JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. N. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M.D. Bora, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5 as well as Ms. D. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6. As per the order dated 30.03.2017 the service of respondent No.6 was accepted. But the record reveals that none appears for the said respondent. 2. The petitioners herein were both admitted to the first year MBBS course in the year 2015. The petitioner in WP(C) 7961/2015 Shibani Kairi was admitted in the Silchar Medical College, whereas the petitioner in WP(C) 7962/2015 Sri Pratik Kumar was admitted in the Gauhati Medical College. 3. It is stated that presently, the petitioners are pursuing their 3rd year MBBS course under the quota reserved for tea garden/ex tea garden labourers. The organization namely Adibasi Mukti Sangram Samiti by letters dated 17.07.2015 and 17.09.2015 had raised a complaint that although the petitioners bears the surnames of Kumar and Kairi, they do not belong to the tea garden and ex-tea garden community. The said complaint of the organization was referred to the State Level Scrutiny Committee (SLSC) constituted for the purpose of dealing with complains as regards the caste/community certificates issued from time to time. 4. The SLSC by their order dated 26.11.2015 arrived at a conclusion that the caste/community status of the two petitioners as ex-tea garden community labourer were unacceptable. 5. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been preferred against the said order dated 26.11.2015. 6. The respondent authorities has produced a communication dated 17.07.2015 from the Circle Officer Revenue (Sadar) Circle Silchar addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Silchar in respect of a report pursuant to the verification of the caste/community status of the petitioner Shibani Kairi. 7. The communication clearly provides that upon enquiry it was found that the petitioner in WP(C) No.7961/2015 Shibani Kairi belongs to Kairi (ex-tea garden labour) community which is recognized as MOBC by the Govt. as per the Serial No.24/42. It is further stated that the Chairman of the Sub-Divisional OBC Development Board of Silchar had issued a caste certificate in favour of Shibani Kairi at Serial No.10970 dated 18.03.2015 certifying her to be belonging to the Kairi ex-tea garden labour community and the same was counter-signed by the Deputy Commissioner, Silchar on 25.03.2015. 8. as per the Serial No.24/42. It is further stated that the Chairman of the Sub-Divisional OBC Development Board of Silchar had issued a caste certificate in favour of Shibani Kairi at Serial No.10970 dated 18.03.2015 certifying her to be belonging to the Kairi ex-tea garden labour community and the same was counter-signed by the Deputy Commissioner, Silchar on 25.03.2015. 8. In respect of the other petitioner Pratik Kumar of WP(C) No.7962/2015 a similar communication dated 17.07.2015 from the Circle Officer, Sadar Revenue Circle, Silchar has been produced. The said communication in respect of the petitioner Pratik Kumar also provides that upon enquiry, it was found that he belongs to Kumhar (Ex-Tea Garden Labourer) Community, which is recognized as MOBC by the Government as per Serial No.24/53 of the Assam common list. It also provided that the Chairman of the Sub Divisional OBC Development Board of Silchar had also issued a caste certificate which was countersigned by the Deputy Commissioner. 9. Both the communications further provide that the respective fathers of the two writ petitioners also has caste certificates issued in their favour by the Assistant General Secretary of Barak Chah Sramik Union, Silchar. 10. In the aforesaid background when the order dated 26.11.2015 of the SLSC is looked into, it is noticed that in respect of the petitioner Pratik Kumar, the Committee arrived at a conclusion that the certificate produced by him was applied just prior to appearing in the interview for admission to the medical colleges. The order then refers to the case of another person namely Durga Das, who was given a Scheduled Caste certificate by the President of Asom Anusushit Jati Parishad, Nagaon branch, where although the candidate actually belonged to the SC category, but when the concerned candidate obtained a Government job pursuant to such certificate, the same President complained before the Deputy Commissioner against the Caste status of Durga Das. 11. By drawing parallel to the case of Durga Das, the Committee arrives at a conclusion that the Community certificate granted to the petitioner Pratik Kumar was probably obtained in some tricky manner. 11. By drawing parallel to the case of Durga Das, the Committee arrives at a conclusion that the Community certificate granted to the petitioner Pratik Kumar was probably obtained in some tricky manner. It also takes into account that by not producing any documents in his favour specially the copies of the pay register or attendance register of Pratik Kumar’s candidature, the report of the Deputy Commissioner vide letter dated CAP(C) 3/2014/Part II/223 dated 30.10.2015, which was in favour of the petitioner was found to be unacceptable. 