JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. 1. This writ petition involves a challenge to the order under Annexure-3 passed by the Tahasildar, Berhampur thereby declaring the petitioner does not belong to the caste “Patratanti”, as claimed by him in exercise of power envisaged under Rule 8 of the Orissa Caste Certificate (for Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes) Rules, 1980 (in short, “Rules, 1980”), consequently revoking the order passed in favour of the petitioner in the Misc. Case No.2571/1984 and further asking the petitioner to surrender the certificate granted in his favour on disposal of the Misc. Case No.2571/1984 and also the order passed by the appellate authority under Section 9 of Rules, 1980 thereby confirming the order of the Tahasildar under Annexure-3 as appearing at Annexure-7. 2. Short background involved in the case is that the petitioner while continuing as an employee in the National Insurance Company Ltd. after continuing in service for over eighteen years received a notice from the Tahasildar, Berhampur on 23.7.2002 to appear in a proceeding, vide Misc. Case No.4349/2002 for verification of the authenticity of the caste certificate already issued in his favour. The background involving the above proceeding herein is that in the year 1983 after completion of graduation while the petitioner was searching for a job he applied the Tahasildar, Berhampur for issuing caste certificate as per the provision in the Rules, 1980. This application was registered as Misc. Case No.2571/1984. After necessary verification and taking oral evidence by way of local enquiry, the Additional Tahasildar on 13.12.1984 issued a caste certificate certifying the petitioner as “Patratanti” by caste, which caste was also included at serial no.76 in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Orders, 1950 as available at Annexure-1. Upon receipt of notice in Misc. Case No.4349/2002, the petitioner appeared before the Tahasildar, Berhampur and requested for some time for arranging relevant document to file a response to justify the grant of certificate already issued in his favour. Finding that the case record involving Misc. Case No.2517/1984 was destroyed at the end of the public office, the Tahasildar, Berhampur during pendency of the aforesaid Misc. Case directed the petitioner to file affidavit stating that he belonged to “Patratanti” caste with supporting materials. The petitioner filed an affidavit on 20.11.2002. Finding that the case record involving Misc. Case No.2517/1984 was destroyed at the end of the public office, the Tahasildar, Berhampur during pendency of the aforesaid Misc. Case directed the petitioner to file affidavit stating that he belonged to “Patratanti” caste with supporting materials. The petitioner filed an affidavit on 20.11.2002. The proceeding was closed by the Tahasildar, vide Annexure-3 with observation that the petitioner does not belong to caste “Patratanti”, and therefore, by revoking/canceling the caste certificate already granted in favour of the petitioner, the Tahasildar on disposal of the said proceeding directed the petitioner to return the certificate granted in his favour involving Misc. Case No.2517/1984. 3. Assailing the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal (Misc. Appeal No.2/2003). The appeal at the first instance was disposed of without affording opportunity to the petitioner. Petitioner preferred W.P.(C) No.5715/2005 assailing the appellate order, which writ petition upon hearing both sides was disposed of setting aside the appellate order therein and remanding the matter to the appellate authority for fresh disposal of the appeal after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. On remand, the appeal was re-heard and by order under Annexure-7, the appeal was dismissed on merit thereby confirming the direction of the Tahasildar, vide Annexure-3. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. Assailing the order passed in the original proceeding as well as in the appeal, learned counsel for the petitioner advancing his argument submitted that from the definition contained in Purna Chandra Odia Bhasakosa, the word, “Dera” means, “Waiver Community” and “Patratanti” refers to Scheduled Caste Community in Orissa, whose professional occupation is waiving. It is also contended that the word, “Telugu” refers to the dialect/language of a community. Taking reference to a decision of the Hon’ble apex Court in AIR 1995 SC Page 94 (Madhuri Patil vrs. Additional Commissioner) the petitioner alleged that for the private complaint involved in the matter of grant of caste certificate in faovur of the petitioner following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble apex Court, the petitioner’s case should have been taken up by the State Level Scrutiny Committee and decided entering into proper investigation by the competent authority. Sri Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner further challenged the impugned orders being contrary to the provisions contained in the Rules, 1980. Sri Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner further challenged the impugned orders being contrary to the provisions contained in the Rules, 1980. It is also urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceeding gets vitiated for having the findings based on contemporaneous documents specifically relying upon a resolution dated 4.4.2000 came into picture much after grant of caste certificate in favour of the petitioner. Attaching the resolution relied on in