ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order/report dated 22.06.2009 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Caste Certificate High Level Scrutiny Committee (for short ‘the Scrutiny Committee’) – Respondent No.4, whereby the caste certificate of the petitioner claiming to be ‘Halba’ has been invalidated. 2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner who basically belongs to Mehdiwada Waraseoni, District Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh genuinely belongs to Scheduled Tribe "Halba" as declared by His Excellency the President of India under Article 342 read with Article 366(25) of the Constitution of India. He passed his Higher Secondary examination in the year 1991 from Waraseoni. The Government Secondary School Waraseoni, Balaghat issued a transfer certificate (Annexure P/2) to the petitioner dated 24/01/1998 showing status of the petitioner as "Halba" Scheduled Tribe. A caste certificate (Annexure P/2) was also issued to the petitioner by the Naib Tehsildar, Rajnandgaon which indicates as "Halba". On the basis of caste certificate issued by the Naib Tehsildar, Rajnandgaon, the petitioner secured appointed on 16.08.1995 (Annexure P/3) on the post of Technical Inspector in Handloom Training Center at Raigarh, Madhya Pradesh. After completing the probation of 2 years, the petitioner was regularized on the said post vide order dated 16/06/1998 (Annexure P/4) with effect from 28/08/1995. Further, the Departmental Promotion Committee confirmed the petitioner on the post of Technical Inspector in the Directorate, Handloom, Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 14/09/1999 (Annexure P/5). After carving out of the State of Chhattigarh, the services of the petitioner were allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh vide order dated 14/12/2000 and he was posted at Directorate Handloom, Raigarh. During the course of employment, vide letter dated 18/05/2004, the Assistant Director, Directorate of Rural Industries (Handloom), Raipur Chhattisgarh asked the petitioner to complete the process of caste verification as complaint was made with regard to caste certificate of the petitioner. Vide letter dated 17/10/2005n (Annexure P/6), a departmental enquiry was instituted against the petitioner and the charge sheet was served on the petitioner stating therein that the decision with regard to institution of departmental enquiry was taken under Rule 14 of the aforesaid rules. Four charges were leveled against the petitioner for non-furnishing of relevant information in prescribed pro-forma. Vide letter dated 05/09/2006 (Annexure P/7), the petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the charge sheet. Four charges were leveled against the petitioner for non-furnishing of relevant information in prescribed pro-forma. Vide letter dated 05/09/2006 (Annexure P/7), the petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the charge sheet. He had also submitted the required information in prescribed pro-forma (Annexure P/8) on 26/10/2006. Since the petitioner’s tribe claim was not verified, the employer of the petitioner namely Director, Rural Industries (Handloom) terminated his services vide order dated 08/02/2007 (Annexure P/9). 3. Challenging the order dated 08.02.2007, the petitioner moved a writ petition before this Court being W.P. (S) No. 6580/2007. The said petition was disposed off vide order dated 15.11.2007 (Annexure P/10) with liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appropriate appeal before the Appellate Authority. Thereafter, the petitioner moved a statutory appeal (Annexure P/11) before the Appellate Authority on 26/11/2007. While hearing the appeal, on 30/07/2008 the Secretary recorded on the order sheet (Annexure P/12) that no higher official has the authority to remove any person from service on the basis of suspicion. However, the matter was referred to the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee for verification of the Caste and it was recorded that if the report of the committee is not received within six months, the matter would be considered. Upon completion of the period of six months on 30/01/2009, the petitioner submitted a written request (Annexure P/13) to the Secretary that the period of six months was over and therefore, the appeal may be considered. However the appellate authority did not consider the same. In the meantime, Committee had already started their proceedings. Vide letter dated 25/09/2008 (Annexure P/14), the petitioner was asked to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 20/10/2008 along with the documents pertaining to his caste without issuing any show cause notice as contemplated in the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 in paragraphs 13(5) and 13(6). The petitioner was also not supplied the report of the Superintendent of Police along with the aforesaid letter. The petitioner vide his letter dated 20/10/2008 (Annexure P/15) submitted his reply to the letter dated 25/09/2008 along with the relevant documents and also mentioned therein that he may be given an opportunity of hearing and that he may also be permitted to adduce evidence of persons heading his community who know about the history of his caste. The petitioner vide his letter dated 20/10/2008 (Annexure P/15) submitted his reply to the letter dated 25/09/2008 along with the relevant documents and also mentioned therein that he may be given an opportunity of hearing and that he may also be permitted to adduce evidence of persons heading his community who know about the history of his caste. He also requested that he be allowed to have the services of defense assistant. When the Scrutiny Committee made no remarks to the letter of the petitioner dated 20/10/2008, the petitioner was constrained to write a letter dated 10/11/2008 (Annexure P/16) asking them to give the opportunity of hearing, list of witnesses, records etc and to examine, cross-examine and re-examine the witnesses. In this letter, the petitioner specifically referred to the Historical work of HH Risley, Denzil C.J.Ibbetson, and John C. Nesfield as contained in "The Tribes and Castes of Bengal" Volume II (Annexure P/17). The Scrutiny Committee had already initiated the proceedings against the petitioner which is evident from the report (Annexure P/18) submitted by the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance Officer), Balaghat dated 24/01/2008. 