the caste certificate was sent for verification, some sort of enquiry was started but the document placed on record by the petitioner indicates that said notice could not be served on the petitioner as the report of the Server of notice indicates that the petitioner was not found on the given address. There is nothing available on record to indicate that at any point of time the petitioner was served with any show cause notice before giving a report on 29th November, 2001 by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jabalpur to the Collector. It appears that this particular report was the basis on which the show cause was issued to the petitioner by the respondents No. 1 and 2 on 2.3.2002. Nothing is produced by the respondents to show that at any point of time enquiry with respect to the verification of the caste of the petitioner or verification of the caste certificate of the petitioner was got done through the High Power Screening Committee. The apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, AIR 1995 SC 94 : (1994) 6 SCC 241 , has held that validity of a caste certificate has to be examined by a High Power Screening Committee. It has been categorically held that such a Committee is required to give a definite opinion with respect to the caste of any person or in respect of validity of a caste certificate. If there were allegations that such a caste certificate was not validly obtained by the petitioner or that the petitioner was not belonging to the particular sub-caste of a Tribal community, the matter was required to be referred to the High Power Screening Committee. 6. As has been indicated herein above, none of the respondents have contended that any such enquiry was conducted through the High Power Screening Committee. 6. As has been indicated herein above, none of the respondents have contended that any such enquiry was conducted through the High Power Screening Committee. The State Government in compliance of the directives issued by the apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) has already constituted a High Power Screening Committee to inquire into the correctness of the caste certificate as also the caste of a particular person. Therefore, merely because a report was sent by the Collector after obtaining a report from the Sub Divisional Officer, it was not correct on the part of respondents No. 1 and 2 to initiate any proceeding against the petitioner. Aforesaid respondents No.1 and 2 were given to understand that the caste certificate of the petitioner was incorrect, therefore, they were required to refer the same to the High Power Screening Committee and after obtaining the report from the said Committee, to take an action against the petitioner. This particular aspect is considered by this Court in the case of Jitu Prasad v. Industrial Development Bank and another, W.P. No.6440/2011, decided on 6.12.2012 and it has been categorically held that unless enquiry in respect of the caste certificate is conducted by the High Power Screening Committee, a decision could not have been taken in respect of initiating proceedings for cancellation of appointment or termination of services of any employee. Further in the case of Archana Mourya v. M.P. Bhoj Open University, thr. its Registrar, 2012(1) MPHT 31 , again this Court has categorically held that unless an enquiry in which the status of the petitioner with respect to the caste or community is verified or inquired by the High Power Screening Committee, it was not open to the employer to initiate a proceeding for cancellation of appointment obtained on the basis of a caste certificate. It has been further categorically held that such a High Power Screening Committee is not only clubbed with the power of recording evidence, it has right to inspect, examine and then make declaration with respect to correctness of the caste certificate or genuineness of the caste certificate or even the caste of a particular person. 7. It has been further categorically held that such a High Power Screening Committee is not only clubbed with the power of recording evidence, it has right to inspect, examine and then make declaration with respect to correctness of the caste certificate or genuineness of the caste certificate or even the caste of a particular person. 7. Since it is the admission made by respondents No.1 and 2 in their return that they have initiated proceedings for cancellation of appointment of the petitioner only on the strength of report received from the Collector, Jabalpur and not on the strength of a report of High Power Screening Committee, it would not be proper to permit continuance of such proceedings of removal of the petitioner from service. It is seen that this Court has already protected the interest of the petitioner while entertaining the writ petition vide order dated 5.5.2005 as it has been directed that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuance to notice dated 16.11.2004. It is informed that the petitioner is continuously working in the employment on the strength of the interim protection granted by this Court. 8. Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed. The notice dated 16.11.2004 (Annexure P-15) is hereby quashed. The respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to refer the matter to the High Power Screening Committee for obtaining report on the caste certificate of petitioner and only after receiving such report, to take action in accordance to the recommendations made by the High Power Screening Committee. 9. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. There shall be no order as to costs. D.K Mishra for petitioner; Anoop Nair for respondents No. 1 and 2; Rahul Jain, Government Advocate for respondents No. 3,4 and 5.