JUDGMENT 1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned report under Annexure-1 considered in Misc. (Caste Certificate) Appeal Case No.6 of 2019 submitted by opposite party No.4 and for a direction to opposite party No.5 to issue a caste certificate in his favour treating him as a 'PANO HINDU' on the grounds stated therein. 2. In fact, the petitioner has challenged the enquiry report received in connection with the proceeding in Misc. (Caste Certificate) Appeal Case No.6 of 2019. The contention of the petitioner is that proper enquiry has not been held by opposite party No.4 and therefore, the report dated 22nd July, 2019 should not be accepted. It is claimed that the petitioner's family worship Hindu Gods and Goddess and participate in festivals observed by the Hindu community and that apart, the funeral ceremony is being performed by them according to the Hindu rites with the exception in the practice that the dead bodies are not cremated instead buried. The further contention is that manner in which the enquiry was held by opposite party No.4 is perfunctory with the report submitted in Misc. (Caste Certificate) Appeal Case No.6 of 2019 which is, therefore, liable to be rejected. While advancing such an argument, the petitioner has relied on the RoRs as at Annexures-2 and 3 besides other materials to show and satisfy the Court that opposite party No.4 fell into serious error in preparing the report i.e. Annexure-1. 3. On the contrary, Mr. Rout, learned AGA for the State referring to the counter affidavit filed through opposite party Nos. 2 and 5 would submit that there has been a detailed enquiry by opposite party No.4, which revealed the petitioner to be a PANO by caste but follower of Christianity. It is contended that the local RI was instructed to conduct an enquiry and submit a report after receipt of request from the petitioner for issuance of Schedule Caste certificate which was by the orders of opposite party No.5 and on the basis of report received, it was rejected by order dated 30th May, 2019 and being aggrieved of, an appeal was filed under Rule 9 of the Orissa Caste Certificate(Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe) Rules, 1980 (herein after referred as 'the Rules') before opposite party No.2 and in connection therewith, later to the enquiry report i.e. Annexure-1 of opposite party No.4, the proceeding in Misc. (Caste Certificate) Appeal Case No.6 of 2019 was disposed of and dismissed vide Annexure-A/2 dated 28th August, 2019. The contention of the State is that opposite party No.4 was directed to enquire into the matter and submit a detailed report, whereafter, on receipt of the same, which was held keeping in view the decision of the Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil & another Vrs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Government of Maharashtra AIR 1995 SC 1994 and since the same though revealed the petitioner as a Scheduled Caste but not a Hindu, therefore such a finding was returned confirming rejection in the issuance of caste certificate in his favour, hence, no ground remains to tinker with Annexure-1 which has led to the final decision under Annexure-A/2. 4. Mr. Maharana, learned counsel for the petitioner alleges that the enquiry was not properly held by taking a stand that the matter relates to opposite party No.5, whereas, an Additional Tahasildar, Paralakhemundi interacted with the petitioner which is not in accordance with the Rules. It is alleged the local RI misused the authority and without any enquiry and evidence collected, submitted the field enquiry report. Furthermore, it is contended that enquiry was held at Paralakhemundi which should have been at his migrated place and alleged bias against opposite party No.4 by claiming that the latter intentionally and deliberately prepared the report in order to harass him. It is further contended that the relevant provisions of the Rules especially with regard to field enquiry have not been adhered to. Referring to the rejoinder to the counter affidavit, Mr. Moharana would finally submit that the petitioner is a Hindu though PANO by caste and does not belong to the Christian community and in support of it placed reliance on Annexures-R/4, R/5 and R/6 which are in relation to 'Sradha' held by the family at Puri and Hindu marriage performed by them etc. The contention is that the enquiry report under Annexure-1 is unacceptable and any such decision by opposite party No.2 vide Annexure-A/2 shall have to be interfered with and set aside with a consequential direction to opposite party No.5 to issue SC certificate in favour of the petitioner. The contention is that the enquiry report under Annexure-1 is unacceptable and any such decision by opposite party No.2 vide Annexure-A/2 shall have to be interfered with and set aside with a consequential direction to opposite party No.5 to issue SC certificate in favour of the petitioner. In course of hearing, reliance is also placed on Annexure-5, a copy of the caste certificate issued in favour of the sister of the petitioner to show that such a certificate was issued in 2016 which proved her to be Pano by caste recognized as Scheduled Caste. 