4. According to the petitioner, the copy of this report was given to the petitioner on 10/11/2008 only when he asked for it. The Scrutiny Committee did not issue any show-cause notice as contemplated in paragraph 13(6) of the judgment in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) which requires that "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 acknowledgment due or through the head of the educational institution concerned in which the candidate is studying or employed". The report of the vigilance officer would clearly indicate that he has made no investigation with regard to sociological, anthropological and ethnological aspects of the caste of the petitioner. This has resulted in grave prejudice to the petitioner causing serious civil consequences. Moreover the inaction on part of the vigilance officer and the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee is in violation of the directions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). 5. The petitioner had sought a month's time for submitting his reply. Moreover the inaction on part of the vigilance officer and the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee is in violation of the directions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). 5. The petitioner had sought a month's time for submitting his reply. As the hearing was fixed before the expiry of a month, the petitioner could not submit his reply. Therefore, prayer was made to give next date of hearing. The request (Annexure P/19) was sent by fax to the Committee but it took no cognizance thereof and issued a letter dated 04/03/2009 (Annexure P/20) as to why the matter be not proceeded in his absence ¼vne iSjoh½- Replying to the said letter, the petitioner submitted on 23/03/2009 (Annexure P/29) that till date he was not given the show-cause notice upon receipt of vigilance report as contemplated by Hon'ble Supreme Court and that he was also not given the copies of the documents, evidence, charges etc. that were being used against him. 6. According to the petitioner, despite reminders the Committee did not follow the procedure laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, vide his letter dated 25/05/2009 (Annexure P/22) again the petitioner sought the show cause but the same was not given. A request was made by the petitioner for issuance of Show- cause notice enabling him to reply to all the points, but the same was not issued. Further, in absence of the show-cause notice the petitioner was prejudicially affected, as he could not produce his witnesses to support his claim, he could not produce the important documents pertaining to the caste system and the manner in which the castes were recorded in pre-independent India (British India). He could not bring the historical facts that during British India, the caste system was recorded on the basis of community of occupation rather than the traits. He also could not bring the fact to the notice of the Scrutiny Committee that the word "Koshti" written in the place of caste of his father and grandfather was with regard to the community of occupation. 7. He also could not bring the fact to the notice of the Scrutiny Committee that the word "Koshti" written in the place of caste of his father and grandfather was with regard to the community of occupation. 7. The Scrutiny Committee, after scrutiny, invalidated the caste certificate of the petitioner stating that the petitioner belongs to "Koshti" community, which is in the list of "Other Backward Classes" of the State and not “Halba” Scheduled Tribe, leading to the instant petition seeking following relief(s) :- “10.1 This Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the proceedings with regard to issuance of impugned order for its kind perusal. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 22.06.2009 (Annexure P/1) 10.3 This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the whole proceedings conducted against the petitioner as the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the guidelines issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10.4 This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages and compensate the petitioner to the extent of Rs.2 lakh. 10.5 The Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass such other orders as it may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 8. Mr. R.S. Marhas, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the proceeding conducted by the Scrutiny Committee is illegal as the same was not carried out in accordance with the directions contained in para 13 (5) and 16 (6) issued by Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Madhuri Patil (supra). The directions clearly provide for supply of report of Vigilance Officer to the candidate by a registered post or through the head of the educational institution concerned in which the candidate is studying or employed. Learned counsel further submits that the Scrutiny Committee ought to have issued show cause notice to the petitioner after receipt of the vigilance report so as to enable him to produce witnesses and other evidence in support of his claim, but the same has not been done in the petitioner’s case. As such, the whole proceeding drawn/carried out by the Scrutiny Committee vitiated on this ground alone. As such, the whole proceeding drawn/carried out by the Scrutiny Committee vitiated on this ground alone. According to him, the investigation ought to have been held with regard to anthropological, sociological, ethnological aspects but the Scrutiny Committee which hold the status of quasi judicial authority did not enquire in to them and without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petition issued the impugned order, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. Learned counsel further submits that the trible customs are peculiar to each tribe or tribal communities and are still begin maintained and preserved. Their cultural advancement to some extent may have modernized and progressed but they would not be oblivious to or ignorant of their customary and cultural past to establish their affinity to the membership of a particular tribe. The Scrutiny Committee conducted the proceeding with fixed mind set over the status of the petitioner. Without holding any enquiry into the genuineness of the certificate, the Scrutiny Committee arrived at the conclusion that the caste certificate of the petitioner is forged. Placing reliance on the decision in Writ Appeal No. 531/2016 & other connected appeals [State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of General Administration Department & Ors. Vs. Dinesh Kumar Sonkusre] dated 14.02.2017, it was submitted that the petitioner did not obtain caste certificate by playing any fraud and on the basis of stray entry in his father’s school register, the petitioner’s claim could not be discarded and since the petitioner secured appointment prior to 2000, he is entitled for service protection. It was thus submitted that the impugned order dated 22.06.2009 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Scrutiny Committee was liable to be set aside and respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages and compensate the petitioner to the extent of Rs.2 Lakh. As regards the order of termination passed by the petitioner’s employer before the impugned report of Scrutiny Committee, it was submitted that the Scrutiny Committee did not record any finding that the tribe certificate submitted by the petitioner for verification was a forged document. In absence of any such finding being recorded by the Scrutiny Committee, the order dated 08.02.2007 (Annexure P/9) passed by the Disciplinary Authority on the premise that the petitioner has submitted a forged tribe certificate was unsustainable. In absence of any such finding being recorded by the Scrutiny Committee, the order dated 08.02.2007 (Annexure P/9) passed by the Disciplinary Authority on the premise that the petitioner has submitted a forged tribe certificate was unsustainable. For this reason, the conclusion recorded by the Disciplinary Authority was erroneous and that order was liable to be set aside. 9. Mr. Kunal Das, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent Nos. 2 to 5 strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that vide order dated 16.08.1995, the petitioner secured appointed on the post of Technical Inspector against the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe in the Department of Rural Industries (Handloom) and upon completion of probation period of two years, his services were confirmed. After receiving some complaints regarding the caste of the petitioner, a notice was given to the petitioner by Director, Directorate of Rural Industries (Handloom) to furnish detail information in the pro-forma for sending the same to the Scrutiny Committee. It was further submitted that when the petitioner did not supply the required information, a reminder was issued on 17.05.2005 followed by subsequent reminders on 03.06.2005, 08.07.2005, 26.07.2005 and 16.08.2005, but the petitioner did not furnish the required information regarding his caste, and due to non-compliance and non-supply of required information, the petitioner was put under suspension and charge sheet was also issued to the petitioner and inquiry was conducted in which the report of the Inquiry Officer dated 26.09.2006 was received. Thereafter, the petitioner, on 31.10.2006, fulfilled the proforma and supplied the information regarding his caste/tribe. 10. Learned State counsel also submits that as per the report dated 26.09.2006, the charge sheet was found proved against the petitioner and therefore, he was removed from service vide order dated 08.02.2007. The termination order was subjected to challenge before this Court by way of writ petition being W.P.(S) No.6580/2007, which was vide order dated 15.11.2007, disposed off with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate appeal before the appellate authority. The petitioner filed appeal, which was dismissed and the information supplied by the petitioner was sent for verification to the Scrutiny Committee and the Scrutiny Committee passed the impugned order dated 22.06.2009 after perusing the report of the Vigilance Cell. The petitioner filed appeal, which was dismissed and the information supplied by the petitioner was sent for verification to the Scrutiny Committee and the Scrutiny Committee passed the impugned order dated 22.06.2009 after perusing the report of the Vigilance Cell. According to report, the petitioner received his school education at Waraseoni, District Balaghat (M.P.) and as per the school records, the caste of father of the petitioner as per admission register dated 01.04.1939 is ‘Koshti’, which is not recognized as Scheduled Tribe under Article 342 of the Constitution of India. The Scrutiny Committee had given as many as 08 opportunities to the petitioner to produce any documentary evidence in which the caste of his father or ancestors was recorded as ‘Halba’ and regarding belonging of the petition in district Rajnandgaon, but no such documents were filed. It was thus submitted that the claim of the petitioner of belonging to ‘Halba’ Scheduled Tribe had been rightly discarded. The Scrutiny Committee after considering all relevant aspects rightly held that the claim of the petitioner was not proved. Since all the relevant material was considered by the Scrutiny Committee, there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee. The writ petition was liable to be dismissed. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. It is not disputed in this case that the petitioner secured appointment on the post of Technical Inspector against Schedule Tribe category in the Department of Rural Industries (Handlooms) on 16.08.1995 in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh and after completion of probation period he was confirmed on the post vide order dated 16.06.1998 and vide order dated 14.09.1999, he was made permanent employee and after formation of new State, his services were allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh. It is also not disputed that on some complaints regarding the caste of the petitioner, an inquiry was conducted against the petitioner, his case was referred to the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee and the Scrutiny Committee after being found that the petitioner belongs to ‘Kosti’ Caste (O.B.C.) and not ‘Halba’ Scheduled Tribe, the caste certificate (Annexure P/2) of the petitioner was cancelled vide impugned order dated 22.06.2009 (Annexure P/1). 13. 13. The petitioner seeks to support his claim of belonging to ‘Halba’ Scheduled Tribe on the strength that the Scrutiny Committee did not follow the guidelines contained in paragraph 13 (5) and 13 (6) issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Madhuri Patil (supra) because in some document the caste ‘Halba’ is being found and in some document in particular the school record of the petitioner’s father caste ‘Kosti’ has been found. For sake of convenience, the guidelines contained in paragraphs 13 (5) and 13 (6) are reproduced herein as under :- "13 (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. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together wit 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. 15 (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 acknowledgment 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 enquiry 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 claims. 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." 14. It transpires from the record and the impugned order (Annexure P/1) that after receipt of vigilance report no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner so as to enable him to produce witness in support of his claim nor any investigation with regard to anthropological, sociological, ethnological had been conducted by the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee did not comply with the aforesaid guidelines. 15. While dealing with the issue of caste verification having stray entry in the record, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition No.5095/2021 (Dr. Parasram Kisan Nandankar Vs. Vice Chairman, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and Ors.) decision dated 20.10.2023, held in paras 6 and 7 as under :- “5. The other document that has been considered by the Scrutiny Committee is an extract from the property register dated 15.05.1963. The entry therein has been taken on the basis of a sale deed dated 01.04.1963. Against the name of the petitioner and his brothers, the word Koshti has been mentioned. By deleting the name of the previous owner, the names of family members of Vithoba including the petitioner were inserted in the records. The records of this document were also summoned by the Scrutiny Committee and the same were examined on 18.02.2020. Against the name of the petitioner and his brothers, the word Koshti has been mentioned. By deleting the name of the previous owner, the names of family members of Vithoba including the petitioner were inserted in the records. The records of this document were also summoned by the Scrutiny Committee and the same were examined on 18.02.2020. Since reference of the word Koshti was found there, the Scrutiny Committee has proceeded to accept this document as indicating the petitioner's social status. In reply to this document the petitioner stated that the word Koshti referred to the identity of persons who were locally identified on the basis of their occupation of weaving. The same did not indicate the petitioner's social status. In this regard, we find that the document of 1963 finds place in the Property Rights Register of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation. The information supplied to the petitioner in this regard indicates that under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 as well as the Maharashtra Registration Rules, 1961, it was not mandatory to record the caste of the persons concerned while registering any document or taking entries in that regard. We further find that this document of 1963 is subsequent to the school record of the year 1959 which specifically records the social status of the petitioner as Halba. There is no reason whatsoever to ignore the document of 1959 that has been produced from the proper custody in preference to the document of 1963 which does not specifically indicate the significance of the word Koshti as to whether it indicated the social status or the profession of the persons named therein. The importance to be given to old documents has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priya Pramod Gajbe (supra) since such documents have greater probative value. We may also refer to the decision in Ashwin Rajendra Parate (supra) wherein it has been held that merely because a document prior to 1950 is not produced, the claim of such person cannot be denied for that reason. The aspect of Koshti denoting weaving occupation has been considered in Vinayak Narhari Nandanwar (supra). 