JUDGMENT MILIND RAMESH PHADKE, J. - The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred being aggrieved by the order dtd. 27/9/2019 (received by the petitioner on 4/10/2019) by which the caste certificate of the petitioner has been declared to be illegal and consequent thereupon, the services of the petitioner have been terminated. The aforesaid order is challenged on the ground that it is without jurisdiction as the order with regard to any caste certificate, whether legal or illegal, can only be passed by a State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development AIR 1995 SC 94 . 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts which are necessary for adjudication of the present matter are as under:- <UL>The petitioner who is an Ayurved Medical Officer was appointed on the aforesaid post on 2/7/2016 and is posted in Government Ayurved Hospital/Dispensary, Sirsod, District Shivpuri. A complaint was made against the petitioner by one Ram Prakash Pahariya with regard to his caste "Manjhi" to which the petitioner belongs that the petitioner had submitted a false caste certificate as he does not belong to the aforesaid caste and on the basis of the aforesaid complaint, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 8/4/2019. In the said notice, it was stated that the entry of caste certificate of the petitioner was not found in the register maintained in the office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Lashkar, Gwalior at number 1471/2001-02/B-121 dtd. 25/6/2002 on which it was issued. 3. Vide letter dtd. 1/5/2019, a reply was forwarded by the petitioner. In the reply, it was stated that he was duly selected in the exam conducted by the Public Service Commission as Aurved Medical Officer in the year, 2016 and at the time of verification of the documents, the documents with regard to the caste certificate was also found to be genuine and only on that basis, he was given appointment. It was further stated that the caste certificate was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Lashkar, Gwalior vide case no.2671/2001-02/B-121 dtd. It was further stated that the caste certificate was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Lashkar, Gwalior vide case no.2671/2001-02/B-121 dtd. 10/4/2002 after following due process and there is some mistake in getting his caste certificate verified and only on the basis that since there is no entry of the caste certificate issued to the petitioner in the register of the SubDivisional Officer in the office of the Collector, it has held to be a forged document. 4. Thus, he prayed that verification be done once again from the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer of Case No.2671/2001- 02/B-121 dtd. 10/4/2002, but without getting the document verified, the impugned order dtd. 27/9/2019 of his termination from the services has been issued. Hence, the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that vide circular dtd. 16/5/2005, the State Government had categorically directed the authorities that in case, caste certificate is found to be suspicious, the matter should be relegated to State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, however, in the present case only on the basis that there was no entry of the caste certificate in the register for the same kept at office of Collector, the certificate was assumed to be a forged document whereas no scrutiny thereof was directed to be conducted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee which vitiates the very order of termination. 6. It was further argued by the counsel for the petitioner that in the impugned order, it has been mentioned that in the register for the year 2001-2002/B-121 the last entry is at serial no.557 whereas the case number which has been mentioned by the petitioner i.e. 2617/2001-02/B-121 is of dtd. 10/4/2002. Thus, it was found that the entry of such a case was not in the register kept with the office of the Collector, thus, the document which has been submitted by the petitioner was a forged document, is not the right criteria for determining the status of the petitioner as the entries which are required to be made in the register is the job of the concerning officers and if any mistake is committed on their part, the petitioner cannot be saddled with the responsibility and cannot be punished for their acts. 7. 7. It was further argued that the petitioner belongs to Schedule Caste category and has received scholarship as provided by the Governmnent of Madhya Pradesh, Tribal Department and had applied for the caste certificate through school and there upon, the Sub-Divisional Officer has issued caste certificate which is disputed herein. It was further submitted that there are two modes of preparation of the caste certificate- one is an entry directly made by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the other mode is the preparation of the caste certificate through school and the petitioner who had applied for the preparation of the caste certificate through school, after due verification by the SubDivisional Officer, has been issued, which cannot be faulted with and as such from the impugned order it is aparent that the dispute was neither examined by the authority competent nor any fact finding enquiry was conducted or the matter was referred to the High Power Committee to take decision rather respondent no.1 had issued order by stroke of pen holding the caste certificate to be forged and fabricated, thus, termination of the services of the petitioner is per se illegal. 