Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 172 (JK)

Irfan Ahmad Khan Gujjar v. State of J&K

2022-04-20

SANJEEV KUMAR

body2022
JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Kumar, J. SWP No.546/2019 1. In this petition, the petitioner is a candidate selected as Sub Inspector (Executive) in Jammu and Kashmir Police pursuant to the selection made vide PHQ Notification No. PERS-A-400/2016/75303-403 dated 30th December 2016, under the reserved category of Scheduled Tribe (ST). It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite there being a valid Category Certificate of ST issued by the competent Authority in his favour, he has not been appointed pending authenticity report of petitioner’s Category Certificate from the competent Authority. He has, therefore, sought a direction to the respondents to issue authenticity report of the Category Certificate of the petitioner so that he is in a position to join as Sub inspector (Executive) in Jammu and Kashmir Police. 2. The stand of the official respondents in their objections is that pursuant to a complaint with regard to the genuineness of the Category Certificate of some candidates including the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted by the Addl. District Magistrate (ADM), Bijbehara, and on the basis of recommendations of the Sub Divisional Magistraate (SDM), the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, vide his Communication dated 8th May, 2019, cancelled the ST Category Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner and it is because of this reason, formal order of appointment in favour of the petitioner was not issued by the Appointing Authority. 3. Form perusal of the order sheet, it transpires that pursuant to the interim Orders passed on 15thMarch 2019, and 27thSeptember 2019, the petitioner has been appointed as Sub Inspector (Executive) in Jammu and Kashmir Police. WP(C) No. 1695/2019 4. In this petition, the petitioner in SWP No. 546/2019 along with six others, has called in question Order No. 104 of 2019 dated 6thMay 2019, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, whereby the ST Category Certificates issued in favour of the petitioners by the Tehsildar Bijbehara, have been cancelled. Besides challenging the impugned order on merits, the petitioners have also assailed the impugned order on the ground that the same has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, without providing the petitioners any opportunity of being heard. This Court, vide Order dated 23rd May 2019, while issuing notice to the respondents to file objections, has also directed the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, not to act upon the impugned order. This Court, vide Order dated 23rd May 2019, while issuing notice to the respondents to file objections, has also directed the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, not to act upon the impugned order. This petition is contested by the respondents, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioners do not belong to the Tribe “Gujjar” identified by the President of India as Scheduled Tribe for the purpose of reservation and, therefore, the Category Certificates have been obtained by misrepresentation. It is also the stand of the official respondents that the procedure for grant of ST Category Certificate envisaged under the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Act, 2004 (“the Act of 2004”) and the Rules framed thereunder is also not followed by the Competent Authority before issuing such certificates. 5. Mr. A. Haqani, learned senior Advocate, has intervened in the matter on behalf of Gujjar and Bakerwal Community and has opposed the grant of ST Category Certificate to the petitioners on the ground that they do not belong to the Gujjar Tribe and the Sub-Caste, to which, the petitioners belong, is not covered by the Presidential Notification. WP(C) No. 1658/2018 6. Seven petitioners, who are real brothers and are also the petitioners in WP(C) No. 1695/2019 have filed this petition calling in question Order dated 14thAugust 2018, passed by the Tehsildar Bijbehara, keeping the ST Category Certificates issued in their favour in abeyance. The impugned order dated 14th August 2018, has merged with order of cancellation passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, which is subject matter of challenge in WP(C) No. 1695/2019. This petition has, thus, virtually been rendered infructuous. SWP No. 2307/2018 7. This is a petition by six candidates, who were candidates for the post of General Line Teacher, the process, for which, was initiated by the Jammu and Kashmir Service Selection Board vide Advertisement Notice No. 06 of 2017. The petitioners are aggrieved of short listing of the respondents 5 to 7 under the ST Category. It may be noted that respondents 5 to 7 are amongst the petitioners in WP(C) 1695/2019, who are facing cancellation of their ST Category Certificates by the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag. WP(C) No. 289/2019 8. The petitioners are aggrieved of short listing of the respondents 5 to 7 under the ST Category. It may be noted that respondents 5 to 7 are amongst the petitioners in WP(C) 1695/2019, who are facing cancellation of their ST Category Certificates by the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag. WP(C) No. 289/2019 8. In this petition, the petitioners, who are brothers and are also petitioners in WP(C) No. 1695/2019, have called in question a Communication of the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, bearing No. DCA/LIT/019/61-62 dated 26thFebruary 2019, whereby the Deputy Commissioner had initiated the proceedings for cancellation of Category Certificates of the petitioners. The impugned communication has culminated in issuance of order of cancellation of ST Category Certificates of the petitioners, which is impugned in WP(C) 1695/2019. This petition too is rendered infructuous. OWP No. 567/2019 9. This petition is by Gujjar and BakerwalCommunity through its president Javaid Ahmad Dehdar, who is aggrieved of issuance of ST Category Certificates in favour of the writ petitioners of WP(C) No. 1695/2019. The petitioners, apart from seeking direction to the Crime Branch to conduct preliminary verification and investigation into the issuance of fraudulent certificates in favour of non-ST candidates, have also prayed for a direction to the State to protect and preserve the reservation policy and ensure benefits of reservation only in favour of genuine members of Gujjar and Bakerwal Community. The petitioners are against the issuance of Category Certificates in favour of the candidates, who, as per petitioners are the members of Sub-Caste “Khan”of Gujjar Tribe. 10. From the above, it is clear that essentially two petitions survive for consideration. WP(C) No. 1695/2019, wherein the petitioners have called in question the order of cancellation of their ST Category Certificates by the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, and OWP No.567/2019, which is filed by some Gujjar and Baker Community through, one, Javaid Ahmad Dehdar, whereby the petitioner has sought a direction to the State (now Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir) to adhere to and implement the reservation policy strictly and forebear from issuing ST Category Certificates to the persons other than those belonging to Gujjar and Bakerwal Community. It is seen that the grant of ST Category Certificates infavour of the petitioners of WP(C) No. 1695/2019 is opposed by the writ petitioner of OWP No. 567/2019. It is seen that the grant of ST Category Certificates infavour of the petitioners of WP(C) No. 1695/2019 is opposed by the writ petitioner of OWP No. 567/2019. The official respondents are supporting the cause of Gujjar and Bakerwal Community, i.e., the writ petitioner in OWP No.567/2019 to some extent. 11. From the perusal of material on record and after hearing the rival contentions, following issues emerge for determination: - (i) Whether the petitioners in WP(C) No.1695/2019, who claimably belong to Sub-Caste ‘Khan’ of Gujjar Tribe, are entitled to the benefit of reservation provided for Scheduled Tribe Category under the Act, 2004 and Jammu and Reservation Rules, 2005, (“ the Rules of 2005”). (ii) Whether the order impugned passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, whereby the ST Category Certificates issued in favour of the petitioners by the Tehsildar, Bijbehara, have been cancelled, is not sustainable in law being in violation of principle of audi alteram artem. 12. With a view to determine these questions, it is necessary to allude to material facts leading to the controversy raised in these petitions. Facual Matrix 13. The petitioners in WP(C) No. 1695/2019, as noted above are real brothers belonging to Sub-Caste “Khan”, Gujjar. They are all residents of village Dedoo Marhama, Bijbehara, Anantnag, and claim to be the members of Gujjar Community. It is pertinent to note, at this stage, that the President of India in the exercise of powers conferred by Clause (1) of Article 342 of the Constitution of India issued Constitution (Jammu and Kashmir) Scheduled Tribes Order, 1989, specifying certain Tribes/Tribal Communities in the Schedule to the Order, which for the purposes of Constitution, were deemed to be Scheduled Tribes, in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Apart from other Tribes and Tribal Communities, the Tribal Community “Gujjar” figured at Serial No.9. The Government of Jammu and Kashmir, vide SRO 126 of 1994, issued Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules 1994 (“the Rules of 1994”), providing the benefit of reservation to the Scheduled Tribes, and laying down procedure for issuance of Category Certificates. The petitioners, with a view to reap the benefit of Presidential Order and the Reservation Rules promulgated by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, approached the Competent Authority for issuance of certificates. The Competent Authority i.e., Tehsildar Bijbehara found all the petitioners eligible for the issuance of ST Category Certificates being members of “Gujjar” Community. The petitioners, with a view to reap the benefit of Presidential Order and the Reservation Rules promulgated by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, approached the Competent Authority for issuance of certificates. The Competent Authority i.e., Tehsildar Bijbehara found all the petitioners eligible for the issuance of ST Category Certificates being members of “Gujjar” Community. These certificates were issued by the Tehsildar Bijbehara in terms of Rules of 2005 framed under the Act of 2004. It is worthwhile to notice that the father of the petitioners Assadulla Khan too had been issued a certificate of Scheduled Tribe being a member of Gujjar Community by the Tehsildar, Bijbehara, in the year 1997, when the Rules of 1994 issued vide SRO 126 of 1994 were in operation. 