5. As per Rule 4 of the Rules, where a person claims to belong to SC or ST, it has to be verified whether he and his parents actually of the said community included in Presidential Order specifying SCs and STs in relation to the State of Orissa and that he should profess either Hindu or Sikh religion and in respect of a claim visà-vis ST, the person may profess any religion. As to the manner in which an enquiry has to be held, it has been brought to the notice of the Court about the letter dated 9th January, 2009 of the Government of Orissa in Revenue and Disaster Management Department which outlined the guidelines to be followed during such enquiry and therein, it has been clarified that the verification of Records of Rights may be done in case of persons having land, however, the field visit report should be prepared in the shape of a memorandum and while preparing it corroborative evidence of the castes of parentage along with their peculiar anthropological ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the caste or tribes or the tribal communities should find place therein besides the social status of the person would require verification as to the place he usually resides at or in case of migration, the place from which he originally hailed from. It is further stipulated that the field visit should incorporate the examination of parents, guardian and such other local persons having knowledge regarding the social status of the person. 6. Mr. Moharana, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the evidence as at Annexures-R/4 to R/7 to substantiate that the petitioner does not belong to Christian community though a Pano by caste. 6. Mr. Moharana, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the evidence as at Annexures-R/4 to R/7 to substantiate that the petitioner does not belong to Christian community though a Pano by caste. The conclusion at the end of enquiry by opposite party No.4 is that the petitioner is a Pano but does not profess Hindu religion. In course of enquiry, as revealed from Annexure-1, opposite party No.4 examined relations of the petitioner as well as locals known to his family and interacted with his other family members. One of the sisters of the petitioner as made to appear is married to her maternal uncle's son, who belongs to Christian community, the fact which has also been admitted. In course of such an enquiry, it is further revealed that the late father of the petitioner and his family belong to Pano caste but adopted Christianity. Interestingly, the enquiry also revealed that the dead bodies found to have been buried coffin which is unknown among the Hindu community. In fact, opposite party No.4 could not be satisfied as to why the dead body of the petitioner's father was buried. One Ananta Guru was examined who at the time of the enquiry was working as a peon in the office of the SubCollector, Paralakhemundi and he claimed that in respect of the late father of the petitioner, funeral ceremony has been performed and further stated that in some of the villages under Rayagada Tahasil, dead bodies of Pano caste by Hindu religion are being buried, however, on being confronted by opposite party No.4, he could not substantiate the same by showing any such Hindu having been buried in coffin or laid to rest like a Christian. After examination of family members of the petitioners and marriages having taken place with families of Christian with such other evidence received, it created a doubt for opposite party No.4 to believe that any of them to profess Hindu religion. As most of the family members of the petitioner are married to Christians, the details of which have been mentioned in the report, the conclusion of opposite party No.4 was otherwise which is to the effect that the family may not be considered as PANO HINDU. As most of the family members of the petitioner are married to Christians, the details of which have been mentioned in the report, the conclusion of opposite party No.4 was otherwise which is to the effect that the family may not be considered as PANO HINDU. Each and every detail of the life style and regular practices followed by the petitioner's family has been brought on record by opposite party No.4 to suggest that the family is Pano by caste but not professing the Hindu religion. The aforesaid findings under Annexure-1 is sought to be challenged with the additional evidence referred to by Mr. Moharana, learned counsel for the petitioner, which, in the considered view of the Court, would not be wise and proper to accept. When a detailed enquiry has been held and a conclusion is reached at that the petitioner though a Pano by caste but does not proess Hindu religion with a report received from opposite party No.4 which has further led to decision a by opposite party No.2 vide Annexure-A/2, the petitioner cannot be treated as a Schedule Caste. Admittedly, the demand is not for issuance of ST certificate. So, therefore, as per Rule 4 of the Rules and in view of Sub-rule 4 thereof, the petitioner cannot be allowed to have an SC status in absence of clear and unimpeachable evidence to show that he professes Hindu religion when there has been material on record revealed through Annexure-1 to show that the family rather professed Christianity. In respect of any such claim that a Hindu Pano of the petitioner's community performs burial of dead bodies and not cremation, it could not be satisfactorily established during enquiry and when there has been evidence collected by opposite party No.4 to show that marriages have taken place with Christian families, it has to be held that the petitioner though Pano but is not a Hindu. In other words, the conclusion on the basis of Annexure-1 would be that the petitioner's family though claimed to be PANO HINDU but the same stood shrouded with suspicion and overwhelmed by evidence to suggest that Christian religion is being professed by them and the report on record cannot be discarded nor the later finding vide Annexure-A/2 is to be held as incorrect. When a serious doubt has been entertained by opposite party No.4, who himself visited the locations with a conclusion reached at, the Court does not find any compelling reasons to interfere with it. Furthermore, the allegation of malafide is wholly inappropriate and thoroughly misconceived since opposite party No.4 did not have any axe to grind vis-a-vis the petitioner or the latter's family, which is again not substantiated by any evidence brought on record. 7. Hence, it is ordered. 8. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed.