Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1277 (MP)

Grace Marry Minj v. State of M. P.

2013-10-24

RAJENDRA MENON

body2013
ORDER 1. Petitioner, who, in the year 2008, was pursuing her studies in the MBBS Course and was student of 3rd Year in Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal, has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 4.1.2008 and the recommendations made by the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee on 11.9.2007, whereby, the question of declaring the social status of the petitioner was decided. 2. Petitioner’s forefathers are said to be permanent resident of Village Ameratoli, Tahsil and District Jashpur now in the State of Chhattisgarh, originally in the State of M.P. prior to State Reorganization, which came into force on 1st of November, 2000. Parents of the petitioner were working in Bhopal, when the bifurcation of the State had not taken place. Petitioner’s father was working as Additional General Manager in Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited, Bhopal and her mother was working as Deputy General Manager (Medical), Kasturba Hospital, BHEL, Bhopal. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s parents and the petitioner belong to an Schedule Tribe Community i.e. “Oraon Caste”, the said caste is notified as a Schedule Tribe both in the State of M.P. and in the State of Chhattisgarh. 3. Based on her social status and the fact or her residence in Bhopal due to her parents’ service, it is the case of the petitioner that she was born in Bhopal in the year 1985 and since then, had undertaken her entire studies in Bhopal. She appeared in the Pre-Medical Test in Bhopal in the year 2005 and was selected for admission to the MBBS Course and was granted admission in the Government Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal in the seat reserved for Schedule Tribe Candidate. Annexures P-3, P-4, P-5, P-6 and P-7 are the documents evidencing the birth of the petitioner at Bhopal, her social status, mark-sheet etc. with regard to Pre-Medical Test. In the year 2008, when the petitioner was a student of 3rd year MBBS Course, it seems that certain complaints were made against the petitioner by certain vested interest and the social status of the petitioner was questioned. 4. It may be taken note of that while seeking admission, petitioner obtained a temporary caste certificate vide Annexure P-8 in the year 2002 and the permanent caste certificate vide Annexure P-9 from the competent authority of Bhopal. It is based on these documents that the petitioner was granted admission. 4. It may be taken note of that while seeking admission, petitioner obtained a temporary caste certificate vide Annexure P-8 in the year 2002 and the permanent caste certificate vide Annexure P-9 from the competent authority of Bhopal. It is based on these documents that the petitioner was granted admission. However, when the complaint was made, an enquiry was conducted by the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee and now a decision has been taken by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in it’s report Annexure P-11 dated 11.9.2007 to say that the petitioner’s forefather are the permanent resident of District Jashpur now in the State of Chhattisgarh and, therefore, she should obtain a permanent caste certificate from Jashpur. It is held that obtaining a caste certificate from Bhopal is not proper and contending that temporary caste certificate obtained from Bhopal has expired, the Committee has stated that the social status of the petitioner cannot be declared and benefit granted until and unless, she produces the original caste certificate from the State of Chhattisgarh. Challenging these actions, this writ petition has been filed. 5. Shri D.K. Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the documents and material available on record and says that when the petitioner was born in the year 1985, she was staying in Bhopal and at that point of time, the State of Chhattisgarh was not in existence, her parents were originally resident of Jashpur, they migrated to Bhopal because of their services at Bhopal in the State of Madhya Pradesh and it is not in dispute that her parents and forefather belong to “Oraon Community”, which is notified as Schedule Tribe Community. It is stated that only because the petitioner did not obtain permanent caste certificate from the State of Chhattisgarh, her social status cannot be denied. It is stated that the petitioner belong to the “Oraon Community” which is declared as Schedule Tribe Community under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. Merely because, the authority having territorial jurisdiction in the State of Madhya Pradesh has not issued the caste certificate after 2000, the social status of the petitioner cannot be insisted upon. 6. It is stated that the petitioner belong to the “Oraon Community” which is declared as Schedule Tribe Community under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. Merely because, the authority having territorial jurisdiction in the State of Madhya Pradesh has not issued the caste certificate after 2000, the social status of the petitioner cannot be insisted upon. 6. Placing reliance on a judgment rendered in the case of Urawn Evam Anya Adiwasi Samaj Sangathan Samiti v. State of M.P. and others, decided by Division Bench of this Court at Gwalior on 7.10.2006 [published in 2007(I) MPWN 110 ], learned counsel argued that under similar circumstances in the Public Interest Litigation, certificate issued from Madhya Pradesh was held to be valid for the purpose of declaring a social status of a person like the petitioner. Even though, the forefather of the person originally are from the State of Chhattisgarh, it is held that based on the social status available, a person migrating from Chhattisgarh cannot be discriminated from getting admission. Similarly inviting my attention in another judgment of this Court in the case of Kamal Kishore Barapatre v. State of M.P. and others, decided in Writ Petition No.7649/2007(s) on 19.2.2009, Shri Dixit prays for interference into the matter. 7. Even though Shri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the State refuted the aforesaid and submitted that no case is made out for interference, from the facts that have come on record it is clear that the impugned action is taken against the petitioner only because she has not obtained a permanent caste certificate from the State of Chhattisgarh. The action is proposed to be taken against her only because she has produced a temporary certificate and the permanent certificate from the competent authority in the State of Madhya Pradesh i.e. from Bhopal. The question is as to whether the impugned action could be taken against the petitioner merely because her parents have migrated from the State of Chhattisgarh to the State of Madhya Pradesh. This is a peculiar case, it is not a normal case of migration from one State to another. The question is as to whether the impugned action could be taken against the petitioner merely because her parents have migrated from the State of Chhattisgarh to the State of Madhya Pradesh. This is a peculiar case, it is not a normal case of migration from one State to another. It’s a case when forefather and parents of the petitioner were originally from a place Jashpur which was in the State of Madhya Pradesh till 30.10.2000, and now the parents of the petitioner are residing in Bhopal and even though, they have migrated from Jashpur now in Chhattisgarh, before the birth of the petitioner in the year 1985, when Jashpur was a part of undivided State of Madhya Pradesh, it is based on these facts that petitioner’s case is to be considered. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s parents and forefather are belonging to Schedule Tribe Community i.e. “Oraon Community” and the said Community is notified as a Schedule Tribe Community as per Constitution. The only dispute is that the petitioner has not produced a caste certificate from the competent authority from the State of Chhattisgarh. Petitioner has produced the documents Annexures P-8 and P-9 which go to show that at the time of admission to the Medical College, she was issued a temporary caste certificate by the authorities at Bhopal and, thereafter, vide Annexure P-9, the permanent certificate has also been issued. The State of Madhya Pradesh or the Caste Scrutiny Committee did not dispute the validity of these certificates Annexure P-8 and P-9, their only objection is that the petitioner’s forefather are resident of Jashpur now the State of Chhattisgarh, therefore, she should have produced the caste certificate from the State of Chhattisgarh. It is not known as to under which provision of law and as to on what statutory requirements, such an insistence is being made. It is not known as to under which provision of law and as to on what statutory requirements, such an insistence is being made. The Supreme Court in the case of Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Seth G.S. Medical College [ (1990)3 SCC 130 ], and in the case of S. Pushpa and others v. Sivachanmugavelu and others [2005 AIR SCW 977], has held that once a person belonging to a particular caste migrates from one State to another, the social status has to be given on such migration, even in the case of person belonging to the “Oraon Community” in the State of Chhattisgarh and their rights in the Public Interest Litigation in the case of Urawn Evam Anya Adiwasi Samaj (supra), a Division Bench of this Court has taken note of similar circumstances and similar arguments advanced by the State Government has been rejected. 9. That apart, in the case of Kamal Kishore Barapatre (supra), this Court had considered the question of migration of medical students from the State of Maharashtra to the State of Madhya Pradesh and the matter has been decided after taking note of the judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No.1160/2003 (Neetu Singh v. State of M.P.), decided on 16.9.2003 and Writ Petition No.5143/2005 (Dr. Yamini Khapre v. State of M.P. and others), wherein the matter has been dealt with in the following manner : “16. However, in the present case, the facts are entirely different. Petitioner is born in the State of Madhya Pradesh. She had her entire education and career in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Her father migrated in Madhya Pradesh before her birth i.e. more than 20-25 years back. The caste “Halba” is declared as Scheduled Caste in both the States and the Tahsildar, Jabalpur had issued caste certificate in her favour in the year 1999 Annexure P-1. She had her entire education and career in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Her father migrated in Madhya Pradesh before her birth i.e. more than 20-25 years back. The caste “Halba” is declared as Scheduled Caste in both the States and the Tahsildar, Jabalpur had issued caste certificate in her favour in the year 1999 Annexure P-1. Thus, the petitioner in the present case is a bona fide resident of Madhya Pradesh and as has been held by this Court in the case of Neetu Singh (supra), she has acquired the status of permanent domicile in the State of Madhya Pradesh as she fulfils the following condition viz - (i) She is born in the State of Madhya Pradesh and had her entire education right from the beginning to MBBS in the State of Madhya Pradesh; and (ii) her parents are continuously residing in the State of Madhya Pradesh for more than fifteen years. 17. As the petitioner had complied with the conditions for acquiring the status of a permanent domicile and, the caste to which she belongs is declared as Scheduled Tribe in the State of Madhya Pradesh, there is no reason to deny her the benefits of caste certificate.” (Emphasis supply) 10. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal principles and the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly the fact that the petitioner’s parents are permanently residing at Bhopal, even prior to the birth of the petitioner in the year 1985, when Jashpur was part of un-divided State of Madhya Pradesh and the fact that the respondents do not deny that status of the petitioner and the fact that her parents are from Schedule Tribe Community, the insistence upon producing a caste certificate from the State of Chhattisgarh and proposing to cancel the admission on such consideration is nothing but an arbitrary and illegal action. 11. It is not any body’s case that petitioner does not belong to the “Oraon Community”, nor is the case of the respondents that she has obtained the caste certificate from Bhopal in a fraudulent manner, the action is proposed to be taken because the petitioner has not obtained the caste certificate from the State of Chhattisgarh. 11. It is not any body’s case that petitioner does not belong to the “Oraon Community”, nor is the case of the respondents that she has obtained the caste certificate from Bhopal in a fraudulent manner, the action is proposed to be taken because the petitioner has not obtained the caste certificate from the State of Chhattisgarh. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that it is not necessary for the respondents to insist upon producing the caste certificate from the State of Chhattisgarh, particularly when the petitioner’s parents had settled at Bhopal much prior to reorganization of the State and the petitioner’s parents are permanently residing at Bhopal before the birth of the petitioner in the year 1985, she has produced a caste certificate from the competent authority of the Bhopal and the said community is notified as a Schedule Caste Community. 12. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The communication made to the petitioner vide Annexure P-12 dated 4.1.2008 and the recommendation recorded by the committee vide Annexure P-11 in it’s report dated 11.9.2007 are quashed and the respondents are restrained from taking any action against the petitioner on such count. 13. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.