JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. All these writ petitions being WP (C) No. 1225/2016 [Sri. Gauranga Chandra Sarkar vs. State of Tripura and Others], WP (C) No. 1240/2016 [Sri. Kartik Sarkar vs. State of Tripura and Others] and WP (C) No. 170/2017 [Smt. Pratima Sarkar vs. State of Tripura and Others] are consolidated for disposal by common judgment for the reason that by the common final order dated 19.10.2016 under No. F.2-137(MTB-2)/SCW/GL/98 the State Level Scrutiny Committee (SLSC, for short) has cancelled the status certificates of the petitioners. Most importantly, all the petitioners are sons and daughter of Manoranjan Sarkar, since deceased and thus the petitioners are uterine brothers and sister. It would be apposite to note that in this regard there is no dispute. It is also not in dispute that the SLSC has conducted an inquiry initially by a Vigilance Officer and thereafter on affording purported reasonable opportunities to the petitioners the SLSC has passed the said final order by cancelling the status (SC) certificates of the petitioners on observing that the petitioners do not belong to ‘Namasudra’ community which is recognized as the Scheduled Caste (SC) in the State of Tripura. The petitioners claimed that they belong to that community. 2. The impugned final order dated 19.10.2016 is available at Annexure-12 in the writ petition being WP (C) No. 1225/2016 filed by the petitioner namely Gauranga Chandra Sarkar, at Annexure-11 of the writ petition being WP (C) No. 1240/2016 filed by the petitioner namely Kartik Chandra Sarkar and at Annexure-15 of the writ petition being WP (C) No. 170/2017 filed by Smt. Pratima Sarkar. 3. On the basis of a complaint received from the Tripura SC Welfare Society, Udaipur Branch in the year 1998, the inquiry proceeding was launched against the petitioners who originally hail from a village called Khupilong, Udaipur now under District Gomati. That complaint was sent as per rule to be enquired into by the Vigilance Officer. The Vigilance Officer having enquired submitted the report dated 25.02.2005 clearly observing that none of the petitioners and another Smt. Parbati Sarkar belonged to the Scheduled Caste community. That complaint was sent as per rule to be enquired into by the Vigilance Officer. The Vigilance Officer having enquired submitted the report dated 25.02.2005 clearly observing that none of the petitioners and another Smt. Parbati Sarkar belonged to the Scheduled Caste community. In addition to the said inquiry report, the SLSC obtained the report from the B.D.O., Matabari R.D. Block along with views of SC Welfare Sub Committee on the caste status of the petitioners and Smt. Parbati Sarkar [to avoid unnecessary narration this Court would henceforth be dealing only with the cases of the petitioners and here-in-after the reference would instead be made as the petitioners]. The said report as called for has according to the SLSC clearly shown that the petitioners did not belong to the scheduled castes. Having satisfied by the prima facie materials, the SLSC issued the show cause notice dated 24.04.2008 [Annexure-1 to the writ petitions] along with a copy of the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) to each of the petitioners separately by giving them opportunity to make representation if any, in writing in support of their caste status along with relevant records/evidence within two weeks from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which it was cautioned, it shall be presumed that they had nothing to say and a decision accordingly would be taken ex-parte. The petitioners were further instructed to specifically mention in the representation whether they would seek an opportunity of hearing or claim any inquiry to be made by the SLSC. It has been also observed failing to mention in the manner as stated, it should be further presumed that the petitioners had abandoned such claim. 4. The petitioners filed their reply [Annexure-2 to the writ petitions] dealing elaborately with the finding of the vigilance report and also by incorporating the statements in support of their claim to be member of the scheduled caste community. Along with the said reply, the documents including some affirmed statements were submitted. The reply filed by the petitioners in response to the show cause notice dated 24.04.2008 even though filed separately but was common in nature substantively. In the reply, the petitioners submitted that they are two brothers and five sisters and all are recognized as the scheduled caste. They are recognized as the scheduled caste since the time of their primary education. In the reply, the petitioners submitted that they are two brothers and five sisters and all are recognized as the scheduled caste. They are recognized as the scheduled caste since the time of their primary education. They have asserted further that the Vigilance Officer did not visit their house nor did he examine the witnesses on 31.10.2004 in their presence. However, it has not been denied that the Vigilance Officer issued notice on 30.10.2004 so far the petitioner in WP (C) No. 1225/2016 is concerned; on 06.10.2004 so far the petitioner in WP (C) No. 1240/2016 is concerned and on 24.01.2005 so far the petitioner in WP (C) No. 170/2017 is concerned seeking their attendance before him relating to the said enquiry. They were also asked to bring their SC certificates. Even though in the report of the Vigilance Officer it has been stated that he had examined the close relatives and the neighbours of the petitioners but from the report it cannot be identified who are their relatives or who are their neighbours. The petitioners have categorically stated in their reply that the witnesses namely Sri Ranjit Das, Sri Anath Bandhu Debnath, Sri Rakhal Chandra Das and Sri Santi Kumar Das are neither their relatives nor their neighbours. The person namely Manoranjan Sarkar is their father whom the Enquiry Officer has claimed to have examined. It has been further asserted in the reply that the statement of Anath Bandhu Debnath, Rakhal Chandra Das and Santi Kumar Das that the petitioners do not belong to ‘Namasudra’ community but to ‘Kayastha’ community are based on no material. No material particulars are referred or placed by those witnesses to the Vigilance Officer. The petitioners, however, has categorically admitted in their reply as follows: “It is a common knowledge that generally the elderly people did not make any prayer for SC Certificate as they did not feel any necessity for such certificate. No material particulars are referred or placed by those witnesses to the Vigilance Officer. The petitioners, however, has categorically admitted in their reply as follows: “It is a common knowledge that generally the elderly people did not make any prayer for SC Certificate as they did not feel any necessity for such certificate. In the Register of ordinary residents the recent recording of the name of Sri Manoranjan Sarkar as belonging to general caste has been wrongly and illegally made with ill motive although in the previous O.R.R. my father was shown as belonging to SC and the present entry was made by way of alteration of the earlier entry without any notice to my father.” The petitioners while giving the details of their community root have stated that their father namely Manoranjan Sarkar was originally a resident of village Barura of Comilla District of the erstwhile East Pakistan and he belonged to ‘Namasudra’ community. He came to Tripura in the year 1962 and got settled in the village Khupilong. The petitioners were born in the said village. They prosecuted their primary education in a nearby school. The petitioners were recorded as the students belonging to SC community. Thereafter they prosecuted their further studies to various schools. There also, they were recognized as the SC students. All the petitioners have stated that they prosecuted their studies in various schools subsequent to their completion of primary education. But when they approached the school authorities for having the records relating to their status as the SC students; “on the plea of non availability of the records after such long period” they were not furnished with copies of those records where their caste status was recorded. But one Chitta Ranjan Sarkar who claimed to be the Headmaster of the Barabhaiya S.B. School when the petitioners were the students of that school issued a certificate confirming that the petitioners were students of that school and they availed the benefits as the SC students. The petitioners have further asserted that their ancestors were all belonging to ‘Namasudra’ community, a community which as stated, recognized as SC in the State of Tripura by the presidential order. The petitioners have further asserted that their ancestors were all belonging to ‘Namasudra’ community, a community which as stated, recognized as SC in the State of Tripura by the presidential order. They have further stated as under: “One Haran Sarkar (now deceased), son of Late Basanta Kumar Sarkar of Village Matarbari, Sub-Division Udaipur, South Tripura was the younger cousin brother of my father and he was also recognized as a member of the Namasudra Community and was granted SC Certificate on 14/05/1986.” His sons and daughters are all granted SC certificates acknowledging their status. They have further stated that the Gaon Pradhan namely Pranballav Nath, now deceased, of Paschim Khupilong Gaon Panchayat issued a certificate on 29.06.1986 declaring the petitioners to be the members of Namasudra community. 5. All the petitioners are the Govt. employees. For record, the petitioner in WP (C) No. 1225/2016 was appointed as a Fishery Officer whereas the petition in WP (C) No. 1240/2016 was appointed initially as a constable in the Tripura Police both as the SC candidate. In addition to the documents issued by the individuals, two petitioners have filed service records to show that they enjoyed the benefits as the SC employee. As regards availing the benefit on that status there is no dispute. After scrutiny of the records what has surfaced is that their grounds for claiming the status are common and entirely identical. A few insignificant variations so far the individual details are considered, but those are not related or relevant fundamentally to the core issue of the status of the petitioners. 6. In the writ petition being WP (C) No. 170/2017, the petitioner has filed one copy of ROR with the rejoinder to show that the family members of Sri Haran Sarkar who has been claimed to be a cousin brother of Manoranjan Sarkar, the father of the petitioners are recorded as SC in the said ROR of Matabari, Ward No. 5. This document is not available in the other two writ petitions. On scrutiny it is found that wife of Haran Sarkar, [S/o Late Basanta Sarkar] namely Smt. Maya Rani Sarkar, his sons namely Chandan Sarkar, Nandan Sarkar and Ranjan Sarkar and his daughters namely Purnima Sarkar and Anima Sarkar have been recorded as ‘SC’ in the said ROR of Ward No. 5 of Matabari Gaon Panchayat under Matabari R.D. Block. On scrutiny it is found that wife of Haran Sarkar, [S/o Late Basanta Sarkar] namely Smt. Maya Rani Sarkar, his sons namely Chandan Sarkar, Nandan Sarkar and Ranjan Sarkar and his daughters namely Purnima Sarkar and Anima Sarkar have been recorded as ‘SC’ in the said ROR of Ward No. 5 of Matabari Gaon Panchayat under Matabari R.D. Block. As consequence of the final order dated 19.10.2016 the SC certificates of the petitioners have been cancelled and confiscated. Reference to those certificates is provided below in a tabular of form:- S. No. Name of the petitioner WP (C) No. No. and date of the SC Certificate (1) Sri Gauranga Chandra Sarkar WP (C) No. 1225 of 2016 SC Certificate No. 227/F.6(4)- SDO/UDP/CTZN/85 dated 26.08.1985 (2) Sri Kartik Chandra Sarkar WP (C) No. 1240 of 2016 SC Certificate No. F.6(4)-SDO/ UDP/CTZN/411/87 dated 05.05.1988 (3) Smt. Pratima Sarkar WP (C) No. 170 of 2017 SC Certificate No. F. 6(4)- SDO/UDP/CTZN/65/90, dated 08.01.1992 7. By the impugned order, the SC Certificates have been cancelled and confiscated based on the finding that the petitioners failed to prove that they belonged to ‘Namasudra’ community as claimed by them. As already stated that all the petitioners have taken the common basis in order to demonstrate they belonged to ‘Namasudra’ community. To avoid repetition, this court would now make reference to the averment and documents of the writ petition being WP (C) No. 1225/2016 [Sri Gauranga Chandra Sarkar vs. State of Tripura and Others]. 8. The petitioners submitted the affidavit dated 19.08.1985 sworn by their father and one SC certificate dated 14.05.1986 issued to one Haran Sarkar, younger cousin brother of the petitioners’ father. The petitioners submitted some documentary evidence as stated. In the next two years, after the representation was received, the respondents did not embark on any action. But after two years by the said notice dated 24.04.2008 [Annexure-1 to the writ petitions] the petitioners were asked to prove their caste status. The petitioners appeared before the Vigilance officer who recorded their statements. In the next two years, after the representation was received, the respondents did not embark on any action. But after two years by the said notice dated 24.04.2008 [Annexure-1 to the writ petitions] the petitioners were asked to prove their caste status. The petitioners appeared before the Vigilance officer who recorded their statements. In para 7 of the writ petition it has been averred as under: “..........after more than 5 years the respondent No. 3 again issued a letter dated 16.10.2015 stating inter-alia that SLSC in its meeting held on 13.10.2015 decided to supply copies of the report of BDO, Matarbari RD Block dated 04.06.2011 and the report of the SDM, Udaipur dated 27.07.2015 to the petitioner and ask him to appear and accordingly petitioner was asked to appear on 31.10.2015 before the respondent No. 3 for submission of evidence in support of his caste status along with the said letter of BDO dated 04.06.2011 and the letter of SDM, Udaipur dated 27.07.2015. Along with a report of the SDM, Udaipur, a letter of the Deputy Collector and Magistrate, Killa Revenue Circle dated 22.07.2015 was enclosed. Your petitioner annexes hereto a copy of the said letter dated 16.10.2015 along with said enclosures and it is marked Annexure-4.” On 31.10.2015 the petitioner appeared before the respondent No. 4 and submitted a representation stating amongst other things that the petitioner had already submitted evidence in support of his caste status on 04.05.2010. The SC Welfare Sub Committee, Matabari R.D. Block and the DCM, Killa submitted their respective reports without any interaction with the petitioners and without verifying the family ROR in West Khupilong and Dhwajanagar Panchayats and without verifying the documents available with the educational institutions. It was also stated in the said report that SC certificates of the persons having blood relations with the petitioners were ignored by the Inquiring Officers. It has been further contended by the petitioners that their SC certificates, reference of which has been given in the table above, were issued by the competent authority after due inquiry and hence, the order of cancellation of those SC certificates cannot sustain in law. The verification process is not supported by any document for the inquiry held earlier for purpose of issuing the SC certificate. 