7. We therefore find that the Scrutiny Committee erred in not giving due weightage to the oldest document dated 31.07.1959 that was produced from the proper custody and which had the entry Halba. The aspect of Koshti denoting weaving occupation has been considered in Vinayak Narhari Nandanwar (supra). 7. We therefore find that the Scrutiny Committee erred in not giving due weightage to the oldest document dated 31.07.1959 that was produced from the proper custody and which had the entry Halba. It is not the finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee that there was any tampering with the school records or that there was any doubt with regard to the said document The Scrutiny Committee therefore was not justified in ignoring this document without any justifiable and cogent reason. On the aspect of affinity, the legal position is now clear in view of the decision in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarkshan Samiti vs. State of Maharashtra and others [2023 (2) Mh. L. J. 785]. The affinity test cannot be treated as a litmus test and the claim of a person cannot be disregarded solely on this basis. With the passage of time and advancement, it would not be justifiable to expect the old traits and customs being followed even today. We therefore find that the petitioner’s claim of belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe ought to have been accepted by the Scrutiny Committee.” 16. Further, while dealing with the matter where stray entry in the school record was found, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Nagpur Bench in decision dated 23.07.2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 4157/2005 (Vinayak S/o Narhari Nandanwar Vs. The Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificates & Ors.), held in paras 4, 5 and 6 held as under :- “04. On going through the record, we are satisfied that the Scrutiny Committee was wrong in repudiating the claim. If there is a reference of Halba and Halbi in the pre- constitutional documents, how you can deny them as a proof of "Halba - Scheduled Tribe". There is also a reference of Koshti/Weaver as a caste in the school record of one Uttam Sitaram Nandanwar, who is a relative of the petitioner. Mere reference of 'Koshti' in one of the document, the claim also cannot be denied. 'Koshti' may be a caste, but many a times it is used to denote the weaving occupation. A member of 'Halba" community may profess a weaver's occupation and that occupation may be recorded in the documents. So, on that ground, the claim can not be denied, particularly, when there are pre- constitutional documents supporting the claim. 'Koshti' may be a caste, but many a times it is used to denote the weaving occupation. A member of 'Halba" community may profess a weaver's occupation and that occupation may be recorded in the documents. So, on that ground, the claim can not be denied, particularly, when there are pre- constitutional documents supporting the claim. 05. In this case, we have got two pre-constitutional documents and one post-constitutional document of the year 1956. These documents mention Halba-Halbi. It is not in dispute that Narhari Raoji Nandanwar is father of the petitioner. He agreed to purchase the plot from one Mohammad Khiyaj. A writing was prepared on 29th June, 1944. There is a reference of Halbi in the said document. So also in the certificate issued thereby granting occupancy right to said Narhari Raoji, there is a reference of Halbi. It is issued by Nazul Officer, Ellichpur on 17/08/1946. 06. Apart from these documents, there are 2 post- constitutional documents. They are of the year 1953-1956 (immediately after the constitution). There is an extract of Birth Registration certifying a birth of son Maruti born to Narhari Raoji Nandanwar (father of petitioner). His caste is recorded as Halbi. It is of dated 1st October, 1956. School Transfer Certificates of 28/07/1987 pertains to Mahadev Nandanwar, brother of the petitioner. His date of birth is 22/09/1946. Tribe of Narhari is mentioned as "Halbi". There is no grievance that all these documents are forged and fabricated documents. During the relevant period, the constitutional order was either not in force or there was no awareness about the benefit of reservation. It has got a great probative value. 17. In the instant case also, the stray entry has been found in the school record of petitioner’s father and on the basis of said entry the caste certificate of the petitioner has been invalidated, but the Scrutiny Committee did not issue show cause notice to the petitioner and not supply the Vigilance Report in terms of guideline passed in the matter of Madhuri Patil (supra) to examine this aspect in detail whether the word ‘Koshti’ denotes caste or the weaving occupation. Had the aforesaid guideline been followed, the outcome of the investigation would have been different. 18. Coming to the order passed by the petitioner’s employer, it is seen that the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner when he was in service. Had the aforesaid guideline been followed, the outcome of the investigation would have been different. 