ORDER : 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:- “10.1 It is, kindly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records concerning petitioner's case from the possession of the respondents the high level committee as also from the commissioner, Tribal welfare, in the matter of enquiries etc of the petitioner's case regarding the caste certificate for its kind perusal. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ/directions for quashing the order dated 09.01.2015 passed by the respondent No. 2. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to issue appropriate writ of mandamus restraining the respondent no.3 from taking any coercive action of dismissal of the petitioner from service etc. pursuant to the impugned order dated 09.01.2015. 10.4 Any other relief/relief's, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner passed an examination of Sub Inspector in Central Police Organization against the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe Community. The caste certificate pertaining to social status as Halba Community was issued to the petitioner by the competent authority. The respondent No.3 verified the petitioner’s caste certificate from the respondent No.2. The petitioner before the respondent No.2 submitted her representation dated 22.03.2011 along with relevant documents showing her to be belonging to S.T. (Halba) Community. The petitioner submitted caste certificate of her father, great grandfather, voter I.D. of her father, House Registry of great grandfather and also submitted a letter/notification issued by respondent No.1 dated 18.11.1982 and other relevant documents, but without considering the same respondent No.2 vide its order dated 19.05.2012 turned down the verification of Caste Certificate of petitioner. The respondent No. 2 erroneously without considering the representation and documents submitted therewith communicated the same to respondent No.3 that due to non availability of relevant documents, the respondent No. 2 is unable to issue caste verification certificate. The order dated 19.05.2011 was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore. The order dated 19.05.2011 was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore. The order dated 19.05.2011 and subsequent charge sheet dated 08.10.2012 were quashed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 16.01.2014 and the respondents were directed to refer the matter to the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee. Thereafter the Caste Scrutiny Committee vide order dated 09.01.2015 (Annexure-P/1) cancelled the petitioner’ caste certificate as Halba Scheduled Tribe Community, against which the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent committee has failed to comply with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court thereby caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. The findings recorded by the respondent committee are highly perverse. The jurisdiction of the scrutiny committee is limited only to opine into the caste on the basis of findings of facts. The opinion of the committee should be based on sociological, ethnological, etymological and anthropological accounts. The findings recorded by the committee are more in the nature of conjectures and surmises rather than of definite conclusions. The committee has applied rigid and unwarranted standards of burden of proof. Upon notice having been issued to the petitioner, the petitioner discharged her burden of producing ample material on record, but the committee has erred in law as well as in facts while rejecting petitioner’s case. The petitioner has not been afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard nor was she allowed to lead oral evidence. The respondent authorities have failed to see that the reply and documents connected therewith filed by the petitioner show that she belongs to the 'Halba' Tribe. The respondents did not consider and properly interpret various circulars issued by the Governments both Central as well as State from time to time in this regard. The action of the authorities is violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner and hence warrants interference of this Court. The respondents erred is not considering the notification / letter issued by Ministry of Home Affairs dated 18.11.1982, which specifically states that caste certificate issued to the migrant from other states / UT is required to be considered genuinely. The action of the authorities is violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner and hence warrants interference of this Court. The respondents erred is not considering the notification / letter issued by Ministry of Home Affairs dated 18.11.1982, which specifically states that caste certificate issued to the migrant from other states / UT is required to be considered genuinely. The respondent No.2 erred in not considering the fact that the formation of State of Chhattisgarh took place in year 2000 while the caste certificate produced by the petitioner was of year 1995 which was issued by the competent authority, Raigarh (earlier in M.P now in C.G.). It is further submitted that the father of the petitioner was under central services and the certificate issued by the Ministry specifically states that he belongs to S.T. (Halba). Even in the letter/orders dated 19.05.2011 and 09.04.2012, the respondent No.2 have never said that the caste certificate produced by the petitioner is fake. Infact it is stated that the respondent No. 2 is unable to issue caste verification certificate. The State of Chhattisgarh had issued the order dated 27.06.2007 wherein definition of bonafide residents of Chhattisgarh has been defined and explained which includes (1) persons belonging to the central services posted at Chhattisgarh, their spouses or children; (ii) all the employees of State of Chhattisgarh, their spouses or children; (iii) Persons appointed on Constitutional or Statutory posts by President of India, their spouses or children, (iv) Corporation, Agencies, Commissions, Board's, Officials/ Officers/ employees, their spouses or children. This Government order is to benefit the petitioners-students with respect to bonafide residents of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner is in the service of the respondents since year 2004, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of protection against ouster from service. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and others and the order passed by this Court in the matter of Srimati Jayarani Morla vs State of Chhattisgarh and others passed in WPC No.5709/2011 vide dated 12.09.2019. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 & 3 opposes the submission made by the petitioner’s counsel and submits that the petitioner was appointed as Sub Inspector with the respondent Department on 20.10.2004. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 & 3 opposes the submission made by the petitioner’s counsel and submits that the petitioner was appointed as Sub Inspector with the respondent Department on 20.10.2004. The terms of appointment provides that her appointment is subject to submission of caste certificate as she has claimed her appointment on the basis of Halba Caste, which comes under the Scheduled Tribe Community. The respondents have issued various directions to the petitioner to submit caste certificate from the State of Maharashtra, but she has failed to submit the same. The respondents had issued charge sheet to the petitioner on 08.10.2012. The said charge sheet was quashed by the High Court of M.P. in W.P. (C) No.547/2013 vide order dated 16.01.2014 and the respondents were directed to refer the matter to the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee. The High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Madhuri Patil has conducted the enquiry. The enquiry report has clearly established that the certificate issued by the Raigarh Sub Divisional Officer is not a genuine certificate. The respondents in view of findings recorded by the Caste Scrutiny Committee issued notice dated 13.02.2015 to the petitioner, but the same was not replied by the petitioner. The petitioner in spite of giving repeated opportunity has failed to produce the caste certificate from the State of Maharashtra, as well as failed to establish before the caste Scrutiny Committee that her caste certificate is genuine one. The findings recorded by the Caste Scrutiny Committee is perfect, legal, justified and not liable to be interfered. The respondents from the very first day of appointment has been directing the petitioner to produce the caste certificate, but she has failed to produce the same. Therefore, the writ petition may kindly be dismissed. 5. No one appears on behalf of the respondent No.2 despite notice being served. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. This is an admitted position in this case that the petitioner is having caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Raigarh in the year 1995 and the petitioner has been working in the respondent Department since 2004 i.e. almost 20 years. Earlier the respondents had issued charge sheet to the petitioner on 08.10.2012. 7. This is an admitted position in this case that the petitioner is having caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Raigarh in the year 1995 and the petitioner has been working in the respondent Department since 2004 i.e. almost 20 years. Earlier the respondents had issued charge sheet to the petitioner on 08.10.2012. The said charge sheet was quashed by the High Court of M.P. in W.P. (C) No.547/2013 vide order dated 16.01.2014 and the respondents were directed to refer the matter to the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee. Thereafter the Caste Scrutiny Committee vide order dated 09.01.2015 (Annexure-P/1) cancelled the petitioner’ case certificate as Halba under the Scheduled Tribe. 8. This Court in WPC No.5709/2011 vide order dated 12.09.2019 held in para 8 and 9 as under:- “8. In the case of Ravikant Meshram Versus State of Chhattisgarh & ors. (WPC No.4408 of 2008, decided on 27th of July, 2010) like nature of issue was under consideration, wherein this Court has relied on the circular issued by the State and reiterated the observation of the Division Bench, which reads as under:- "Thereafter the Government has issued another order dated 27.06.2007 wherein definition of bonafide residents of Chhattisgarh has been defined and explained which includes (i) person belonging to the central cervices posted at Chhattisgarh, their spouses or children; (ii) all the employees of State of Chhattisgarh, their spouses or children; (iii) Persons appointed on Constitutional or Statutory posts by President of India, their spouses or children; (iv) Corporations, Agencies, Commissions Board's, Officials/Officers/employees, their spouses or children. This Government order is to benefit the petitioners-students with respect to bonafide residents of Chhattisgarh. We are of the considered opinion that once such persons have been recognized as residents of Chhattisgarh, then the same analogy shall apply for the purpose of the admission of children of the categories referred to hereinabove are concerned, if their caste is included in the Presidential Order." 