9. The verification process is not supported by any document for the inquiry held earlier for purpose of issuing the SC certificate. 9. The petitioners thereafter have asserted that the witnesses as cited in the report of the Vigilance Officer namely Rakhal Chandra Das, Ranjit Das & Anath Bandhu Debnath did not turn up even though they were duly summoned. Manoranjan Sarkar expired in the year 2011 and hence there was no question of his appearance. The witnesses namely Anjali Roy Ghosh and Santi Kumar Das were cross examined on their appearance by the petitioners. Witnesses namely Smt. Anjali Roy Ghosh (P.W.1) and Santi Kumar Das (P.W.2) according to the petitioners did not support the allegations. The petitioners have further stated that the vigilance report as submitted by the Vigilance Officer is not sustainable in terms of Rule 7A(3) of the Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Reservation Rules 1992 as there was no verification by the Director of Vigilance. For purpose of reference, Rule 7A(3) is extracted hereunder:- “(3) The Investigating Officer would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed. He should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the certificate holder or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the certificate holder in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the community status of the certificate holder and submit a report to the Director of Vigilance who will verify the correctness of the report and transmit it to the Member-Secretary of the Scrutiny Committee concerned together with all particulars as envisaged in the proforma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the castes or tribes or tribal communities concerned etc.” 10. According to the petitioners, the Director of Vigilance did not verify the correctness of the report neither did he transmit it to the Member Secretary of the SLSC. by the castes or tribes or tribal communities concerned etc.” 10. According to the petitioners, the Director of Vigilance did not verify the correctness of the report neither did he transmit it to the Member Secretary of the SLSC. Therefore, no proceeding ought to have been launched against the petitioners on the basis of the said vigilance report. The petitioners have further asserted that in Director of Tribal Welfare, Govt. of A.P. vs. Laveti Giri, (1995) 4 SCC 32 it has been prescribed how to bring the vigilance report in the inquiry. The Apex Court has observed as under: “7.5 Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in overall charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspectors would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed. The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in the pro forma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the castes or tribes or tribal communities concerned etc.” 11. The petitioners have also asserted that the inference of the vigilance officer, the respondent No. 9 [in WP (C) No. 1225 of 2016], in respect of their caste status is based on the entry in the ROR [Register of Ordinary Residents] where the father of the petitioners was shown as belonging to general category. The petitioners have submitted that the previous entry in the ROR prior to 2005 was not looked into by the vigilance officer. The petitioners have submitted that the previous entry in the ROR prior to 2005 was not looked into by the vigilance officer. The petitioners have relied on the SC certificates of two persons namely Chandan Sarkar and Rakhal Krishna Mallick who appeared for the petitioners as witnesses and they were cross examined by the SLSC. According to the petitioners, Chandan Sarkar is the direct descendant of Haran Sarkar who has been claimed to be the cousin brother of Manoranjan Sarkar, father of the petitioner, since deceased. Their status certificates were not under any scrutiny. 12. In Para 10 in writ petition being WP (C) No.1225/2016, the petitioners have asserted as under:- “That the Respondent No. 3 vide order dated 02.12.2015 fixed the next of proceeding on 19.01.2016 for the purpose of examination/cross-examination of Rakhal Chandra Das and Ranjit Das who had failed to appear and also for appearance of BDO Matarbari RD Block with ROR dated 03.02.2005.” 13. From the order dated 19.01.2016 passed by the respondent No. 4 it would appear that both Rakhal Chandra Das and Ranjit Das did not turn up even after service of notice for the second time. On 10.02.2016 a further date was fixed for appearance of Anath Bandhu Debnath and Sanjit Das and also for appearance of BDO, Tepania R.D. Block, in place of BDO, Matabari R.D. Block for bifurcation of the block area and creation of a new block. On that day, Sanjit Das appeared but Anath Bandhu Debnath did not turn up. Sanjit Das did not say anything against the petitioners. 14. In Para 12 of the writ petition, the petitioners have further asserted as under: “.......It would appear from the order dated 10.02.2016 passed by the respondent No. 3 that the BDO, Tepania appeared before the respondent No. 4 and submitted a written report dated 10.02.2016 to the effect that as per ROR of the year 1994 at page No. 121 serial 52 there was entry of the name of Monoranjan Sarkar, the father of the petitioner as belonging to SC community and that even in the latest ROR maintained by BDO, Tepania RD Block of ward No. 4 of Paschim Khupilong GP at Page No. 64, serial No. 62/49 there is also similar entry of the Monoranjan Sarkar as belonging to SC community. It further appears from the said order dated 10.02.2016 that according to the Respondent No. 4 it was surprisingly found that the SDM, Udaipur basing on the report of DCM, Killa dated 22.07.2015 reported that the petitioner and his other family members did not belong to SC community. The respondent No. 4 in the said order recorded that there was a confusion and so respondent No. 4 asked SDM, Udaipur to submit a report on or before 01.03.2016 explaining the authenticity of the SC certificate of the petitioner and his brother and sister and fixed the next date of the proceeding on 04.03.2016.” 15. The SDM, Udaipur, the respondent No. 7 in the writ petition being WP (C) No. 1225/2016 submitted the subsequent report in compliance of the orders dated 10.02.2016 and 01.03.2016 but without furnishing any new fact, only confirming that the scheduled caste certificates in favour of the petitioners were issued from his office but the records were not available in his office as the records transpired to be 30 years old. The respondent No. 7 (the SDM, Udaipur) has relied on a letter dated 22.07.2015 issued by the DCM, Killa and the resolution dated 03.06.2011 of the SC Welfare Sub-Committee, Matarbari R.D. Block. After having the report from the SDM, Udaipur a fresh date was fixed on 15.03.2016 on which day the petitioners had submitted the evidence by way of affidavit of witnesses namely Chandan Sarkar, cousin brother of the petitioners who was having SC certificate and Sri Rakhal Krishna Mallick, husband of the petitioners’ sister, who was also having SC certificate. Sri Chandan Sarkar and Sri Rakhal Krishna Mallick are respectively a Government employee and a pensioner. Along with the oral evidence, the petitioners’ introduced 17 documents. Those two witnesses were cross examined but their evidence in-chief could not be at all shaken. On appreciating all the evidence including the vigilance report on the touchstone of the subsequent evidentiary materials, the SLSC passed the final order dated 19.10.2016 directing cancellation and confiscation of the SC certificates as cited in the table. 