the proceeding undertaken, learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that a resolution cannot override the statute nor take away the subsisting right retrospectively. So far as the petitioner’s challenge to the appellate order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appellate authority failed to consider or take note of the fact that the caste certificate, vide Annexure-1 was issued following the proceeding in Misc. Case No.2571/1984 by the competent authority, and therefore, the further proceeding at the instance of the Tahasildar was a misnomer. It is under the above premises, learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to approve the caste certificate granted in faovur of the petitioner, vide Annexure-1 while declaring both the orders, vide Annexures-3 & 7 as bad in law. 5. In his opposition, Sri S. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate apart from taking the stand of O.Ps.1 & 2 in the counter affidavit filed by O.P.3 in his attempt to justify the impugned orders submitted that the subsequent proceeding involving the certificate already granted in favour of the petitioner was an of suit of a complaint by an individual reporting the competent authority that the petitioner does not belong to “Patratanti” and he is busy in taking promotion after promotion based on such illegal certificate. Depending on such complaint and based on a request of the National Commission for S.C. & S.T., New Delhi, the Director of National Commission for S.C. & S.T., Government of India, State Office, Orissa in its letter dated 7.7.2002 general 21.1.2002 requested the Collector and the District Magistrate, Ganjam for an enquiry involving the allegation in the representation dated 10.10.2001 and for taking necessary steps for cancellation of the caste certificate if the allegations against the petitioner are found true. It is based on such direction and on being instructed by the Sub-Collector, the Tahasildar, Berhampur took up the matter personally and decided the matter finally after not only entering into due enquiry but also recording the statements of other individuals. Sri Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate, further submitted that both the proceedings having been taken up giving fullest opportunity to the petitioner and for the petitioner’s failure in establishing his claim for his belonging to “Patratanti”, the petitioner even failed in establishing the same by bringing oral evidence of his kith and keens. Sri Mishra while contending that there was no material to satisfy the case of the petitioner, for the observation of the Tahasildar being confirmed by the appellate authority, Sri Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that for failure of the petitioner in establishing his claim and further for no availability of any material to support the claim of the petitioner and further for the concurrent finding of fact by both the authorities on a matter of this nature not only the petitioner has any case but there is also no scope for this Court to interfere in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is under the above premises, Sri Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate requested this Court for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Hearing the rival contentions of the parties and taking into consideration the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the proceeding initiated at the instance of the Tahasildar, vide Misc. Case No.4349/2002 (Caste Certificate) decided under Rule 8 of the Rules, 1980, is maintainable? As a first step, this Court now proceeds to decide the maintainability of the proceeding, vide Annexure-3. Looking to the provisions contained in Rule 8 of the Rules, 1980, this Court finds the provision at Rule 8 reads as follows :- “8. Miscellaneous – (1) The competent authority shall issue caste certificate in the form prescribed in Appendix I of these Rules. (2) If after issue of caste certificate in any particular case, subsequent verification reveals that the candidate’s claim was false, the competent authority who issued the certificate shall have the right to cancel the same and pass orders for revocation of the benefits that might have acquired by the person concerned. (2) If after issue of caste certificate in any particular case, subsequent verification reveals that the candidate’s claim was false, the competent authority who issued the certificate shall have the right to cancel the same and pass orders for revocation of the benefits that might have acquired by the person concerned. (3) Any person securing an appointment in any office or in an establishment on the basis of a false claim regarding his caste, shall be liable for termination from service. (4) The competent authority before whom an application is made for issue of caste certificate for the purpose of securing an employment under State, shall ensure disposal of such application within a period of one month. In case of failure to issue a Caste Certificate or to dispose of the application otherwise by passing appropriate orders within the stipulated time, the competent authority shall record in the order sheet stipulated time, the competent authority shall record in the order sheet of the case record the reasons for such violation of the time-limit. (5) If any competent authority is found to have issued a wrong caste certificate carelessly or deliberately without proper verification, he shall make himself liable for his acts of commission and omission under relevant provision