JUDGMENT & ORDER : All these writ petitions being W.P.(C) No. 147 of 2014 [Subodh Debbarma vs. The State of Tripura and 7 Ors.], W.P.(C) No.179 of 2014 [Smt. Surashree Debbarma vs. The State of Tripura and Ors.] and W.P.(C) No.192 of 2014 [Swarupjyoti Debbarma vs. The State of Tripura and 10 Ors.] are combined for disposal by a common judgment as the challenge in this writ petitions against the order passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee (SLSC) cancelling the status certificate of the petitioners. Moreover, the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.192 of 2014 and W.P.(C) No.179 of 2014 are the wards of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.147 of 2014. There is no dispute that the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.192 of 2014 and W.P.(C) No.179 of 2014 had obtained their status certificate (ST certificate) on the basis of the status certificate of their father i.e., the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.147 of 2014. 2. If a resume of facts of W.P.(C) No.147 of 2014 is recorded briefly, no factual matrix relating to the other writ petitions would be required to separately noted. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.147 of 2014 i.e. Subodh Debbarma claiming that he belonged to the Tripuri Community and obtained the status certificate (ST Certificate) on 07.01.2017 and on the basis of that certificate he had joined in the Government service under the respondent No.3 as the Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on 23. 08.1979. Subsequently he was promoted by the memorandum dated 18.11.1995 [Annexure-P/4 to the writ petition]. On 21.03.1995 [Annexure-P/2 to the writ petition] a show cause notice was issued by the DM & Collector, the Issuing Authority asking the petitioner why his schedule tribe certificate should not be cancelled. The petitioner filed the reply [Annexure-P/3 to the writ petition] on 27.03.1995 claiming that at the time of obtaining the ST certificate under No.23/DM/GD/W/77 dated 07.01.1977 [Annexure-P/1 to the writ petition] he had produced all the required documents in support of his status and only after due inquiry, he had been issued the said ST certificate. He had also urged for due inquiry in the matter. In the memorandum dated 18.11.1995 [Annexure-P/4 to the writ petition] it was observed as under: “Concerned Head of Offices/Institutions are requested to serve the promotion order in time only after proper verification of the Original Caste Certificate in respect of S.T. candidates. He had also urged for due inquiry in the matter. In the memorandum dated 18.11.1995 [Annexure-P/4 to the writ petition] it was observed as under: “Concerned Head of Offices/Institutions are requested to serve the promotion order in time only after proper verification of the Original Caste Certificate in respect of S.T. candidates. If it is found that any ST candidate belongs to Lasker Community (Deshi Tripura Community), he may not be allowed to join the promotion post. Doubtful cases, if any, may be referred to this Directorate for decision of the authority.” 3. As consequence of such observation a verification exercise was taken up the SLSC and they issued the show cause notice to the petitioner on 06.06.2005 [Annexure-P/5 to the writ petition] asking to make appropriate representation in support of his status. In the show cause it was categorically stated that from the verification report from the Vigilance Organization it has revealed that the petitioner belonged to Laskar Community and not Tripuri Community. A copy of the report received from the Vigilance Officer was also furnished with the said show cause notice. The petitioner filed an elaborate representation on 29.06.2005 [Annexure-P/6 to the writ petition] and he seriously controverted the observation made in the inquiry report dated 26.02.2005 which reads as under: “On the evidences discussed above, it revealed that Sri Subodh Debbarma S/O Lt. Harimohan Debbarma of Pragati Road, Krishnanagar, Agartala actually belongs to LASKAR Community. Hence his ST Certificate belongs to Tripuri Community which was issued on the basis of incorrect information by DM & Collector West Tripura District vide No.23/DM/GL/W/77 dt. 4/1/77 needs to be cancelled. So, action as per provision laid down in the State Govt.’s order No.F.2-211/SCW/GL/94/10236-335 dt. 27/9/04 of the Deptt. of Welfare of SC OBC, and minorities need to be taken. Since Sri Subodh Debbarma belongs to LASKAR Community who is presently holding the post of office superintendent of Polytechnic Institute, Norsinghar, Tripura. The name of Sri Subodh Debbarma figured at Sl. No.97 of the list dt.10/5/04 of the Director, Tribal Welfare Deptt. under reference.” 4. By the notice dated 25.10.2006, the petitioner was asked to appear before the SLSC to participate in the proceeding launched for verification of the status certificate. The name of Sri Subodh Debbarma figured at Sl. No.97 of the list dt.10/5/04 of the Director, Tribal Welfare Deptt. under reference.” 4. By the notice dated 25.10.2006, the petitioner was asked to appear before the SLSC to participate in the proceeding launched for verification of the status certificate. The petitioner had challenged the order dated 04.01.2010 [Annexure-P/9 to the writ petition] whereby he was reverted back to the previous post of U.D. Clerk as held by him on 11.07.1990 with observation that he would enjoy the seniority and promotion benefit as UR category candidate after 31.03.90. The said order dated 04.01.2010 was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.62 of 2010 in the Gauhati High Court as that high court had the jurisdiction over the subject matter. The said writ petition was partly allowed by observing as follows: “In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this writ petition partly succeeds. The cancellation of the petitioner’s ST certificate as well as the impugned order are hereby set aside and quashed. The matter is remanded to the respondent No.7, namely, Member Secretary, State Level Scrutiny Committee, Government of Tripura, Agartala, with direction to give the petitioner an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses aforementioned and also to give the petitioner an opportunity of adducing his own evidence in support of his claim that he belongs to Tripuri Community and it is, thereafter, that appropriate order, in this regard, either cancelling the petitioner’s ST certificate or upholding the same may be passed. The whole exercise, so directed, shall be completed expeditiously and until the time the enquiry is completed and a decision is taken by the competent authority as regards petitioner’s status as a member of the Tripuri Community, it shall remain open to the respondents/authorities concerned not to grant any further promotion to the petitioner. Consequential action depending upon the result of the enquiry, which may be held by the respondent No.7 can be taken by the respondents/authorities concerned in accordance with law. If the petitioner delays disposal of the enquiry, which the respondent No.7 is required to hold, respondent No.7 shall remain at liberty to approach this Court for further appropriate directions.” 5. Consequential action depending upon the result of the enquiry, which may be held by the respondent No.7 can be taken by the respondents/authorities concerned in accordance with law. If the petitioner delays disposal of the enquiry, which the respondent No.7 is required to hold, respondent No.7 shall remain at liberty to approach this Court for further appropriate directions.” 5. Against the said judgment a writ appeal being W.A. No.11 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner but that was dismissed by the order dated 29.04.2010 on observing that in absence of any challenge to the notification constituting the SLSC as well as in absence of either Chairman or any member of the SLSC as the party respondent by name in the writ proceedings, the constitution of the committee could not be assailed in the writ proceedings as well as in the appeal. 6. As consequence thereof, a fresh notice was issued by the Member-Secretary, State Level Scrutiny Committee (the respondent No.7) to the petitioner asking him to appear in the proceeding on 20.10.2010. Finally the proceeding was drawn to its logical end and by the order dated 11.03.2014 delivered in Enquiry Proceeding No.41 of 2005, the SLSC has observed as under: “On meticulous analysis of the evidence what is transpired is that three witnesses appeared on behalf of the complainant are interested witnesses. So, their evidence should be judged with utmost care and caution the independent witnesses produced by the OP have no personal knowledge as to the caste status of the OP – 2 of them stated that they came to know as to the ST status of the OP as they show the caste certificate of the OP which was challenged. Not a single document was produced on behalf of the OP in support of his claim. On the last date a ST Certificate of one Smt. Panna Debbarma, D/o Sri Parimal Prasad Debbarma was produced on behalf of the OP. But how Smt. Panna Debbarma is related to the OP is not clear before the SLSC. Not a single document was produced on behalf of the OP in support of his claim. On the last date a ST Certificate of one Smt. Panna Debbarma, D/o Sri Parimal Prasad Debbarma was produced on behalf of the OP. But how Smt. Panna Debbarma is related to the OP is not clear before the SLSC. At the most surprising point is that the OP submitted the ST Certificate of Smt. Panna Debbarma with whom he could not establish any relation, whereas his three full blood brother deposed before the SLSC claiming that they also belongs to ST Community but no ST Certificate of the brothers of the OP was produced before the SLSC i.e. the better evidence could not be produced by the OP before the SLSC. Moreover, the witnesses of the OP also could not through any light as to the anthropological and ethnological traits, rituals customs etc. as raised by the OP himself. So, considering the overall facts & circumstances in its entirety the SLSC is of considered view that the opposite party Shri Subodh Debbarma does not belong to ST Community and his ST Certificate is cancelled and confiscated.” 