16. Against the petitioners, the notification in terms of Rule 7A(9) of the Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Reservation Rules, 1992 is supposed to be issued as consequence of the order dated 19.10.2016. 17. 16. Against the petitioners, the notification in terms of Rule 7A(9) of the Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Reservation Rules, 1992 is supposed to be issued as consequence of the order dated 19.10.2016. 17. In WP (C) No. 1225 of 2016, the termination order dated 28.10.2016 [Annexure-17 to the writ petition] in respect of Gauranga Chandra Sarkar has been challenged whereas in WP (C) 170 of 2017 the order No. F.1(98-1)-DEE/Estt./2016/3026(7), dated 29.11.2016 [Annexure-16 to the writ petition] cancellation of the appointment of the writ petitioner is under challenge. But, in WP (C) No. 1240 of 2016 no such challenge is available even though the petitioner in that writ petition is a Govt. employee. However, the Additional Secretary to the SC Welfare Department by his letter dated 28.10.2016 [Annexure-13 to the writ petition No. 1240 of 2016] has requested the Director General of Police, Govt. of Tripura, Agartala to take action against the petitioner of the said writ petition in terms of the Rules 7A(9) of the Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Reservation Rules,1992 which provides that as soon as the findings is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the certificate obtained was false and the certificate is cancelled and confiscated, it shall be communicated to the head of the Educational institution concerned or the appointing authority by registered post with acknowledgement due with a request to cancel the admission or the appointment. The head of the educational institution responsible for making the admission or the appointing authority, here we are concerned only with the appointing authority, shall cancel the admission or appointment as the case may be without any further notice to the certificate holder and debar him from further study or continue in office or in a post. But no such action in terms of the said communication dated 28.10.2016 against the petitioner in WP (C) No. 1240/2016 has been brought to the notice of this Court. 18. Before this Court proceeds further, the relevant finding of the State Level Scrutiny Committee is required to be dealt with. From the discussion as made above, it has unambiguously appeared that the petitioners have relied fundamentally on two set of evidence viz. 18. Before this Court proceeds further, the relevant finding of the State Level Scrutiny Committee is required to be dealt with. From the discussion as made above, it has unambiguously appeared that the petitioners have relied fundamentally on two set of evidence viz. (1) the ROR of Paschim Khupilong Gaon Panchayat in respect of the SC status of their father and (2) the evidence of Chandan Sarkar and the ROR of Matabari Gaon Sabha where the status of Haran Sarkar was recorded as SC. That apart, the petitioners have relied on various other supporting documents from the authorities not competent to state their status or in respect of their certificates. 19. On the contrary, the SLSC has relied on the opinion of the Block Level SC Welfare Committee which has been assigned a role in the Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Reservation Rules, 1992. In Rule 6 of the said Rules it has been prescribed as under: “...........Provided that in cancelling a Scheduled Caste Certificate, the issuing authority shall obtain the views of the concerned Block Level or Nagar Panchayat Level or Municipal Level Scheduled Castes Welfare Sub-Committee and in cancelling a Scheduled Tribe certificate, the issuing authority shall obtain the views of the Sub-Divisional Level Scheduled Tribes Welfare Sub-Committee, if any, constituted by the Government, as to whether the certificate holder belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and the views so given by the Scheduled Castes Welfare or Scheduled Tribes Welfare Sub-Committee shall form a part of the order cancelling the certificate in question......” 20. Further, the SLSC has referred to the oral evidence of the persons who are acquainted with the status of the petitioners. The reliance has been placed on the report of the DCM, Killa based on which the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur has submitted the report. The SLSC has dealt with the evidence as advanced by the Vigilance Officer or gathered in the subsequent process, in terms of Rule 7A of the Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Reservation Rules, 1992 which provides, inter-alia, that before “passing a final order, the Committee shall also take into consideration the local inquiry report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Sub-Committee concerned.” 21. For purpose of reference, the relevant part of the final Order dated 19.10.2016 as passed by the SLSC is reproduced hereunder: “..........We have gone through the report dated 04.06.2011 of BDO, Matabari RD Block along with a copy of resolution of the SC Welfare Sub-Committee, Matabari R.D. Block. From this report it appears that none of the Ops are member of SC Community. The copy of this report was also supplied to the Ops. But no convincing documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the Ops to refute this report. We have perused the copy of ROR issued on 03.02.2005 as produced by the enquiry officer wherein the name of Sri Monoranjan Sarkar (father of the Ops) had been recorded as person belonging to General Category. But the recent extract of e-ROR of Monoranjan Sarkar he has been recorded as person belonging to SC community. The Ops during cross- examination of PW-3 did not deny the existence of the said ROR wherein the name of Monoranjan Sarkar has been recorded as person belonging to General Category and only gave simple suggestion in that respect. The OP also did not produce any document showing that the said ROR of Monoranjan Sarkar was ever corrected by the authority earlier or in the recent e-ROR produced by the Ops there is no mention of any fact that the earlier record has been corrected ever by the authority. The copy of ROR produced by the enquiry officer was issued by the authority in the year 2005 and from that it is clear that the Ops father was till that date was recorded as person belonging to General Category. But from SC certificate as produced by the Ops it is found that the said has been issued in the year 1985 in favour of Smt. Parbati Sarkar, Sri Gouranga Sarkar, in the year 1992 in favour of Smt. Pratima Sarkar, in the year 1988 in favour of Sri Kartik Sarkar. There is no document produced by the Ops which shows that at the time of