12. Similar conclusion was also arrived at by the Committee in respect of the petitioner Shibani Kairi by stating that the Community certificate was applied for just prior to the interview for the medical entrance. It also stated that although the Barak Chah Sramik Union had given the Caste certificate, but no number appears in the said certificate and therefore, the Committee concluded that the certificate appears to be fake. With regard to a plea raised by Shibani Kairi that her grandfather worked as a Tea Garden Labourer, the Committee concluded that as no documentary proof was shown or mentioned and as because the land records shows that the grandfather did not live in a tea garden accommodation, therefore, the petitioner Shibani Kairi did not belong to the Ex-Tea Garden Labourer. By stating so, the Committee also observed that the report of the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar which was otherwise in favour of the petitioner, is liable to be cancelled. 13. In the aforesaid premises, the Committee took a decision that the caste/community status of the two petitioners namely Pratik Kumar and Shibani Kairi does not indicate that they belong to the Ex-Tea Garden Labourer. 14. A close consideration of the reasoning given in the order dated 26.11.2015 of the SLSC clearly goes to show that all the conclusions arrived at were on the basis of surmises and conjectures and there is no definite conclusion either accepting or rejecting the claim of the petitioners that they belong to the Ex-Tea Labourer community. The question whether a particular person belongs to the Ex-Tea Labourer Community or not, is a question of fact to be determined by the Committee and it is not for the Committee to arrive at any kind of presumption for whatsoever reason to either accept or not to accept the community status. The question whether a particular person belongs to the Ex-Tea Labourer Community or not, is a question of fact to be determined by the Committee and it is not for the Committee to arrive at any kind of presumption for whatsoever reason to either accept or not to accept the community status. The Court has also taken note that the Committee refers to certain certificates issued by the Barak Chah Sramik Union, which is apparently a labour union of the Tea Garden Labourers. It is not understood as to why the said certificate by the Association of the Tea Garden Labourers is to be rejected outright without stating any reason. 15. The Court further takes note of that in the reports of the Circle Officer dated 17.07.2015 in respect of the two petitioners, a definite factual presentation had been made on the basis of the enquiry conducted, wherein it was stated that the community/caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioners were issued by the Chairman of the Sub Divisional Level OBC Development Board of Silchar and that the two certificates so issued by the Sub Divisional Level OBC Development Board were countersigned by the Deputy Commissioner of Cachar district vide his endorsement dated 25.03.2015 in respect of Shibani Kairi and 16.07.2014 in respect of Pratik Kumar. 16. The understanding given by the WPT&BC Department is that the Sub Divisional Level OBC Development Board is the appropriate authority to verify and grant the community certificate for the MOBC category, which is required to be countersigned by the Deputy Commissioner. The said two certificates being issued by the competent authority, the Court does not see any reason as to why the SLSC will not take into consideration the said two certificates in arriving at its conclusion regarding the community status of the two petitioners. It would be another aspect if the Committee upon consideration arrives at a conclusion that the said certificates were either not issued or were manufactured or were unacceptable for any other reason. But, without arriving at any such conclusion, if the two certificates had existed and they had been duly issued, the Committee cannot ignore the same and arrive at its conclusion based on its own surmises and conjectures. 17. But, without arriving at any such conclusion, if the two certificates had existed and they had been duly issued, the Committee cannot ignore the same and arrive at its conclusion based on its own surmises and conjectures. 17. In view of the aforesaid as indicated above, the Court finds the rejection of the claim of the petitioners as regards their status to be belonging to the Ex-Tea Garden Labourer Community by the SLSC in its order dated 26.11.2015 to be unacceptable. Accordingly, the said order of the SLSC is set aside. 18. The matter is accordingly remanded back to the SLSC for a fresh consideration and to determine the community status of the two petitioners strictly as per law and by taking into account all the relevant materials and documents that are either available on record or to be produced by the two petitioners. In doing so, it is provided that the two petitioners shall also be given an opportunity of hearing and be allowed to produce any relevant materials that they may desire to produce. 19. It is provided that as the petitioners are still continuing in their respective MBBS Course, they shall continue to do so till a final conclusion is arrived at by the SLSC and thereupon consequential orders are passed by the authorities strictly as per law. In terms of the above, both the writ petition stand disposed of.