JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and where under the communication dated 26.04.2018 as contained under Memo No.491 in terms of the recommendation for cancellation of the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner is under question in this writ petition. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the caste certificate has been issued by the competent authority certifying therein that he belongs to “Dusadh” caste. In pursuance to the aforesaid caste certificate, he has contested the election of “Mayor” in the year 2010 but no objection has been raised at that time regarding the aforesaid caste and again, in the year 2015 he has contested the election of “Member Panchayat Samiti” and then no objection has been raised, but in the year 2018 he has contested the election of “Mayor”, the objection has been raised by the other contestants of the election regarding the social status of the petitioner. The concerned authority, without application of mind has cancelled the caste certificate and merely for formality the same has been sent before the Caste Scrutiny Committee for taking decision and as such the said recommendation cannot be said to be a recommendation rather it is pre-determined hence the same is not sustainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the Caste Scrutiny Committee since has been constituted by virtue of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. Vrs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors. reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 wherein the factual aspect is quite different to that of the present case and hence the case of the petitioner is not fit to be considered by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and on that account the decision of the authority is also not sustainable. His further submission is that since he is the successful candidate in the said election as such if caste certificate has properly been issued, the same is to be questioned by filing election petition. 3. His further submission is that since he is the successful candidate in the said election as such if caste certificate has properly been issued, the same is to be questioned by filing election petition. 3. Learned counsel for the State-respondent has submitted that the contention as has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the communication dated 26.04.2018 is a direction, is not correct in view of the contents stipulated therein to the effect that is a request to take such decision by conducting an enquiry in this regard, therefore, the same may not be said to be a direction rather when the enquiry has been requested to be conducted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner can put forth his case before the said Committee in order to take appropriate decision. His further submission is that the filing of the election petition is for the purpose when the question of election of the petitioner would be involved but herein the question of election of the petitioner is not the issue rather the caste certificate is an issue, therefore, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the election petition is the appropriate remedy, is not correct, in view of the factual aspect involved in this case. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating their rival submissions it is evident from the material available on record and more particularly the impugned communication in terms of the recommendation dated 26.04.2018 (Annexure-6) whereby and where under by making reference of the letter issued by the Sub Divisional Officer as contained under Letter No.1207 dated 18.04.2018 and the Notification No.3630 dated 08.07.2004 issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, the recommendation has been made to cancel the caste certificate issued in favour of five persons including the petitioner whose name is reflected in Serial No.3 thereof. It is further evident that due request has been made to the Tribal Welfare Commissioner (Member Secretary) of the Caste Scrutiny Committee to place it before the Committee for its consideration and decision. Further the communication was issued on 24.04.2018 but the said communication is not disclosed by the petitioner. 5. It is further evident that due request has been made to the Tribal Welfare Commissioner (Member Secretary) of the Caste Scrutiny Committee to place it before the Committee for its consideration and decision. Further the communication was issued on 24.04.2018 but the said communication is not disclosed by the petitioner. 5. The issue which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the question of caste certificate issued by the authority is to referred before the Caste Scrutiny Committee since the Caste Scrutiny Committee has been constituted in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. Vrs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors. (supra) therefore, this Court, has gone across the aforesaid judgment at Paragraph-13 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to laid down that : “It is necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of social status certificate, their scrutiny and their approval which may be the following” Paragraph-13 read as under:- “13. The admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of false social status certificate necessarily has the effect of depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined in the Constitution of the benefits conferred on them by the Constitution. The genuine candidates are also denied admission to educational institutions or appointments to office or posts under a State for want of social status certificate. The ineligible or spurious persons who falsely gained entry resort to dilatory tactics and create hurdles in completion of the inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee. It is true that the applications for admission to educational institutions are generally made by a parent, since on that date many a time the student may be a minor. It is the parent or the guardian who may play fraud claiming false status certificate. It is, therefore, necessary that the certificates issued are scrutinised at the earliest and with utmost expedition and promptitude. For that purpose, it is necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval, which may be the following: 1. The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level. 2. The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level. 2. The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn and attested by a competent gazetted officer or nongazetted officer with particulars of castes and sub-castes, tribe, tribal community, parts or groups of tribes or tribal communities, the place from which he originally hails from and other particulars as may be prescribed by the Directorate concerned. 3. Application for verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at least six months in advance before seeking admission into educational institution or an appointment to a post. 4. All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer high-er in rank of the Director of the department concerned, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities. 5. Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in over-all charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector 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 from. 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. 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. 