issuance of SC Certificate, their father was ever recorded in any government record as person belonging to SC Community. The documents produdced by the enquiry officer rather shows that the Ops’ father was recorded as person belonging to General category. There is no document produced by the Ops which shows that at the time of issuance of SC Certificate, their father was ever recorded in any government record as person belonging to SC Community. The documents produdced by the enquiry officer rather shows that the Ops’ father was recorded as person belonging to General category. The Ops have produced one certificate issued by a member of SC Welfare Sub Committee, Matarbari, R.D. Block, Udaipur, South Tripura, but the said certificate does not contain any date of issuance and moreover the said document is not a public document. Ops failed to produce the issuer of the said certificate before the Committee to prove the genuinity of the said document. Other documents as produced by the Ops i.e. Certificate issued by the Udaipur Matsa Jibi Union, Certificate issued by one Rabindra Kr. Das, Certificate issued by Shri Keshab Majumder, MLA, Certificate issued by Shri Partha Das MLA, Certificate issued by Shri Gopal Chandra Das MLA, Certificate issued by Shri Rati Mohan Jamatia, Certificate issued by Pradhan, Paschim Khupilong G.P., Matarbari R.D. Block, Certificate issued by Ex Head Master Barabhaiya S.B. School, Udaipur, South Tripura, Certificate issued by Kirit Bikram Institution, Udaipur, not being the public documents cannot be relied upon. Moreover, the issuer of those certificates are not also produced before the Committee to prove genuinity of those certificates. The copy of enquiry report produced by the Tehshilder Dhajanagar T.K., Udaipur in respect to the caste status of Gouranga Sarkar as produced by the Ops, it reveals that concerned Tehshilder had submitted the said report to the concerned authority on the basis of certificates of MLA and Gaon Pradhan and nowhere in the said report it has been referred anything about the said ROR wherein the name of the father of the Ops has been recorded as UR Category. In the said report there is no mention that the record of caste status of Monoranjan Sarkar was ever corrected or recommended for correction. The OP also did not produce any other documents which could show that their father was recorded as person belonging to SC community in any government record at the time of issuance of SC certificate in favour of the Ops.......” 22. Before observing as above, the testimonies of the witnesses in support of the status of the petitioners or against their status were discussed by the SLSC. Before observing as above, the testimonies of the witnesses in support of the status of the petitioners or against their status were discussed by the SLSC. While discussing the evidence, the statements of Chandan Sarkar [OPW-1] and Rakhal Krishna Mallick [OPW-2] have also been discussed. OPWs 1 and 2 by their statement, affirmed by affidavit, have contended that they belonged to SC community and they have their SC certificates. OPW-1 [Chandan Sarkar] has stated that his father and the father of the petitioners were cousin brothers and the petitioners are his brothers and sisters having “blood relation.” OPW-2 [Rakhal Krishna Mallick] has stated that since the petitioners belonged to SC community, he has, being a member of the SC community, married their sister. He has further stated that he had his SC certificate as he belonged to the SC community. Most important witness, according to this Court, is P.W.2, Santi Kumar Das who was the Chairman of the SC Welfare Sub-Committee under Matabari R.D. Block. He has categorically stated that he knew the petitioners for last 55 years. When he was the Chairman of the SC Welfare Sub-Committee he got a complaint from the local people of Khupilong Gaon Panchayat that the petitioners had managed to collect SC certificate. He has categorically stated that the petitioners do not belong to SC community. The other witnesses are the Vigilance Officer and the formal witnesses who had occasion to see the service record and other records of the petitioners. Those witnesses have testified to the extent of what they had come across or gathered from the records which showed that the petitioners belonged to SC community. 23. Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned Sr. counsel, appearing for the petitioners has submitted that in conducting the inquiry, the respondents committed serious procedural impropriety. A few witnesses, examined by the Vigilance Officers, could not be produced for cross-examination. Mr. Bhowmik, learned Sr. counsel has stated further that the petitioners never misrepresented the facts for obtaining the status certificates as alleged in the show cause notice dated 24.04.2008. Mr. Bhowmik, learned Sr. counsel has stated that the inference of the Vigilance Officer that the father of the petitioners belonged to “kayastha” community is based on no record. Mr. Bhowmik, learned Sr. counsel has stated further that the petitioners never misrepresented the facts for obtaining the status certificates as alleged in the show cause notice dated 24.04.2008. Mr. Bhowmik, learned Sr. counsel has stated that the inference of the Vigilance Officer that the father of the petitioners belonged to “kayastha” community is based on no record. On the contrary, based on the entries made in the relevant ROR prior to 2005 it would be evident that the petitioners belonged to SC community inasmuch as their father namely Manoranjan Sarkar had been recorded in the ROR as belonging to the SC community. Mr. Bhowmik, learned Sr. counsel, has taken this Court to the entries in the ROR in details to show that in the old ROR, the name of the petitioners’ father is shown as belonging to SC community. In this regard, Mr. Bhowmik has referred to the report of the BDO, Tepania R.D. Block dated 10.02.2016 [Annexure-18 to the reply filed by the petitioner on 02.12.2016]. The said report which was submitted before the SLSC clearly holds that as per records available at the Gaon Panchayat level [in the Register of Ordinary Residents in the year 1994 at page 121, S. No. 52] it can be seen that Manoranjan Sarkar is recorded as belonging to SC community. Further, it has been observed that in the latest Register of Ordinary Residents of Ward No. 4 of Paschim Khupilong Gaon Panchayat [at page No. 64, S. No. 62/49] Manoranjan Sarkar is recorded as belonging to SC community. Mr. Bhowmik has, therefore, stoutly contended that the SLSC did not consider the said report even they did not give any reason why the said report as well as the ROR referred therein and produced before the SLSC are discarded. 