8. It was further argued that the respondents have exceeded their jurisdiction for giving the findings over the genuineness of the caste certificate which is only vested to the High Power Committee as is held in the case of Madhuri Patil (Supra). Therefore, the powers exercised by the respondents while issuing order Annexure P/1 is patently illegal and the same is totally without jurisdiction, thus, deserves to be set-aside. It was also argued that similar certificate has been issued in favour of the father of the petitioner Shri Kalu Ram Kevat, which has subsequently been verified by the concerning M.L.A., who had worked as Assistant Grade-II in the Department of Water Resources was never questioned about the genuineness of his caste. 9. Thus, only on the basis of some entry not being made in the register it cannot be said that the certificate is a forged and fabricated and the petitioner does not belong to "Manjhi" community. On the strength of the above arguments, the petitioner prayed for setting aside of the order Annexure P/1 dtd. 27/9/2019 and prayed for his reinstatement with all consequential benefits including salary, seniority and arrears thereof. On the strength of the above arguments, the petitioner prayed for setting aside of the order Annexure P/1 dtd. 27/9/2019 and prayed for his reinstatement with all consequential benefits including salary, seniority and arrears thereof. To bolster his submissions he place reliance in the matter of Madhuri Patil (supra) and in the matter of Dharmendra Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others passed in W.P. No.2160/2015 dtd. 9/7/2015 and in the matter of Dharmendra Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others passed in R.P. No.301/2015 dtd. 13/10/2015. 10. Per contra, learned Government Advocate with his usual vehemence has contended that initially the petitioner was appointed on the post of Ayurved Medical Officer in the year, 2016 on probation for two years and in the appointment letter there was a specific stipulation in condition no.6 that if any document filed by the candidate relating to domicile or caste certificate or any other document is found to be false and fabricated, then that particular candidate would be dismissed from service without giving any notice/salary. 11. It was further argued that along with various other candidates, petitioner was also selected after due selection process through MPPSC on the post of Ayurved Medical Officer, as the petitioner had furnished the documents of his being Scheduled Tribe candidate and his name had appeared in the list of Scheduled Tribes. During selection at the time of document verification, the petitioner has also submitted an affidavit stating that all the document which he had filed are true and correct and in case, some information/document was found to be false then his services may be terminated for the same and he also admitted that for filing false affidavit a criminal proceeding can also be initiated against him. 12. It was further argued that after the petitioner has acquired the job, a complaint was made against him and on the basis of the said complaint, a report was called from the Sub-Divisional Officer(Revenue), Lashkar, Gwalior who is the caste certificate issuing authority and, thereafter, a detailed show-cause notice dtd. 8/4/2019 was issued against the petitioner and a personal opportunity of hearing was granted to him to reply to the contentions made in the complaint and it was only after personal opportunity of hearing granted to the petitioner on 28/5/2019 that the impugned order dtd. 27/9/2019 was passed which cannot be said to be illegal. 8/4/2019 was issued against the petitioner and a personal opportunity of hearing was granted to him to reply to the contentions made in the complaint and it was only after personal opportunity of hearing granted to the petitioner on 28/5/2019 that the impugned order dtd. 27/9/2019 was passed which cannot be said to be illegal. It was further submitted that as per the directions contained in the said order an FIR bearing no.693/2019 has been registered against the present petitioner under Sec. 420, 466, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC for procuring a job on the basis of a false certificate. It was also argued that it is true that State Government has issued circular dtd. 16/5/2005 for scrutiny of the caste certificate and for that a High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee was also constituted in compliance of the direction given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madhuri Patil(supra). But it was not incumbent upon the respondents to enquire about the status of the petitioner before passing of the order Annexure P/1 because it was not a case where the caste of the petitioner was in dispute rather it was a case where on the basis of a forged caste certificate, an appointment has been secured. Thus, there was no need for the department to have sent the document for its scrutiny before the High Power Scrutiny Committee. To bolster his submissions, he had placed reliance in the matter of Bharat Singh Batham vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors., passed in W.P. No.14571/2020 on 16/3/2021 which was further challenged in Writ Appeal No.390/2021, but vide order dtd. 7/9/2021, the order passed by learned Single Judge was upheld, wherein it was held that where the caste certificate itself is a forged one and was not a false caste certificate, there is no need to send the matter to the High Power Scrutiny Committee constituted in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Madhuri Patil (Supra). Thus, prayed for dismissal of the said writ petition. 13. At this juncture, counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the petitioner has acquired a copy of extract of register of Revenue Department, wherein there is an entry in respect of issuance of caste certificate to the petitioner bearing no.2671. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the said writ petition. 