9. Similar facts are involved in this case, which would show that the petitioner was born & brought up in Bhilai and the father of the petitioner, who was in service, superannuated from the Bhilai Steel Plant, a Public Sector Undertaking of the Central Government. Consequently, only for the reason that the forefathers of the petitioner were resident of Nagpur, the denial to exercise of jurisdiction by the Additional Tehsildar would be illegal. Consequently, only for the reason that the forefathers of the petitioner were resident of Nagpur, the denial to exercise of jurisdiction by the Additional Tehsildar would be illegal. The petitioner being resident of Chhattisgarh born herein, therefore, is entitled to make an application to the competent authority. Consequently, the order dated 27.05.2011 (Annexure P-7) is quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to make afresh application to the competent authority under the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certificate) Rule, 2013 with the relevant documents and on such application being filed, the competent authority shall consider the same on its own merits.” 9. The Division Bench of this Court in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh and others vs. Dinesh Kumar Sonkusre and other connected matters vide order dated 14.02.2017 passed in WA No. 531/2016 observed in paras 39, 40 and 41 as under:- “39. As far as the present cases are concerned, we are of the view, as already indicated above that these cases are covered by Kavita Solunke (supra), Shalini (supra) and R. Unnikrishnan (supra). The Writ Petitioners in all these cases obtained caste certificates much prior to 2000. In fact, in one case, the caste certificate was obtained as far back as on 01.05.1981. All the Petitioners joined service much prior to 2000. In fact one Petitioner joined on 31.11.1982 and the last Petitioner did so on 16.09.1998. They have completed almost 2-3 decades of service. They obtained the caste certificates at a time when all the persons belonging to “Halba-Koshti” or “Koshti” tribe were being given Scheduled Tribe certificates because of the misconception in the States of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh that “Halba Koshti” and "Koshti" are part and parcel of “Halba” tribe. It was only after the Apex Court delivered judgment in Milind (supra) that the issue was finally resolved. The Petitioners did not falsely claim that they were “Halbas”. The Petitioners are entitled to protection and the learned Single Judge rightly gave them this protection. We accordingly hold that the Petitioners are entitled to be retained in service but with effect from 28.11.2000 they shall be treated to be general category candidates and will not be entitled to claim any benefits of belonging to the Scheduled Tribe. 40. The Petitioners are entitled to protection and the learned Single Judge rightly gave them this protection. We accordingly hold that the Petitioners are entitled to be retained in service but with effect from 28.11.2000 they shall be treated to be general category candidates and will not be entitled to claim any benefits of belonging to the Scheduled Tribe. 40. It would be pertinent to mention that the State of Chhattisgarh was formed w.e.f. 01.11.2000 and the judgment in Milind (supra) was rendered on 28.11.2000 and the protection can only be given to those who were actually "Halba-Koshti" or "Koshti" for the State of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh prior to 28.11.2000 and were therefore treated as "Halbas". 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. This 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.” 10. In the present case also, the petitioner obtained caste certificate in the year 1995 much prior to the year 2000, whereas the petitioner joined her service in the year 2004, as such the petitioner has completed 2 decades of service. 11. In the present case also, the petitioner obtained caste certificate in the year 1995 much prior to the year 2000, whereas the petitioner joined her service in the year 2004, as such the petitioner has completed 2 decades of service. 11. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view of the orders passed by this Court and the fact that the petitioner was issued caste certificate of Halba Scheduled Tribe Community in the year 1995, whereas the petitioner joined the respondent Department in the year 2004 and has served the respondent Department almost 20 years and she is also protected by the interim order passed by this Court 06.02.2015 and it is not the case that the petitioner has obtained the domicile certificate by playing any fraud, it is ordered that the impugned order dated 09.01.2015 shall not affect the petitioner’s service till her retirement, however the petitioner or her legal heirs shall not be entitled to claim any benefits of being Scheduled Tribe Halba Community in future. 12. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to cost.