24. Mr. Bhowmik, learned Sr. counsel has further submitted that there were scrutinies of the SC certificates by the administrative authorities more than once and never the certificates were held to be procured on misrepresentation of the fact. Having referred to the ROR [Annexure-R/1 to the reply filed by the respondents], Mr. Bhowmik has submitted that in the ROR of 1994 of Paschim Khupilong Panchayat there is a specific writing in the Col. No. 8. Such writing is contrary to and in consistent with the records of the proceeding. Having referred to the ROR [Annexure-R/1 to the reply filed by the respondents], Mr. Bhowmik has submitted that in the ROR of 1994 of Paschim Khupilong Panchayat there is a specific writing in the Col. No. 8. Such writing is contrary to and in consistent with the records of the proceeding. It has been stated that it would appear from the order dated 10.02.2016 passed by the SLSC [Annexure-8 to the writ petition] that the BDO, Tepania R.D. Block by his report has categorically stated that the father of the petitioner belonged to SC community according to those writings on the ROR. Mr. Bhowmik has further submitted that there was no whisper in the records of the proceedings that in the ROR of 1994 there was an entry ‘Na’ meaning ‘no’ in Col. No. 8 of the said ROR. There is no whisper that there was any overwriting in Col. No. 8. In view of the report submitted by the BDO, Tepania R.D. Block as reflected in the said order, the finding and observation made by the SLSC by the impugned order dated 19.10.2016 are unsustainable. Mr. Bhowmik has made an extreme submission that the records have been fabricated and manipulated contrary to the admitted position of fact. According to Mr. Bhowmik, the documents as enclosed with the reply to be the copy of ROR are not the correct one. Hence, the report of the BDO, Tepania R.D. Block should prevail over. Moreover, the respondents have raised a new plea that Chandan Sarkar (OPW-2) was recorded as belonging to OBC in the ROR of Dakshin Matabari Gaon Panchayat [Annexure-R/6 to their reply] for the year 2014. Mr. Bhowmik has submitted that in the ROR of Matabari Panchayat under Ward No. 5, Chandan Sarkar was recorded as SC but subsequently his name has been recorded as belonging to OBC. Copy of the said ROR is available with the rejoinder filed in WP (C) No. 170 of 2016. Thus, Mr. Bhowmik, learned Sr. counsel has submitted that the statement of Santi Kumar Das, P.W.2 cannot be relied for any purpose as he did not have any personal knowledge. Mr. Bhowmik, has finally submitted that the respondents did not say a single word in respect of the SC certificate of Chandan Sarkar, O.P.W.2 and his claim of being SC in the proceeding. 25. Mr. S. Deb, learned Sr. Mr. Bhowmik, has finally submitted that the respondents did not say a single word in respect of the SC certificate of Chandan Sarkar, O.P.W.2 and his claim of being SC in the proceeding. 25. Mr. S. Deb, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the proceeding records of the SLSC and the original RORs have been submitted for inspection by the Court. Mr.Deb, learned Sr. counsel has categorically stated that the petitioners have totally failed to prove any breach of procedural propriety in terms of Section 7A of the Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Reservation Rules 1992. The point that has been raised by the petitioners is that the Director of Vigilance has not verified the correctness of the report and transmitted it to the Member-Secretary to the Scrutiny Committee concerned in terms of Rule 7A(3) of the said Rules. In this regard, Mr. Deb has submitted that that issue was never raised in the proceeding. That apart, the vigilance report was processed by the Director of Vigilance and as such there cannot be any doubt that the said vigilance report was verified and thereafter sent for cognizance of the SLSC. Mr. Deb, learned Sr. counsel has raised that the judicial review is circumscribed by the settled principles. The judicial review cannot be a roving enquiry when this Court would appreciate the final order of the SLSC. This Court is not called upon to sit as the court of appeal of for purpose of making a fresh appreciation of the evidence, rather this Court would limit his jurisdiction (1) whether there is any illegality or substantive impropriety in the process and (2) whether the final order is in conflict with law or not? There cannot be any quarrel with the said proposition, even Mr. Bhowmik, learned Sr. counsel has not resorted to any alternative discourse. When a statutory committee is entrusted with inquiry of this nature, limit in exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution will be alike when the judicial review is called for, from the finding in the Disciplinary proceeding. But some latitude, however, in the event of gross perversity would be permissible. 26. Mr. Deb, learned Sr. counsel has further submitted that to make the verification of the status certificate expeditious, the Apex Court has observed in Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another vs. Addl. But some latitude, however, in the event of gross perversity would be permissible. 26. Mr. Deb, learned Sr. counsel has further submitted that to make the verification of the status certificate expeditious, the Apex Court has observed in Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others, (1994) 6 SCC 241 as under: “13.9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day-to-day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. If after inquiry, the Caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or spurious, they should pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and confiscate the same. It should communicate within one month from the date of the conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the parent/ guardian and the applicant.” It has been further provided in Madhuri Patil (supra) that the order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive subject to proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution meaning the judicial review. 27. However, Mr. Deb, learned Sr. counsel has referred a decision of the Apex Court in Geeta vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, (2007) 10 SCC 590 where the Apex Court has revisited the earlier two decisions in Laveti Giri (supra) and Madhuri Patil (supra) and in the context of that case, has recorded the inference as under: “14. The forceful contention urged before us by the counsel for the appellant is that no opportunity was afforded to prove her caste before the High Level Caste Screening Committee and as such the finding recorded by the High Level Screening Committee is vitiated for non-observance of principles of natural justice. We do not agree. 15. Show cause notice was issued on 28.7.2003. It is not the case of the appellant that she has not received the show cause notice. 16. She was asked to appear at 11.30 A.M. on 14.8.2003 along with all necessary documents to prove her caste before the Committee. Paragraph 6 of the show cause notice reads:- "6. In this regard, the certificates/documents which you wish to produce along with your response should be properly verified necessarily. In case of non-appearance on the fixed date, it will be deemed that you have nothing to say regarding your doubtful caste certificate and Investigation Committee will be free to take final decision in your matter on the basis of available records." 17. In case of non-appearance on the fixed date, it will be deemed that you have nothing to say regarding your doubtful caste certificate and Investigation Committee will be free to take final decision in your matter on the basis of available records." 17. The next date fixed for hearing was 18.9.2003 on which date the impugned order was passed. In our view, therefore, adequate opportunity has been afforded to the appellant of personal hearing as well as to produce documents in support of her caste. In our view, it is sufficient compliance of principles of natural justice. 18. We may notice that both her father and the appellant are well educated. The appellant's father was said to have been born on 1.1.1947. No birth certificate was produced. No documents whatsoever were produced prior to 3.11.1977 to prove that they belong to Majhi Tribe, which is Scheduled Tribe. 19. Counsel for the appellant invited our attention to Anthropological Survey of India prepared by one Majumdar D.N. The Racial Basis of Indian Social Structure, Eastern Anthropologist published in Oxford University Press 1994. He particularly referred to the term "Majhi" means boatman (sic). He has also observed that Majhi take part in agricultural operations, fetch water, and also take part in social and religious activities. He has also referred to the observation that the major economic resource of the Majhi is land. Their traditional occupation was fishing, some worked as boatmen. By this learned counsel would like to show that the finding recorded by the High Level Caste Screening Committee is erroneous. In our view, these are not authenticated documents. It is not prepared by the competent authority. No such reliance can be placed for deciding the Tribal status of the appellant. 20. Counsel also brought to our notice the Urban and Non-urban Region Mutation Register in which the family tree of Marakahn alias Mulu Majhi is shown. It is clear that Aaraji No. 607, area 33 D. Village Madhavgarh is recorded in the name of Lessee Bisheshar S/o Marakhan Mallah, Atma Ram. This would also show that she belongs to Mallah/Nishad. 21. Even in the midst of hearing of this appeal, we granted more time to the appellant, to produce any document, which will establish her tribe as Majhi, which is Scheduled Tribe, prior to 3.11.1977, but she utterly failed. This would also show that she belongs to Mallah/Nishad. 21. Even in the midst of hearing of this appeal, we granted more time to the appellant, to produce any document, which will establish her tribe as Majhi, which is Scheduled Tribe, prior to 3.11.1977, but she utterly failed. This would clearly show that the Tribe Certificate showing the appellant as Majhi Tribe obtained on 29.8.1986 on the basis of Tribe Certificate of her father obtained on 3.11.1977 is without any documentary proof and manufactured document.” 28. Mr. Deb, learned Sr. counsel has taken the pain to show the entries in the Register of Ordinary Residents [ROR] in respect of Manoranjan Sarkar and Sri Chandan Sarkar to contend that the entries are not supported by any primary documentary evidence of worth. For example, all the petitioners studied in the school but they have failed to produce the records of the school or a leaf thereof duly attested by the competent person in support of their claim. 29. In Laveti Giri (supra), the Apex Court has observed as under: “4.8.(d)(4) The Scrutiny Committee shall cause enquiry, following the due process of law, to verify the genuineness or otherwise of the information furnished or recorded from such persons as called in enquiry as per Form V. It shall also cause to collect documentary evidence/or any other related evidence about the correctness or otherwise of the information furnished or objections raised by any person during the enquiry. (5) The Scrutiny Committee may examine the school records, birth registration certificates, if any, furnished by the persons during the enquiry. It may also examine any other person who may have knowledge of the community of the applicant. With reference to the claims of Scheduled Tribes, it may examine the anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies/method of burial of dead bodies etc., of that particular tribe, to finalise its recommendations to the Competent Authority. (6) The Scrutiny Committee should give reasonable opportunity to the applicants to produce evidence in support of their claim. A public notice by the beat of drum or any other convenient mode, may be published in the village or locality of the applicant and if any person or association, opposes such a claim, opportunity produce evidence in person before the committee may be given to him or her. A public notice by the beat of drum or any other convenient mode, may be published in the village or locality of the applicant and if any person or association, opposes such a claim, opportunity produce evidence in person before the committee may be given to him or her. After giving such an opportunity to that person, the Committee may made such enquiry as it deems expedient and finalise its recommendations, with brief reasons in support thereof, to the Competent Authority. (7) The Scrutiny Committee may examine the report of enquiry conducted by the Revenue Department furnished to it by the Competent Authority. It may also obtain expert opinion from the Commissionerate of SW/TW through the officers of the Research organisations of these Commissionerates who are the members of the Scrutiny Committee, if deemed necessary. These enquiry reports may be compared and then recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee may be finalised as to whether the community claim of that applicant is found to be false or genuine.” 30. On examination of the provisions of Rule 7(A) of the said Rules and the guidelines provided in the Laveti Giri (supra) this Court finds that those are pari materia and as such the SLSC might consider the documentary evidence such as school records as mentioned in Laveti Giri (supra), if produced by the petitioners. The report of inquiry conducted by the revenue department [here the report has been submitted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate] and the Block Level SC Welfare Sub-Committee under Matabari R.D. Block, which committee is recognized by Rule 6 and second proviso below Rule 7A(4) have been considered within the province of the codified procedure or the guidelines. 31. Before we examine the records relating to ROR let us first appreciate the report of the SDM which was submitted on conducting the inquiry through the DCM, Killa. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur, Gomati by the communication No. F.16(4-17)SDM/ UDP/SC/2010-11/489, dated 27.07.2015 [page 82 of the writ petition being WP (C) No. 1225 of 2016] had sent his verification report in respect of the caste status of the petitioners. The said report, as stated, is based on the report submitted by the Deputy Collector and Magistrate, Killa, Gomati District. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur, Gomati by the communication No. F.16(4-17)SDM/ UDP/SC/2010-11/489, dated 27.07.2015 [page 82 of the writ petition being WP (C) No. 1225 of 2016] had sent his verification report in respect of the caste status of the petitioners. The said report, as stated, is based on the report submitted by the Deputy Collector and Magistrate, Killa, Gomati District. In the said verification report under No. F.16(4-17)A/ SDM/UDP/SC/2010-2011/480, dated 22.07.2015 [page 83 of the writ petition being No. 1225 of 2016] it has been categorically observed that “it is crystal clear that above persons are not belonged to SC Community.” This observation has been made about the petitioners and one Smt. Parbati Sarkar, their other sister. 