7. It has been observed that the petitioner does not belong to the ST Community rather he belongs to the Laskar Community. For a long span of time the Laskars were known as the Deshi Tripuri and most of them were favoured with the ST certificate. But when a dispute arose whether Deshi Tripuri Community can be treated as a sub-tribe of Tripuri Community, the Government of India by their notification clearly declared that Deshi Tripuri does not figure within the list of the Schedule Tribes for the State of Tripura. As a result, there was litigation and the litigation which governs the field is Srish Kumar Choudhury vs. State of Tripura and Ors. reported in AIR 1990 SC 991 . As a result, there was litigation and the litigation which governs the field is Srish Kumar Choudhury vs. State of Tripura and Ors. reported in AIR 1990 SC 991 . In the said judgment the supreme court has observed as under: “This appeal initially came up before a two judges Bench for final hearing when on a statement made by the Counsel for the Union of India that a representation made by the appellant and members of his community for inclusion their caste-Laskar, in the Presidential order under Article 342 is being looked into and is being placed before the Parliamentary Committee for review of the position, the Court disposed of the appeal in terms of the assurance given on behalf of the Union. It was specifically stated in the Court's order that in case the community is not included in the Presidential Order, it would be open to the appellant to take such action as may be available to him in law.” 8. It has been further observed in Srish Kumar Choudhury (supra) as follows: “We do not think we should assume jurisdiction and enter into an enquiry to determine whether the three terms indicated in the Presidential Order include Deshi Tripura which covers the Laskar community; but we consider it appropriate to commend to the authorities concerned that as and when the question is reviewed it should be examined whether the claim of the appellant representing the Laskar community to be included in the scheduled tribes is genuine and should, therefore, be entertained. Reservation has become important in view of the increasing competition in society and that probably had led to the anxiety of the appellant and the people in his community to claim reservation. As pointed out by the Constitution Bench judgments which we have referred to above, the basis on which inclusion into or exclusion from the enumerated list made under Art. 342 is contemplated is the changing economic, educational and other situations of the members of any particular tribe. Keeping that in view the State Government may initiate appropriate proposals for modification in case it is satisfied and after appropriate enquiry if the author- ities are satisfied that the claim is genuine and tenable, amendment may be undertaken as provided by the Constitution. Keeping that in view the State Government may initiate appropriate proposals for modification in case it is satisfied and after appropriate enquiry if the author- ities are satisfied that the claim is genuine and tenable, amendment may be undertaken as provided by the Constitution. This Court has indicated in some of the judgments referred to above that as a result of the detailed enquiry made as to the economic status, the level of education and the necessity of protection, inclusion into or exclusion from the Order is made. This material relating to the Laskar tribe in 1930 or 1941 may not have been considered sufficient before the respective Orders were made for including the Laskars, said to have been covered by the description of Deshi Tripura. Therefore, even if historically this tribe was covered by the general description of Tripura, that by itself may not justify its inclusion in the Order as a scheduled tribe. That is an additional feature which has weighed with us in taking our decision not to interfere in the matter.” 9. The said judgment was implemented by the Government of Tripura and by a notification they declared that till 31.03.1990 the persons belonging to the Laskar Community would be treated as the Scheduled Tribe. But their said status shall not be recognized nor any benefit whatsoever for that status after 31.03.1990 shall be extended. In this context, when by the order dated 11.03.2014 the petitioner’s status was relegated to that of a member of the Laskar Community, all benefits as derived from his status had been preserved till 31.03.1990. The said order dated 11.03.2014 has been challenged in this writ petition questioning the method of inquiry in respect of the status of the petitioner. 10. The respondents by filing the reply have clearly stated that the order which was passed on 04.01.2010 has as consequence been restored. As a result, the promotion benefits in Government service as enjoyed by Shri Subodh Debbarma as ST candidate after 31.03.1990 are treated as withdrawn considering the facts stated in para-2 and 3. Thus the petitioner has been reverted to the post of UD Clerk as held by him on 11.07.1990. However he would enjoy the seniority and promotion benefit as UR category candidate after 31.03.1990. The consequential actions were also proposed. 11. Thus the petitioner has been reverted to the post of UD Clerk as held by him on 11.07.1990. However he would enjoy the seniority and promotion benefit as UR category candidate after 31.03.1990. The consequential actions were also proposed. 11. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner almost reiterating the earlier pleas as projected in the writ petition. The respondents, particularly the state-respondents, have immediately reacted to the said rejoinder by stating that the petitioner has miserably failed to discharge his onus proving that he belonged to the ST Community and as such there cannot be further initiative of reappreciation. For the respondents No.6 and 7, a separate reply has been filed through Mr. B. Datta, learned counsel. In the said reply, the SLSC has categorically stated that after affording all opportunities to the petitioner, the final decision has been taken and as such, there is no merit in this writ petition. Moreover, merit of the decision may not be examined in the judicial review. As there is no impropriety, no interference is called for. 12. Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel has fairly submitted that if his status and the benefit of the service is protected and the order dated 04.01.2010 is maintained, the petitioner would not press for reliefs as urged in this petition. 13. Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H. Laskar and Mr. B. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.6 and 7 however has submitted that if the petitioner has taken that stand, there is nothing to be submitted by the SLSC. The reference has been made to the status of one Smt. Panna Debbarma who has been working as the Head Clerk, by the petitioner to project that said Panna Debbarma being close relative is the recognized member of the Schedule Tribe. But from the records as produced by the respondents, it appears that after local inquiry her status was also declared as the member of Laskar Community. Therefore, the said reference is of no avail. That apart, the categorical statement as made by Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel on instruction from the petitioner has put the controversy to rest where no adjudication at all is required. It is needless to say that the petitioner’s benefit be maintained in terms of the order under No.F.7(152-2)-DHE/NG/07(Loose) dated 04.01.2010. Therefore, the said reference is of no avail. That apart, the categorical statement as made by Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel on instruction from the petitioner has put the controversy to rest where no adjudication at all is required. It is needless to say that the petitioner’s benefit be maintained in terms of the order under No.F.7(152-2)-DHE/NG/07(Loose) dated 04.01.2010. Thenceforth, he shall be treated as UR candidate for further promotion or other purposes. His seniority and experience in the post shall be considered for future promotion. The ST certificates under No.XII-2/SDM/SDR/TW1/05/214 dated 30.06.2005 issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, West Tripura [Annexure P/4 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.192 of 2014] and by means of the ST certificate under No.XII-2/SDM/SDR/TW1/05/213 dated 30.06.2005 issued by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, West Tripura [Annexure-P/4 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.179 of 2014] were also subject to verification by the SLSC, as those certificates were obtained on the basis of the status certificate of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.147 of 2014. The petitioners of those writ petitions pursued their studies as the ST candidate. Whether the said qualification should be interfered by this court or not has fallen for further consideration of this court. As already indicated by the orders dated 09.04.2014 [two separate orders, as produced below] the status certificates of the petitioners have been cancelled. For purpose of reference those orders dated 09.04.2014 are extracted here under: THE CANCELLATION ORDER IN RESPECT OF THE WRIT PETITIONER IN W.P.(C) NO.192 OF 2014: “A petition praying for 7 days time is submitted on behalf of Swarupjyoti Debbarma on the ground that the ST Certificate of his father has been illegally cancelled by the SLSC and his father filed a writ petition bearing No.WPC 147/14 before the Hon’ble High Court. It appears from the record that the OP has kept on seeking adjournments on this ground or that. For the sake of natural justice he has been given enough opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his claim. From the petition submitted by his mother, Smt. Papiya Debbarma to-day on his behalf it becomes clear that he admitted that the ST Certificate of his father has been cancelled by the SLSC. The Caste status of his and his father are interwined. From the petition submitted by his mother, Smt. Papiya Debbarma to-day on his behalf it becomes clear that he admitted that the ST Certificate of his father has been cancelled by the SLSC. The Caste status of his and his father are interwined. The ST status of the OP in the instant case originated from the ST status of his father so, as the ST Certificate of the father of the OP is cancelled by the SLSC automatically the ST Certificate of the OP has no foot to stand on. So, the ST Certificate bearing No.XII-2/SDM/SDR/TW1/05/214 dated 30-06-2005 issued by SDM, Sadar is hereby cancelled and confiscated. The order be communicated to the Head of the Institution where the OP is pursuing his studies as required under rule 7A(9) of the Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Reservation Rules, 1992.” THE CANCELLATION ORDER IN RESPECT OF THE WRIT PETITIONER IN W.P.