14. Be that as it is, all the petitioners were found entitled to the benefit of ST Category Certificates and were issued the formal certificates on the prescribed format by the Tehsildar Bijbehara in the year 2016. On the strength of these ST Category Certificates, the petitioners applied for employment under the State. The petitioner no. 1, Irfan Ahmad Khan applied and was selected as Sub Inspector (Executive) in Jammu and Kashmir Police, whereas some of his brothers, the co-petitioners herein, were short listed for General Line Teachers. It is here the controversy erupted. Some of the candidates, who were also possessed of ST Category Certificates being members of “Gujjar” Community felt threatened by the petitioners in the matter of their selection and accordingly made complaints to various Authorities including the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, and Tehsildar Bijbehara for cancellation of ST Category Certificates issued in favour of the petitioners. These candidates also filed OWP No. 567/2019 under the banner of Gujjar and Bakerwal Community to assail the ST Category status given to the petitioner by issuance of ST Category Certificates by the Tehsildar Bijbehara. These complaints lodged by the aggrieved candidates under the banner of Gujjar and Bakerwal Community led to the holding of enquiry by the SDM Bijbehara and thereafter by Additional District Magistrate, Anantnag on the directions of Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag. The ADM Anantnag, in his enquiry, could not conclude conclusively as to whether the petitioners were members of “Gujjar” Community or not, but opined that the procedure laid down in the Act of 2004 and the Rules of 2005 had not been properly followed. The ADM Anantnag, in his enquiry, could not conclude conclusively as to whether the petitioners were members of “Gujjar” Community or not, but opined that the procedure laid down in the Act of 2004 and the Rules of 2005 had not been properly followed. The Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, accepted the recommendations and vide order impugned in WP(C) No. 1695/2019 cancelled the ST Category Certificates issued in favour of the petitioners by the Tehsildar Bijbehara being the members of “Gujjar” Community. It is this order of the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, the petitioners in WP(C) No. 1695/2019 are aggrieved of. The candidates, who have filed OWP No. 567/2019, under the banner of Gujjar and Bakerwal Community, are opposing the petition. Contentions. 15. Mr. A. H. Naik, learned senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, submits that impugned order of cancellation dated 6th May 2019, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, is bad in the eye of law, as the same has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, without associating the petitioners in the enquiry conducted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (ADC), Anantnag, and without giving any opportunity of being heard to them. It is contended that the ST Category Certificates were issued in favour of the petitioners by the Competent Authority in accordance with the Rules of 2005 after finding the petitioners entitled thereto being the members of “Gujjar” Community. The ST Category Certificates issued in favour of the petitioners conferred a status and benefit of reservation and, therefore, the same could not have been withdrawn by the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag without even giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. It is submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, has mainly and primarily relied upon the enquiry and the recommendations made by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, but the report of such enquiry or recommendations was never provided to the petitioners. The petitioners, it is argued, have been condemned unheard and, therefore, the impugned order is rendered bad in the eye of law. 16. Mr. Naik further argues that neither SDM, Bijbehara nor the ADC Anantnag, who, as per the impugned order, conducted some enquiries, have come to any definite conclusion with regard to the status of the petitioners. There is no conclusive finding recorded by any of the Enquiry Officers to the effect that the petitioners do not belong to “Gujjar” Community/Tribe. 16. Mr. Naik further argues that neither SDM, Bijbehara nor the ADC Anantnag, who, as per the impugned order, conducted some enquiries, have come to any definite conclusion with regard to the status of the petitioners. There is no conclusive finding recorded by any of the Enquiry Officers to the effect that the petitioners do not belong to “Gujjar” Community/Tribe. It is, thus, submitted that once the Authorities did not find any evidence to conclude that the petitioners were not the members of “Gujjar” Community, the procedural lapse, if any, committed by the Competent Authority enjoined the duty to issue such certificates, cannot act to the prejudice of the petitioners. It is contended that the petitioners cannot be penalized for the procedural lapse, if any, committed by the Competent Authority before issuing the ST Category Certificates in favour of the petitioners. 17. Per contra, it is the contention of Mr. Altaf Haqani, learned senior counsel, appearing for Gujjar and Bakerwal Community that the impugned order is perfectly legal and valid, in that, the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, has got a thorough enquiry conducted to find out the status of the petitioners before passing the impugned order. It is argued that the power to specify a particular tribe or tribal community, or parts of, or groups within tribes or tribal communities is conferred upon the President of India by Article 342 of the Constitution of India. It is in the exercise of this power, the President of India, after consultation with the Governor of State of Jammu and Kashmir, promulgated the Constitution (Jammu and Kashmir) Scheduled Tribes Order, 1989, specifying in the Schedule to the Order, certain tribes/tribal communities, which shall, for the purposes of the Constitution, be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to State of Jammu and Kashmir. It was only the Gujjar Community that was specified at Serial No. 9 of the Schedule to the Order and not any part or group within the Gujjar Tribe. 18. Relying upon the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and Ors. vs. Millind and Ors. reported in (2001) 1 SCC 4 , Mr. 18. Relying upon the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and Ors. vs. Millind and Ors. reported in (2001) 1 SCC 4 , Mr. Haqani argues that the Courts cannot and should not expand jurisdiction to deal with the question as to whether a particular caste, sub-caste; a group or a part of tribe or sub-tribe is included in any one of the entries mentioned in the Presidential Orders issued under Article 341 and 342 of the Constitution. He further submits that the Constitution Bench has authoritatively held that allowing the State Government or Courts or other Authorities or Tribunals to hold enquiry as to whether a particular caste or tribe should be considered as one included in the Schedule of the Presidential Order is not permissible in law. 19. Mr. Haqani, learned senior counsel, as well as Mr. M.A. Chashoo, learned AAG, appearing for the respondents, however, could not meet the arguments of Mr. Naik that the impugned order was in violation of natural justice and, therefore, not sustainable in law. These are, in a nutshell, the arguments addressed by the counsel representing the parties. Analysis and discussion. 20. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that the parties are not substantially at variance on facts. Admittedly, the petitioners are all brothers born to one, Assadulla Khan a resident of Dedoo Marhama Tehsil Bijbehara. The petitioners as also their father Assadulla Khan have ‘Khan’ as their surname. It is the claim of the petitioners that surname ‘Khan’ like other names viz. Chowdhary, Manhas, Poswal, Salaria etc. etc. is commonly used by the Gujjar Community and, therefore, mere user of a different surname does not deprive a person of his status of being a member of Gujjar Community/Tribe. It is also not disputed before me that the father of the petitioners, namely, Assudulla Khan was issued the ST Category Certificate under SRO 126 of 1994 in the year 1997, which certificate was not assailed by anybody including the so called Gujjar andBakerwal Community represented by Mr. Altaf Haqani before me. The competence of Tehsildar Bijbehara to issue ST Category Certificates in favour of the petitioners under the Rules of 2005 is also not disputed by the respondents or by the clients of Mr. Altaf Haqani. Altaf Haqani before me. The competence of Tehsildar Bijbehara to issue ST Category Certificates in favour of the petitioners under the Rules of 2005 is also not disputed by the respondents or by the clients of Mr. Altaf Haqani. There is also no dispute that the petitioners were not associated in the enquiries conducted by the SDM, Headquarter Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, and ADC Anantnag. Indisputably, the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, too did not provide any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners before issuing the impugned order. This also goes without saying that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, has not only deprived the petitioners of their status of being members of Gujjar Tribe, but has also taken away a vested Constitutional right of reservation in appointments and other matters. Such deprivation could not have been effected by the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, without providing them an opportunity of being heard. The least that was expected of the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, was to provide the copies of the enquiry reports relied upon by him and put the petitioners to a show cause notice. Nothing appears to have been done by the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, at least, nothing is visible from the reading of the impugned order. There is another aspect, which needs to be noticed. The impugned order essentially rests on some enquiry conducted by the ADC, Anantnag, wherein he has pointed out that the ST Category Certificates issued by the Tehsildar, Bijbehara, in favour of the petitioners, were without recommendations of subordinate staff and without adopting proper procedure. The ADC, Anantnag, appears to have recommended the cancellation of ST Category Certificates of the petitioners for procedural violations. None of the Enquiry Officers, in particular, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, has found the petitioners ineligible to the benefit of ST Category Certificate, to which, they had been found entitled to being members of Scheduled Tribe Category by the Tehsildar Bijbehara. 21. The contention of Mr. Haqani that the petitioners being members of Sub-Caste “Khan” of Gujjars are not entitled to the benefit of reservation provided for the reserved category of Scheduled Tribe (Gujjar), also does not hold much water. As is held by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Millindand Ors. 21. The contention of Mr. Haqani that the petitioners being members of Sub-Caste “Khan” of Gujjars are not entitled to the benefit of reservation provided for the reserved category of Scheduled Tribe (Gujjar), also does not hold much water. As is held by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Millindand Ors. (supra), the object of Article 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India is to provide additional protection to the members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe having regard to their long standing social and educational backwardness and to keep away disputes in determining whether a Caste/Tribe is or, is not, a SC/ST for the purposes of the Constitution. The words “Castes” or “Tribes” in the expression “Scheduled Castes” and “Schedule Tribes” are not used in the ordinary sense of the expressions, but are used in the sense of the definition contained in Articles 366 (24) and 366 (25) of the Constitution of India. A Caste is a Scheduled Caste or a Tribe is a Scheduled Tribe only if it is included in the Presidential Orders issued under Article 341 and 342 for the purposes of the Constitution. The President of India in the exercise of power conferred by Clause (1) of Article 342 promulgated the Constitution (Jammu and Kashmir) Scheduled Tribes Order, 1989, and specified certain Tribes and Tribal Communities, which shall, for the purpose of the Constitution, be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Apart from other Tribes and Communities, the Gujjar Community was indicated at Serial No. 9. For better understanding of the issue, it is necessary to set out Article 342 of the Constitution of India, which reads thus: - “342. Scheduled Tribe.-(1) The president may with respect any State or Union Territory, and where it is a State, after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or Union Territory, as the case may be. (2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in a notification issued under clause (1) any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification.” 22. From plan reading of Article 342 of the Constitution, it clearly transpires that the power to specify a particular tribe or tribal community, or parts of, or groups within, tribe or tribal community, which shall, for the purposes of the Constitution, be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to a State or Union Territory lies in the President of India. It is, thus, axiomatic that the President, while exercising his power under Clause (1) of Article 342, and specifying the tribes or tribal communities, may also specify the parts of, or groups within, such tribes or tribal communities for declaring them as Scheduled Tribes in relation to a State or Union Territory for the purposes of the Constitution. Under Clause (2) of the Article 342, it is the parliament that may by law include or exclude from the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in a notification issued under Clause (1), any tribe or tribal community, or part of, or group within, any tribe or trial community. It is, thus, correct and as has been held by the Constitution Bench Judgment in the case of Millind and Ors. (supra), the Scheduled Tribe Order must be read as it is and it is not even permissible to say that a tribe or tribal community, sub-tribe, part of, or a group of any tribe or tribal community is synonymous to the one mentioned in the Scheduled Tribe Order if they are not so specifically mentioned in it. Analyzing the Constitution Bench Judgment further, it may be pointed out that in the case of Millind, the Constitution Bench was confronted with two questions. (1) Whether at all, it is permissible to hold inquiry and let in evidence to decide or declare that any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community is included in the general name even though it is not specifically mentioned in the entry concerned in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950? (1) Whether at all, it is permissible to hold inquiry and let in evidence to decide or declare that any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community is included in the general name even though it is not specifically mentioned in the entry concerned in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950? (2) Whether “Halba-Koshti” caste is a sub-tribe within the meaning of Entry 19 (Halba/Halbi) of the said Scheduled Tribes Order relating to the State of Maharashtra, even though it is not specifically mentioned as such? The Constitution Bench, after discussing the issues threadbare, arrived at the conclusions set out in Para-36 of the Judgment, which for the facility of reference is reproduced hereunder:- “36. In the light of what is stated above, the following positions emerge; 1. It is not at all permissible to hold any inquiry or let in any evidence to decide or declare that any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community is included in the general name even though it is not specifically mentioned in the entry concerned in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. 2. The Scheduled Tribes Order must be read as it is. It is not even permissible to say that a tribe, sub-tribe, part of or group of any tribe or tribal community is synonymous to the one mentioned in the Scheduled Tribes Order if they are not so specifically mentioned in it. 3. A notification issued under clause (1) of the Article 342, specifying Scheduled Tribes, can be amended only by law to be made by Parliament. In other words, any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe can be included or excluded from the list of Scheduled Tribes issued under clause (1) of Article 342 only by Parliament by law and by no other authority. 4. It is not open to State Governments or courts or tribunals or any other authority to modify, amend or alter the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in the notification issued under clause (1) of Article 342. 5. 4. It is not open to State Governments or courts or tribunals or any other authority to modify, amend or alter the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in the notification issued under clause (1) of Article 342. 5. Decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in Bhaiya Ram Munda v. Anirudh Patar and Dina v. Narain Singh did not lay down law correctly in stating that the inquiry was permissible and the evidence was admissible within the limitations indicated for the purpose of showing what an entry in the Presidential Order was intended to be. As stated in Position (1) above no inquiry at all is permissible and no evidence can be let the matter….” 23. In view of the settled legal position, I have no doubt in my mind that it is not for this Court to hold an enquiry to find out whether the petitioners actually belong to the Gujjar Community and, therefore, a Scheduled Tribe in terms of the Presidential Scheduled Tribe Order of 1989. The Scheduled Tribe Order of 1989 promulgated by the President specified the Tribe “Gujjar” and, therefore, all those, who belong to the Gujjar Community, are to be notified as Scheduled Tribes and given the benefit of reservation envisaged under Reservation Act of 2004 and the Rules of 2005 framed thereunder. It may be out of place to make a reference to Part (v) of the Rules of 2005, which elaborately lays down the procedure for issuance of Reserved Category Certificate. Indisputably, the Tehsildar is Competent Authority to issue the Category Certificate of Scheduled Tribe. What is required to be considered by the Competent Authority, while adjudicating the claim of a person to be the members of the Scheduled Tribe Community, is given in Clause (iv) of Rule 21 of the Rules of 2005, which for the facility of reference is also reproduced hereunder:- “21 (iv):- A person claiming benefit on the ground that he/she belongs to Scheduled Tribe Community shall produce an extract of Jamabandi in respect of members of the Tribes, who own land and extract of electoral roll or Chullhabandi or ration card in respect of landless members of the Tribes. The production of identity cards or Grazing Cards issued by Forest Department or Revenue Agencies in respect of landless members of Gujjar and Bakerwal Communities shall be supplementary evidence for the said purpose;” 24. The production of identity cards or Grazing Cards issued by Forest Department or Revenue Agencies in respect of landless members of Gujjar and Bakerwal Communities shall be supplementary evidence for the said purpose;” 24. It is, thus, for the competent Authority to consider the material as enumerated in Clause (iv) above and decide as to whether the person claiming the benefit is a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe Community or not. If from the revenue records like extract of Jamabandi in respect of members of the Tribe, who own land and extract of electoral roll or Chullhabandi or ration card in respect of landless members of the Tribe, the Competent Authority is satisfied that the person claiming the benefit belongs to Schedule Tribe Community, he will issue such certificate. He may also take into consideration the supplementary evidence like the identity cards or grazing cards issued by the Forest Department or Revenue Agencies in respect of landless members of Gujjar and Bakerwal Communities. 25. Once the Competent Authority issues a certificate in favour of a person certifying him to be a member of Schedule Tribe Community, there shall be presumption that the certificate has been issued after following the procedure laid down in the Act and the Rules of 2005. Unless such certificate is challenged by the aggrieved person by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority, the same shall be presumed to be valid, the complaints by busy bodies or the bad competitors, notwithstanding. However, nothing prevents the Competent Authority to suo motu or on an application made to it, call for the records of the proceedings taken, or orders made, by any Competent Authority for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such proceedings or orders and may pass such orders in reference thereto as it deems fit. This is so provided under Section 18 of the Act of 2004. Section 18 of the Act reads as thus:- “18. Revision:-The Appellate Authority may, suo moto or on an application made to it, call for the records of the proceedings taken, or orders made, by any Competent Authority for purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such proceedings or orders and may pass such orders in reference thereto as it deems fit: 2. Revision:-The Appellate Authority may, suo moto or on an application made to it, call for the records of the proceedings taken, or orders made, by any Competent Authority for purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such proceedings or orders and may pass such orders in reference thereto as it deems fit: 2. Provided that no order shall be made against any person without affording him a reasonable opportunity of being heard.” 26. From the above it is crystal clear that once a certificate of reserved category is issued by the Competent Authority in favour of a person, same can only be withdrawn by the Appellate Authority in the exercise of powers conferred upon it under Section 18 of the Act of 2004, and such power can be exercised only after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person concerned. The impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, thus, falls within the purview of Section 18 of the Act of 2004 and, therefore, would be null and void being passed in violation of the Proviso appended to Section 18. That apart, it is trite law that a person cannot be deprived of his vested right without first complying with the principles of natural justice. Audi alteram partem is one of the important facets of the principles of natural justice. The Legislature in its wisdom has made this principle a part of Section 18 and, therefore, is required to be mandatorily complied with. Conclusions 27. For the forgoing reasons and in the light of discussions made above, the writ petition being WP(C) 1695/2019 is allowed. The order impugned bearing No. 104 of 2019 dated 6th May, 2019, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, cancelling the ST Category Certificates issued favour of the petitioners, is quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled to all the benefits emanating from the said certificates. It shall, however, remain open to the Appellate Authority under the Act of 2004 and the Rules framed thereunder to act under Section 18 of the Act either suo moto or on an application moved by any aggrieved person including a genuine member of the Gujjar Community provided there is prima facie material before the Appellate Authority to doubt the genuineness and admissibility of the Schedule Tribe Category Certificate issued by the Competent Authority in favour of the petitioners. The Appellate Authority shall keep in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Constitution Bench Judgment rendered in the case of Millind and Ors. (Supra), holding that it is not within the province of Court, Authority, Tribunal or the Government to deal with the question as to whether a particular tribe or sub-tribe or a group or part of tribe is included in one of the entries mentioned in the Presidential Order issued under Article 342 of the Constitution of India. It is equally important to bear in mind that while holding an enquiry to find out the status of a person claiming to be a member of Scheduled Tribe Community, the Competent Authority shall not travel beyond the scope of Clause (iv) of Rule 21 of the Reservation Rules of 2005. Once the Competent Authority finds a person belonging to a particular Scheduled Tribe Community, the carrying of different surname by such person would be immaterial. The enquiry must be directed to find as to whether the person claiming the benefit of reservation as a member of Scheduled Tribe Community actually belongs to such community or not. 28. With these observations, all these petitions are disposed of. 29. In view of the disposal of the writ petitions, the contempt petitions, which have otherwise been rendered infructuous, are also, accordingly, disposed of.