of the I.P.C. and also under the appropriate disciplinary rules application to him.” Following the provision at Sub-Rule (2) of Rule-8 of the Rules, 1980, this Court finds, this is a provision authorizing the competent authority to issue caste certificate, to cancel the same and pass orders for revocation of the benefits that might have been acquired by the person concerned and Rule-9 prescribes, any person aggrieved by an order passed by a competent authority subordinate to that of District Magistrate/Collector may prefer an appeal before the District Magistrate/Collector concerned and to the concerned Revenue Divisional Commissioner where the original order is passed by the District Magistrate/Collector, within a period of 30 days of passing of such order. The order passed by the District Magistrate or the Revenue Divisional Commissioner on such appeal/petition shall be final. For the provisions referred to herein above, this Court finds no substance in the submission of the petitioner that the proceeding at the level of Tahasildar involved herein is without jurisdiction. Original proceeding at the instance of the Tahasildar is maintainable. 7. The order passed by the District Magistrate or the Revenue Divisional Commissioner on such appeal/petition shall be final. For the provisions referred to herein above, this Court finds no substance in the submission of the petitioner that the proceeding at the level of Tahasildar involved herein is without jurisdiction. Original proceeding at the instance of the Tahasildar is maintainable. 7. Taking into consideration the petitioner’s stand involving the decision in Madhuri Patil (supra), this Court finds, for the provision in the Rules, 1980, there is no bar for initiation of a proceeding under Rule 8 of the Rules, 1980. Consequently, the stand of the petitioner that this nature of matter should have been examined by the State Level Committee also fails. 8. Now coming to decide the merit involved in the impugned orders, considering the rival submissions, this Court finds, the Tahasildar on initiation of the original proceeding gave the fullest opportunity to the petitioner to satisfy his case. For the non-availability of document involving the previous proceeding, viz., Misc. Case No.2571/1984, the petitioner was given opportunity of filing necessary affidavit to satisfy his case. In spite of such opportunity and even though the petitioner filed an affidavit directed by the Tahasildar, from the discussion of the Tahasildar, this Court finds, the petitioner could not be able to place any material to support his claim that he belonged to “Patratanti” except taking a stand on the basis of R.O.R., which clearly reveals, the petitioner belonged to “Dera” by caste, which item admittedly does not find place in the list of Scheduled Castes as per the Presidential Order. This Court also observes, instead of fullest opportunity the petitioner even failed to bring any of his relation or near relation to depose before the Tahasildar establishing his claim. The Tahasildar’s order, vide Annexure-3 is based on failure of the petitioner in establishing his case substantiating the issue of Caste Certificate and for the reasons assigned therein based on materials contradicting the claims made by the petitioner, this Court finds, there is no infirmity in the impugned order, vide Annexure-3. 9. The Tahasildar’s order, vide Annexure-3 is based on failure of the petitioner in establishing his case substantiating the issue of Caste Certificate and for the reasons assigned therein based on materials contradicting the claims made by the petitioner, this Court finds, there is no infirmity in the impugned order, vide Annexure-3. 9. Now coming to scan the order passed by the appellate authority, taking into consideration the allegations made by the petitioner involving the order passed by the appellate court, this Court finds, the appellate authority while considering the case of the petitioner herein has also the clear observation that in spite of the petitioner taking several adjournments except filing an affidavit sworn by him justifying his case could not produce any documentary evidence or even oral evidence in his support. The appellate authority taking into consideration the affidavit of the petitioner, the appellant therein, the enquiry report of the Additional Tahasildar and the caste recorded in the R.O.R. came to the conclusion that the material establishes his case otherwise. The petitioner under no circumstance could have been considered belonging to “Patratanti”. This Court further finds, father of the petitioner though participated also failed in establishing the claim of his son. This Court further finds from the perusal of the orders passed by both the authorities, the R.O.R. filed by the petitioner to support his case has no indication that the petitioner belongs to “Patratanti”. On the other hand, “Telugu” and “Dera” being the only indication in the R.O.R. established the case of the petitioner otherwise. Further there being no challenge by the petitioner to the said recordings in the R.O.R. before the competent authority cannot otherwise be ignored. 10. As a result, this Court finds, the orders passed by both the authorities below have no infirmity. Further for the concurrent finding of fact on the factual aspect involving the petitioner by both the authorities below, this Court has no scope for interfering in such matters in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India otherwise. The writ petition thus stands dismissed. No cost.