18. Coming to the order passed by the petitioner’s employer, it is seen that the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner when he was in service. The charge was willful and deliberate disobedience of office instructions in having the social status of the petitioner verified. On this premise, it was stated that the petitioner had produced a false/forged tribe certificate and terminated his services. 19. While dealing with the issue, the Division Bench of this Court in Dinesh Kumar Sonkusre (supra), after observing various judgments and guidelines of Hon’ble Supreme Court held in para 41 as under :- “41. Having held so, we want to clarify that the notification dated 11.01.2016 is not bad in law. It will however have to be read in the context of the law laid down by the Apex Court in various judgments as explained by us above. This notification may not apply to those Petitioners who have obtained jobs prior to 28.11.2000 provided they have obtained Scheduled Tribe certificate “bona fide” and without suppression or misrepresentation of any facts. In case, a person is not a “Halba Koshti” in relation to State of Madhya Pradesh, then that person is not entitled to any protection of law. If a person has obtained a false certificate by misrepresentation of facts or providing wrong information, then that the person is also not entitled to any protection. It is only those who were actually “Halba Koshti” or “Koshti” in the State of Madhya Pradesh and being “Halba Koshti” or “Koshti” believed that they were members of “Halba”, a Scheduled Tribe and who got jobs prior to 28.11.2000, are entitled to such protection. Thsi protection cannot be extended to all and sundry. To give an example, if “Halba-Koshti” from the State of Maharashtra had shifted to State of Madhya Pradesh, then he would not be “Halba-Koshti” belonging to Madhya Pradesh and as such, his certificate would be totally false and such a person would not be entitled to any protection.” 20. Thsi protection cannot be extended to all and sundry. To give an example, if “Halba-Koshti” from the State of Maharashtra had shifted to State of Madhya Pradesh, then he would not be “Halba-Koshti” belonging to Madhya Pradesh and as such, his certificate would be totally false and such a person would not be entitled to any protection.” 20. It is apparent from the aforesaid order that notification dated 11.01.2016 may apply to those petitioners who have obtained job prior to 28.11.2000 provided they have obtained Scheduled Tribe certificate bona fide and without suppression or misrepresentation of any facts and in case a person is not a “Halba-Koshti” in relation to State of Madhya Pradesh then that person is not entitled to any protection of law. It is only those who were actually “Halba Koshti” in the State of Madhya Pradesh and being “Halba-Koshti” believed that they were members of “Halba” Scheduled Tribe and got jobs prior to 28.11.2000 are entitled to such protection. 21. The petitioner has also filed copy of notification dated 02.09.2021 issued by General Administration Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, whereby services of the employees have been protected. The relevant portion i.e. para 4 of the said notification is extracted herein as under :- ^^4@ ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] NRrhlxढ+ fcykliqj }kjk W.A. No.531/2016 ,o vU; vihy ;kfpdkvksa esa ¼;qxy ihB½ }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 14-02-2017 ds vuqikyu esa ,sls O;fDr tks fnukad 28-11- 2000 ls iwoZ lsok esa fu;qDr gSa] tks okLro esa e/;izns'k vkSj NRrhlxढ+ ds gyck tutkfr@leqnk; ds lnL; gSa] ftUgksaus fcuk fdlh rF;ksa dks Nqik;s fcuk gyck dks”Vh@dks”Vh dk tkfr izek.ki= fu;ekuqlkj izkIr fd;k gS] mudh lsokvksa dks laj{k.k dh ik=rk gksxh rFkk fnukad 28-11-2000 ds i'pkr lkekU; Js.kh dks ekuk tk,xk rFkk Hkfo"; esa vuqlwfpr tutkfr ds vkj{k.k dk ykHk izkIr ugha gksxkA^^ 22. In the instant case also, it is clear that the petitioner obtained caste certificate (Annexure P/2) much prior to the year 2000 and transfer certificate of the petitioner in which his caste was written as “Halba” Scheduled Tribe and petitioner was appointed on 16.08.1995. In the impugned order (Annexure P/1), it has not been opined by the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner has obtained caste certificate (Annexure P/2) by playing any fraud or manipulated the document. In the impugned order (Annexure P/1), it has not been opined by the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner has obtained caste certificate (Annexure P/2) by playing any fraud or manipulated the document. The caste certificate (Annexure P/2) was issued to the petitioner after following due procedure and the same cannot be termed to be forge or false. The petitioner has completed almost 2-3 decades of service and as per para 39 of judgment passed in Dinesh Kumar Sonkusre (supra), the petitioner obtained caste certificate at the time when all the persons belonging to “Halba-Koshti” or “Koshti” tribe were being given Scheduled Tribe certificates because of misconception in the State of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh that “Halba Koshti” and “Koshti” are part and parcel of “Halba” tribe. 23. For the aforesaid reasons, the following order is passed :- (i) Since it has been held by this Court that the petitioner has not obtained the caste certificate by playing any fraud, the termination order dated 08.02.2007 (Annexure P/9) of the petitioner is quashed and set aside. (ii) The petitioner is entitled for protection and he be reinstated in service within a period of one week from the date of order of this Court till his superannuation with all consequential benefits. (iii) The petitioner and his legal representatives shall not be entitled to draw any benefit from his caste certificate (Annexure P/2). (iv) The petition is thus allowed.