Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 422 (UTT)

Maya Devi @ Mayawati v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-06-18

MANOJ K.TIWARI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Manoj K. Tiwari, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the order dated 13.10.223 (Annexure No. 16) passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bazpur, whereby the respondent NO. 2 makes an approval for cancellation of caste certificate and order dated 07.11.2022 passed the respondent No. 3 (Annexure No. 17) (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent not to take any action against the petitioner in pursuance of impugned order dated 13.10.2022 and 07.11.2022. 2. Petitioner was born and brought up in Village Narauda, Post Office Azam Nagar, Tehsil Billari, Moradabad (U.P.) and was married to one Mr. Babu Ram, who is resident of Village Maheshpura, Tehsil Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar (Uttarakhand). 3. Tehsildar Bazpur issued a certificate in favour of petitioner recognizing her as belonging to ‘Bahelia Community’, which is identified as Scheduled Caste in State of Uttarakhand. Petitioner contested election for the Office of Gram Pradhan, Village Maheshpura, which was reserved in the last election for a person belonging to Scheduled Caste and she was elected as Gram Pradhan. One Mr. Khub Singh (respondent no. 4), made a complaint that petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Caste and she has wrongly obtained caste certificate from Tehsildar Bazpur. Her caste certificate was ultimately cancelled by Tehsildar vide order dated 07.11.2022. The said order was passed by Tehsildar on the recommendation by his Superior Officer, namely, Sub-Divisional Magistrate. 4. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order passed by Tehsildar on 07.11.2022 and also the recommendation made by Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 13.10.2022. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down detailed guidelines for dealing with the complaint, regarding false caste certificates, in the case of Madhuri Patil & another vs Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & others, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 and in the said judgment, it has been provided that validity of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes certificates shall be examined by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. However, in the present case, the complaint, regarding caste certificate of the petitioner, was not referred to the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate himself examined the complaint, and on his recommendation, his Junior Officer passed the cancellation order. However, in the present case, the complaint, regarding caste certificate of the petitioner, was not referred to the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate himself examined the complaint, and on his recommendation, his Junior Officer passed the cancellation order. Thus, it is submitted that impugned orders are unsustainable in the eyes of law and the same may be quashed. 6. In the order passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bazpur on 13.10.2022, whereby recommendation was made to Tehsildar, reference was made to a Government Order No. 1301 dated 22.06.2022 issued by Personnel Department of the State Government. The same was not available on record, therefore, learned State Counsel was asked to get copy of the said Government Order. 7. Today, learned State Counsel produced copy of Government Order No. 1301 dated 22.06.2006 issued by Principal Secretary, Personnel Department, Government of Uttarakhand, which is taken on record. 8. Learned State Counsel submits that in the order passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, reference was made to this very Government Order, although year of Government Order was wrongly mentioned as “2022”, while it was issued in “2006”. 9. Since the Government Order produced by learned State Counsel is issued by the Personnel Department and it also deals with scrutiny of caste certificates, therefore, this Court does not find any reason to disbelieve the statement made by learned State Counsel. This Government Order, after referring to the judgment rendered in the case of Madhuri Patil (Supra), lays down the procedure for examining the validity of the caste certificate and it also provides for constitution of a Scrutiny Committee in each District, Headed by District Magistrate. 10. Learned State Counsel submits that complaint made by respondent no. 4 against petitioner was not referred to the Scrutiny Committee in terms of Government Order dated 22.06.2006, as it applies only to persons who are employed by the State against a reserved post on the strength of their caste certificate. He thus submits that since petitioner has not obtained employment under the State and she was elected as public representative, therefore, her case was not to be examined by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. 11. The said submission cannot be accepted. He thus submits that since petitioner has not obtained employment under the State and she was elected as public representative, therefore, her case was not to be examined by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. 11. The said submission cannot be accepted. Although the Government Order dated 22.06.2006 talks of State Services, however, there is nothing to indicate in the Government Order that it will not apply to a case like the present one where a person is elected to a public office on the strength of a caste certificate. Hon’ble Supreme Court made no distinction in the judgment rendered in Madhuri Patil (Supra) between persons who obtained employment under the State vis-à-vis persons who obtained other benefits on the strength of caste certificate. 12. Even otherwise also, the law, declared in the case of Madhuri Patil (Supra), is law of the land, therefore, the Government Order issued by State Government cannot override the mandatory directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court. As per the said judgment, validity for a caste certificate can be examined only by Caste Scrutiny Committee and not by Sub-Divisional Magistrate. 13 The Competent Authority to issue caste certificate is Tehsildar and Sub-Divisional Magistrate is Superior in hierarchy to Tehsildar, therefore, recommendation made by Sub-Divisional Magistrate to Tehsildar, for cancelling caste certificate, would be binding upon he Tehsildar and he would be left with no choice in the matter. On the other hand, recommendation is advisory in nature and is never binding. Even otherwise also, the order of cancellation passed by Tehsildar in the absence of any report/recommendation of Caste Scrutiny Committee cannot be sustained. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Tehsildar are set aside. The complaint made by respondent no. 4 against petitioner shall be referred to District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee and final decision in the matter shall be taken by the Competent Authority only after submission of report/recommendation of District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee. This Court hopes and expects that the entire exercise shall be completed within four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.