Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 32 (UTT)

Hirdesh Devi v. State of Uttarakhand

2019-01-08

R.C.KHULBE, RAMESH RANGANATHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ramesh Ranganathan, J. Heard Shri Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Anil Singh Bisht, learned Standing Counsel for the State Government and Shri Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the caveator. With their consent this appeal is disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. On the basis of a complaint lodged by the caveator alleging that the appellant-writ petitioner did not belong to the scheduled castes, and belonged to the Gadariya caste which falls under the other backward classes, the matter was referred for inquiry and for cancellation of the caste certificate issued to her. 3. The appellant-writ petitioner had, earlier, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court claiming that she belonged to Dhangar caste which is a scheduled caste as per the Presidential Order, and The National Commission for Scheduled Castes had held Dhangar to be one among the scheduled castes. This Court, by order in WPMS No. 3106 of 2016 dated 16.02.2018, set aside the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee on 01.10.2016, and the subsequent order passed by the Tehsildar on 27.10.2016 canceling the Scheduled Caste Certificate and directed the Scrutiny Committee to reconsider the matter taking into account the opinion rendered by the National Commission for Scheduled Castes that “Dhankar” caste belonged to the scheduled castes. 4. Pursuant to this order the Scrutiny Committee is said to have examined the matter and to have come to the conclusion that the petitioner’s caste was Gadariya which falls under the other backward classes category, and could not be equated to Dhankar, which is one among the scheduled castes. 5. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court and the learned Single Judge, in the order under appeal (order in WPMS No. 3896 of 2018 dated 21.12.2018), held that the Scrutiny Committee had merely made recommendation to cancel the certificate; the competent authority (Tehsildar) was yet to decide whether the Caste Certificate issue in favour of the petitioner should be cancelled or not; the recommendation made by the Scrutiny Committee had not caused any legal injury to the petitioner; and there is no cause of action to maintain this writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed as pre-mature with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition at an appropriate stage. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal. 6. The writ petition was dismissed as pre-mature with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition at an appropriate stage. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal. 6. Shri Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the Scrutiny Committee is headed by the District Magistrate; in the light of the recommendation made by the Scrutiny Committee, for cancellation of the Caste Certificate, the Tehsildar (competent authority), an officer subordinate to the District Magistrate, would not take a different view; the recommendation of the Scrutiny Committee would be accepted, and the petitioner’s caste certificate would be cancelled; and all these efforts are being made only to deprive the petitioner of her right to continue holding the office of Village Pradhan consequent on her election to the said office on the strength of the Caste Certificate that she is a member of the scheduled castes. 7. On the other hand, both Shri Anil Singh Bisht, learned Standing Counsel for the State Government, and Shri Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the caveator, would submit that the appellant-writ petitioner’s apprehension in this regard is unfounded; an obligation is cast on the Tehsildar to take a decision on the recommendation of the Scrutiny Committee; the mere fact that the Scrutiny Committee is headed by the District Magistrate would not disable the Tehsildar, for just and valid reasons, to take a decision not to cancel the Caste Certificate; even if the Caste Certificate is cancelled, the appellant-writ petitioner can be removed from the office only after she is put on notice of her disqualification under the Uttarakhand Panchyati Raj Act; since cancellation of her Caste Certificate would not automatically result in her ceasing to hold the office of the Village Pradhan, and as she is entitled to be put on notice as to why she should not be removed from the office of a Village Pradhan, the writ petition as filed is pre-mature; and it is always open to her to challenge the order of the Tehsildar, in case the Caste Certificate issued in her favour is cancelled. 8. We find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. 8. We find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. While the recommendation of the Scrutiny Committee, undoubtedly, has great weight, the power to decide, whether or not to cancel the Caste Certificate, has been conferred on the Tehsildar who is required to take a decision based on the recommendation of the Scrutiny Committee. Even if the Caste Certificate of the appellant-writ petitioner is cancelled by the Tehsildar it is only after she is put on notice, calling upon her to show cause why she should not be removed from the office of the Village Pradhan as a result of the cancellation of the Caste Certificate, and after she is afforded an opportunity of being heard, can she be removed from the said office. 9. The petitioner can always question the order of the Tehsildar, in case the Caste Certificate issued earlier is cancelled. We see no reason, therefore, to take a different view from the decision taken by the learned Single Judge, that the writ petition as filed is pre-mature. The appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.