(C) NO.179 OF 2014: “A petition praying for 7 days time is submitted on behalf of Surashree Debbarma on the ground that the ST Certificate of her father has been illegally cancelled by the SLSC and her father filed a writ petition bearing No.WPC 147/14 before the Hon’ble High Court. It appears from the record that the OP has kept on seeking adjournments on this ground or that. For the sake of natural justice she has been given enough opportunity to adduce evidence in support of her claim. From the petition submitted by her mother, Smt. Papiya Debbarma to-day on her behalf it becomes clear that she admitted that the ST Certificate of her father has been cancelled by the SLSC. The Caste status of her and her father are interwined. The ST status of the OP in the instant case originated from the ST status of her father so, as the ST Certificate of the father of the OP is cancelled by the SLSC automatically the ST Certificate of the OP has no foot to stand on. So, the ST Certificate bearing No.XII-2/SDM/SDR/TW1/05/214 dated 30-06-2005 issued by SDM, Sadar is hereby cancelled and confiscated. The order be communicated to the Head of the Institution where the OP is pursuing her studies as required under rule 7A(9) of the Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Reservation Rules, 1992.” 14. Ms. So, the ST Certificate bearing No.XII-2/SDM/SDR/TW1/05/214 dated 30-06-2005 issued by SDM, Sadar is hereby cancelled and confiscated. The order be communicated to the Head of the Institution where the OP is pursuing her studies as required under rule 7A(9) of the Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Reservation Rules, 1992.” 14. Ms. R. Guha, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No.192 of 2014 and W.P.(C) No.179 of 2014 has admitted that on the basis of the status certificate of Sri Subodh Debbarma [the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.147 of 2014] their status was ascertained and the ST Certificates had been issued. They continued their studies having benefitted by those status certificates and they completed their studies. In the given circumstances, if their educational qualifications are recalled, not only those petitioners will suffer disproportionate injury, it would not be gainful to anyone. It would be a perennial wound in their life. 15. Mr. J. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents however has vehemently opposed the proposition as advanced by Ms. R. Guah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He has submitted that the status certificates of these petitioners were obtained by fraud as their father was quite aware of the fact that those petitioners were not belonging to the Tripuri Community, a recognized tribe under Article 142 of the Constitution, but they belonged to the Deshi Tripuri Community (Laskar) which is not recognized under Article 342 of the Constitution of India. As such, this court shall also recall all the benefits obtained on the basis of the said certificates. 16. Having regard to the entire circumstances and particularly to the circumstances that the members of the Deshi Tripura Community were recognized for quite long time as the ST in the State of Tripura and by the order of the apex court in Srish Kumar Choudhury (supra) the controversy relating to the status of Deshi Tripuri Community was brought to its finality by declaration that the Deshi Tripuri (Laskar) is not to be recognized as the Schedule Tribe. The Government of Tripura has preserved their status and benefits obtained till 31.03.1990 in terms of the order of the apex court. This court is of the view that the educational qualification obtained by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.192 of 2014 and W.P.(C) No.179 of 2014 shall not be disturbed. The Government of Tripura has preserved their status and benefits obtained till 31.03.1990 in terms of the order of the apex court. This court is of the view that the educational qualification obtained by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.192 of 2014 and W.P.(C) No.179 of 2014 shall not be disturbed. But no record showing them as the member of the ST shall be considered by any authority for providing them any benefit as the member of the ST Community in future. They shall be treated under unreserved segment. Subject to what has been observed above, the writ petitions are dismissed. The order of the SLSC cancelling the status certificate of the petitioners is affirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE Moumita