13. At this juncture, counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the petitioner has acquired a copy of extract of register of Revenue Department, wherein there is an entry in respect of issuance of caste certificate to the petitioner bearing no.2671. He further submits that the said extract of the register is with regard to the certificate which was issued at the school level not only to the petitioner but all other students also thus, he submits that the respondent authorities without ascertaining or scrutinising modes of registration of the caste certificate had concluded that the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was a forged and fabricate document. 14. Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record. 15. The bone of contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order dtd. 27/9/2019 passed by respondent no.1 was without jurisdiction as the verification of the caste certificate can only be done by a State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted by State Governent in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Madhuri Patil (Supra) and secondly, without properly verifying the mode of issuance of the caste certificate, it had been concluded that the same is forged and fabricated document. 16. Looking to the ground of termination as is evident from the impugned order dtd. 27/9/2019, this Court deems it fit to first address upon the issue as to whether the certificate which is said to be forged and fabricated was issued by the competent authority which did not find any entry in the register kept with the officer of the Collector. Bare reading of the impugned order reflects that the caste certificate held by the petitioner was declared as a forged and fabricated document on the basis that in the enquiry it was found that in the register for 2001-2002/B-121, the last entry is at no.557 whereas the certificate which has been issued to the petitioner bears no.2671 and on that basis it was held that there was no entry of the certificate of the petitioner. 17. The petitioner in his petition has raised a ground that there are two modes of registration of caste certificate by the SubDivisonal Officer- one is a direct mode and another is through school. 17. The petitioner in his petition has raised a ground that there are two modes of registration of caste certificate by the SubDivisonal Officer- one is a direct mode and another is through school. Though with regard to the aforementioned ground/contention no guideline/circular/letter had been produced, but this aspect has not been specifically denied by the respondents and in view thereof the document marked as Annexure A/1 which is appended along with the rejoinder which has been procured by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act and which he alleges to be register wherein the endorsement of the caste certificates issued at the school level have been mentioned. This fact also assumes importance as from para-11 of the additionl reply filed on behalf of the State which reads as under:- 11....."That, alongwith rejoinder petitioner alleged that he received some documents under RTI which demonstrate that, there is an entry in respect of issuance of said disputed caste certificate. Petitioner also filed the copy of said documents as Annexure A/1 to the rejoinder dtd. 3/1/2022, but asnwering respondents/Ayush Department is not the competent authority to comment over the said documents because neither the Ayush Department is the issuing authority of said documents or caste certificate nor they are the custodian of said documents, hence, revenue authority or issuing authority of said document Annexure A/1 and disputed caste certificate are the necessary and proper party to the present matter and they are in better position to comment over the averments regarding said documents. But, petitioner had not impleaded the revenue authorities as party respondents in the present matter. Although, a bare perusal of first page of document Annexure A/1 reflects that, same is a copy of some school record relating to caste certificate. 18. From the aforesaid it is crystal clear that the said register had not been verified by the respondents specially the SubDivisional Officer who had submitted his enquiry report and who is a competent person to issue a caste certificate and even the State had not denied its existence rather in para-11 the Divisional Ayush Officer who had sworn in the affidavit in support of the additional return as an OIC of the matter had shifted his burden upon the revenue authorities. Thus, this court finds that the enquiry which was conducted by the respondents and the enquiry report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Lashkar, Gwalior is not sustainable. 19. This Court is in agreement with the arguments advanced by the learned Government Advocate and case law cited by him that since it is a case where the document itself was found to be forged and not false, therefore, it was not required to send for its verification to the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee and, therefore, the contention of the petitioner in this regard is not acceptable and is hereby discarded. 20. In the light of the aforementioned discussion, this Court set aside the order dtd. 27/9/2019 and direct the respondents to conduct a fresh enquiry with regard to the issuance of the caste certificate taking note of Annexure A/1 filed along with rejoinder in this petition. 21. As a consequence, any further action taken against the petitioner in pursunce to the order dtd. 27/9/2019 are also hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith. However, there is no order as to the backwages for the aforesaid period. 22. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of. 23. E-copy/Certified copy as per rules/directions.