32. For purpose of verification, as it appears from the report dated 22.07.2015, an independent inquiry was conducted by the Revenue Department and from that inquiry it came to the surface that the petitioners belonged to ‘Kayastha’ community and they do not belong to SC community [Namasudra Community]. Four persons from the immediate neighbourhood were examined and the report of the Block Level SC Welfare Sub- Committee had been taken care of. That apart, the Block Development Officer of Matabari R.D. Block by his communication under No. F.17(1)-BDO/MTB/SC/2010-11/850, dated 04.06.2011 [page 80 of WP (C) No. 1225 of 2016] had forwarded the resolution of the meeting of Matabari Block Level SC Welfare Sub-Committee held on 03.06.2011. At the relevant point of time, Matabari block was the concerned Block for the area where the petitioners were residing, but later on, the said Block was bifurcated and the area where the petitioners were originally residing fell under the jurisdiction of the newly created Tepania R.D. Block. In his forwarding he has clearly stated that the Block Level SC Welfare Sub-Committee has reported that the petitioners do not belong to the SC community. Along with his said communication dated 04.06.2011, a copy of the resolution was enclosed and that is extracted hereunder: “Dated: 3.6.2011 During the Matabari R.D. Block level SC Welfare Sub Committee meeting on 3rd May, 2011 after consideration of all allied aspects it appears that following persons namely (i) Sri Gouranga Chandra Sarkar, S/o Manoranjan Sarkar, (ii) Sri Kartik Sarkar, S/o Manoranjan Sarkar, (iii) Smt. Parbati Sarkar, D/o Manoranjan Sarkar, (iv) Smt. Pratima Sarkar, D/o Manoranjan Sarkar, Village-Dhajanagar, PO-Gokulpur, PS R.K. Pur, Udaipur, South Tripura not belong to Scheduled Castes.” 33. It would be relevant to record that the Chairman of the Committee which took the above resolution namely Sri Santi Das was examined as P.W.2 and he has categorically stated of the said resolution and of his personal knowledge. There cannot be any amount of difference that the report of the BDO, Tepania Block has clearly certified that the father of the petitioners was recorded in those RORs as belonging to SC Community. This Court had the advantage of perusing the original RORs as produced by the respondents. Being alive of the jurisdictional limit, this Court has embarked to scrutinize the record on its face whether any serious and substantive misreading had taken place and whether such misreading had ultimately led to a finding not sustainable in law. While observing as such this Court should record that ROR cannot be treated as the primary document for determining someone’s caste status. Its recordings are based on certain primary evidence or sometimes merely on the oral statement. Prevalent practice is somehow very loose and even when some entry is changed, no note is provided below the entry that how the entry has been changed. This is the high time while making the entry in the ROR [which is prepared in terms of the Clause (S) read with sub-section (2) of Section 320 of the Panchayat Act, 1993 and the memorandum issued time to time thereunder], the authorised officer shall take every steps so that it becomes immune from manipulation or doubtful content. 34. A declaration filed by Manoranjan Sarkar dated 19.08.1985 which was produced before the SLSC [page 133 of the writ petition being WP (C) No. 1225 of 2016] makes a curious reading. The Para 2 of the said declaration reads as under: “I and my ancestors are known and treated as the member of Namasudra community in society, in offices, in court and in school and colleges. In future also my heirs would by generations be known and treated as the member of Namasudra community.” That is, one of the testimonials as it appears, had been taken notice of, while issuing SC certificates to the writ petitioner in WP (C) No. 1225/2016.This is again an individual declaration in the form of certificate issued by one Chitta Ranjan Sarkar on 16.05.2008. It was not based on any records. It was not based on any records. Even that certificate was not written by Chitta Ranjan Sarkar by his own hand, as it transpired, he merely put his signature on the said certificate. 35. This Court has scrutinized the original RORs and to its dismay has discovered that in the entry made on 01.01.1994 against Manoranjan Sarkar under Col.No. 8 which is for recording whether the head of the family belongs to scheduled castes or scheduled tribes or not, it has been recorded initially as “na” [in Bengali script]. The said entry was scored out and it was written in the blank space thereafter “SC.” Similarly, when the entry made on 09.11.1997 in the same Column [Col. No. 8] in the Register of Ordinary Residents against Manoranjan Sarkar, initially it was written as “Sadharan” [in Bengali script] meaning ‘general’ but this time without scoring it out, but below the same, one entry as “SC” has been made with a different ink and this ink entirely differs with the ink by which all the entries were made and the officers had signed. In 2003, when it was revised, in Col. No. 8 the following entries are available: “Sadharan” [in Bengali script] and below it “SC.” 36. The respondents have also produced the ROR [4th Book] for Paschim Khupilong Gram Panchayat for the subsequent year of 2003. There after scoring out by ink the entry “Sadharan” [in Bengali script], it has been entered just below it - “Tapashil Jati” [in Bengali script]. 37. Further, in the ROR of Dakshin Matabari Gram Panchayat in respect of Chandan Sarkar [OPW-2] it has been entered that Chandan Sarkar belonged to Other Backward Community [OBC, for short]. However, the SC certificate of Chandan Sarkar (OPW-2) was made available before the SLSC since this Court is not considering the caste status of Chandan Sarkar, it is not required to make any comment on that certificate, save and except to weigh how the said document was assessed in the context of the other documents. 38. On overall assessment, this Court is of the view that these RORs do not stand out as the corroborative evidence in support of the caste status of Manoranjan Sarkar as claimed by the petitioners. Those entries are in realm of serious doubt. The primary evidence such as the public records, records of the school etc. could have been produced by the petitioners. Those entries are in realm of serious doubt. The primary evidence such as the public records, records of the school etc. could have been produced by the petitioners. The burden lies completely on the person against whom the complaint is lodged regarding his status and to prove that he belonged to the said caste for which he was claiming the status. This court is constrained to observe on cumulative reading of the evidence that the petitioners have miserably failed to discharge that burden. On the contrary, the evidence that has been taken into consideration by the SLSC has established that the petitioners do not belong to the SC community. In this regard, it is to be noted that the report of the BDO, Tepania Block is contrary to the RORs and hence the SLSC has rightly kept it out of their consideration. So far the procedural fairness and observance of the principle of natural justice are concerned, on scrutiny of the proceeding records, this Court finds the sufficient opportunities have been extended to the petitioners to prove their status, but they failed to do so. Even this Court has most liberally considered their submissions keeping the high technical approach away. 39. Having observed thus, the writ petitions are dismissed. No interference is called for on the consequential orders as the constitutional vehemence restrains the courts from brooding on relief in equity. 40. There shall be no order as to cost. 41. The records as produced by the respondents be handed down to Mr. S.C. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondents forthwith.