6. The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the vigilance officer if he found the claim for social status to be “not genuine” or ‘doubtful’ or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue show-cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post with acknowledgement due or through the head of the educational institution concerned in which the candidate is studying or employed. The notice should indicate that the representation or reply, if any, would be made within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice and in no case on request not more than 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. In case, the candidate seeks for an opportunity of hearing and claims an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the Director on receipt of such representation/reply shall convene the committee and the Joint/Additional Secretary as Chairperson who shall give reasonable opportunity to the candidate/parent/guardian to adduce all evidence in support of their claim. A public notice by beat of drum or any other convenient mode may be published in the village or locality and if any person or association opposes such a claim, an opportunity to adduce evidence may be given to him/it. After giving such opportunity either in person or through counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-à-vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof. 7. After giving such opportunity either in person or through counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-à-vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof. 7. In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed. 8. Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the parents/guardian also in case candidate is minor to appear before the Committee with all evidence in his or their support of the claim for the social status certificates. 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. 10. In case of any delay in finalising the proceedings, and in the meanwhile the last date for admission into an educational institution or appointment to an officer post, is getting expired, the candidate be admitted by the Principal or such other authority competent in that behalf or appointed on the basis of the social status certificate already issued or an affidavit duly sworn by the parent/guardian/candidate before the competent officer or non-official and such admission or appointment should be only provisional, subject to the result of the inquiry by the Scrutiny Committee. 11. The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 12. No suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie. 13. The High Court would dispose of these cases as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months. In case, as per its procedure, the writ petition/miscellaneous petition/matter is disposed of by a Single Judge, then no further appeal would lie against that order to the Division Bench but subject to special leave under Article 136. 13. The High Court would dispose of these cases as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months. In case, as per its procedure, the writ petition/miscellaneous petition/matter is disposed of by a Single Judge, then no further appeal would lie against that order to the Division Bench but subject to special leave under Article 136. 14. In case, the certificate obtained or social status claimed is found to be false, the parent/guardian/the candidate should be prosecuted for making false claim. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude, disqualification for elective posts or offices under the State or the Union or elections to any local body, legislature or Parliament. 15. As soon as the finding is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the certificate obtained was false, on its cancellation and confiscation simultaneously, it should be communicated to 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 Principal etc. of the educational institution responsible for making the admission or the appointing authority, should cancel the admission/appointment without any further notice to the candidate and debar the candidate from further study or continue in office in a post.” It is evident from the aforesaid proposition of law that for the issuance of social status certificate, their scrutiny and their approval the duty has been casted upon the said Caste Scrutiny Committee and therefore, it is not acceptable as has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue pertaining to caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner is not to be scrutinized by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in view of the aforesaid proposition of law wherein even for issuance for its scrutiny and approval has been required to be made by the said Committee. 6. 6. The question of prejudice has been raised by the petitioner that the recommendation of cancellation has been made without providing opportunity but it is not in dispute and cannot be disputed about the legal position that the recommendation cannot be said to be a decision rather it is the pre-stage of the decision and when the decision would be taken then only the question of providing an opportunity would arise, herein, the recommendation to cancel the caste certificate has been made but the request to place the case of the petitioner for its consideration and decision before the Caste Scrutiny Committee and as per the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. Vrs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors. (supra) as referred hereinabove that the entire process of Scrutiny has been provided wherein one of the condition is to provide an adequate and sufficient opportunity to the concerned, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been prejudiced merely by making recommendation to cancel the caste certificate. The other contention has been raised that the petitioner has been elected as Mayor and therefore if anyone is aggrieved the election, the proper course is to file the election petition but it is to state herein that the issue of election is not the subject matter of the impugned order rather it is the question of scrutinizing the caste certificate issued in his favour, the result might affect the election depending upon the final decision of the issue of caste certificate which cannot be raised in the election petition so long as the caste certificate is operative basis upon which the petitioner has been elected and, therefore, in order to reach to the correct conclusion the scrutiny of the caste certificate is needs to be made and as such request has been made before the said Committee for its scrutiny. 7. This Court is of the view that if at this stage the impugned order will be quashed, the entire enquiry pertaining to the legality and propriety of the caste certificate will be stalled and as such this Court refrains itself in exercising the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by making an interference with the aforesaid recommendation as contained under Annexure-6 dated 26.04.2018, stalling the enquiry. 8. 8. In view thereof, in the entirety of facts and circumstances and on the basis of observations made hereinabove, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. 9. However petitioner is at liberty to raise all the issues before the Committee since this Court is not interfered with the impugned order that does not mean that this Court has expressed any opinion upon the merit of the issue rather leaving it open upon the Committee to take final decision in accordance with law after following procedure as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. Vrs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors. ( supra). 10. Accordingly, I.A. No.9752 of 2018 also stands disposed of.