JUDGMENT : Pankaj Bhatia, J. 1. An order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).2764 of 2025 passed on 07.03.2025, a request has been made to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months. In pursuance of the said request, the matter is being taken up for decision. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Saharsh Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Shri Krishna Ram Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/ opposite party no.4. 3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 25.01.2023 passed by the opposite party no.1/ State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, Lucknow dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner as well as the consequent order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the opposite party no.3/ District Magistrate, Sultanpur, whereby the election certificate granted to the petitioner as a Gram Pradhan was cancelled. 4. The facts in brief are that the petitioner claims to be elected Pradhan of village- Semari Kala, Block- Pratappur Kamaicha, District- Sultanpur, which was reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate and the petitioner claiming himself to be a Scheduled Caste candidate contested the election held on 19.04.2021 and was declared elected on 02.05.2021. The claim of the petitioner was that he belongs to the caste "Gond", sub-caste "Dhuria" which according to him is recognized as a Scheduled Caste, the said claim was also made on the basis of a Caste Certificate No.490541503125 dated 23.07.2015 issued to the petitioner, wherein the caste of the petitioner was mentioned as "Gond". It is claimed that the opposite party no.4 also contested the same election and lost, however, the opposite party no.4 obtained a new caste certificate of the petitioner on 15.05.2021, which was bearing No.495213010301, wherein the caste of the petitioner was shown as "Kahar", which falls under the OBC category. The petitioner, approached the District Level Authority for cancellation of the forged caste certificate obtained by the opposite party no.4 dated 15.05.2021 but as he did not get any relief, he approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.12656 of 2021 (M/B), which was disposed of by this Court by holding that the remedy of the petitioner would be either before the Tehsildar or before the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee. Thereafter, the opposite party no.4 made a complaint against the petitioner for cancellation of the Scheduled Caste certificate of the petitioner dated 23.07.2015 before the District Magistrate, who issued notices to the petitioner and the District Level Committee constituted under the Government Order, without referring the matter to vigilance cancelled the certificate of the petitioner, which was dated 23.07.2015 by means of an order dated 08.09.2021 and the petitioner was declared as OBC, based upon the certificate obtained by the opposite party no.4 on 15.05.2021. 5. Aggrieved against the said order of the District Level Committee, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Divisional Level Committee and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 17.11.2021. Both the said orders i.e. passed by the District Level Committee as well as the Divisional Level Committee were challenged from moving an appeal before the State Level Committee. The State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, referred the case of the petitioner for investigation to the Vigilance Cell established in pursuance of the Government Order dated 05.01.1996. 6. The report of the Vigilance Cell was submitted in which, it was found that the caste certificate of the petitioner obtained on 23.07.2015 is correct. The said report is on record as Annexure No.7. 7. The State Level Committee, thereafter taking into consideration the report of the Vigilance Cell inquiry, proceeded to analyze the same and ultimately proceeded to dismiss the appeal. In consequent to the said order, the election of the petitioner stood annulled by means of an order passed which is also impugned as Annexure No.2. 8. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of the directions given by the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil versus Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development reported in 1994 (6) SCC 241 , wherein directions were given. My attention is also drawn to para 5 to para 9 of the said judgment, which are quoted here-in-below:- "5. Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in overall 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 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 also should 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 with all particulars as envisaged in the proforma, 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 and dead bodies etc. by the concerned castes or tribes or tribal communities etc. 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 concerned educational institution 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 inquiry to be made in that behalf, the Director on receipt of such representation / reply shall convene the Committee and the Joint / Addl. Secretary as Chairperson who shall give reasonable opportunity to the candidate / parent / guardian to adduce all evidence in support of their claim. 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. 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-a-vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof. 7. In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed. 8. Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the parents / guardian also in case candidate is minor to appear before the Committee with all evidence in his or their support of the claim for the social status certificates. 9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day-today proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. If after inquiry, the caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or spurious, they should pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and confiscate the same. It should communicate within one month from the date of the conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the parent / guardian and the applicant." 9. The State Government in pursuance with the said direction has issued a Government Order dated 05.01.1996, which is contained in Annexure No.9 to the petition. 10. My attention is drawn to the Government Order, which is on record and specific attention is drawn to clause 5 and 6, which are noticed as under:- 11. In the light of the said, the submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that once, the vigilance report was in favour of the petitioner, it was not open to the State Level Committee, to sit over the said report or to exercise a power of judicial review as has been done by means of impugned order. In the light of the said, the submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that once, the vigilance report was in favour of the petitioner, it was not open to the State Level Committee, to sit over the said report or to exercise a power of judicial review as has been done by means of impugned order. It is further argued that the clause 6 of the Government Order is very specific and clear and elaborates that in the event, the vigilance report is not found in favour of the person, the procedure as prescribed under clause 6 shall be followed. He thus argues that the State Level Committee, had no jurisdiction to sit over the report of the vigilance and to take stand, contrary to the vigilance report as has been done by means of the impugned order. 12. He draws my attention to the Annexure No.1, wherein the report of the vigilance was placed and considered by the State Level Committee, the State Level Committee thereafter analyzed the said report and recorded its disagreement on the basis of the analysis of the material, based upon which, the vigilance report was submitted and thus proceeded to dismiss the appeal. 13. In the light of the arguments as raised above, it is argued that once, the vigilance report was in favour of the petitioner, the passing of an order dismissing an appeal was beyond the power and scope of the State Level Committee as such, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. While attacking to the Annexure No.2 it is a consequential order whereby the election of the petitioner was quashed, a reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Dhirendra Kumar versus State of U.P. & others, Writ-C No.7137 of 2020 decided on 08.09.2020, to argue that the procedure for upsetting the election, is prescribed under the Panchayat Raj Act and rules and without following the said procedure, the elected candidate cannot be revoked. It is also argued that this question whether the cancellation of the election on the ground of cancellation of the caste certificate can be done under the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act and rules or only through an election petition, has been referred to a Full Bench, however, no orders have been passed by the Full Bench determining the said issue. 14. 14. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.4, on the other hand, argues that in terms of the documents which included the document of the father of the petitioner who was working as a Government employee and in his service, the caste "Kahar" was recorded and there is no material to form a view as to how, the petitioner became a Scheduled Caste whereas his father's caste was "Kahar". He also draws my attention to the documents which are on record to demonstrate that in the family register, in front of the petitioner's name, the name is shown as "Kahar of the Godia". 15. In the light of the said, it is proposed to be argued that, the petitioner has used the word "Gond" only as a title and the said use of the word would not amount to change of the caste. He argues that these aspects were not considered by the Vigilance Committee and have been adequately considered by the State Level Committee while dismissing the appeal which warrants no interference under Article 226. 16. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel argues that the order has been passed after analyzing the facts and the discrepancies as were noticed by the State Level Committee and in the light of the impugned order to form a view that the appeal merits a rejection. He argues that the vigilance report, had not considered the service book of the father of the petitioner in its true perspective and thus, no error can be found with the order of the State Level Committee, warranting interference. He further argues that as the Caste Level Certificate of the petitioner was found to be forged, the election contested by him on the foundation of the said caste certificate, deserved to be quashed and has been rightly quashed by means of the order which is contained as Annexure No.2. 17. My attention was drawn to a judgment of the Bombay High Court wherein, it was observed that the report of the vigilance, is to be considered as an evidence in the decision making process by the State Level Committee and thus, the same can only be seen as an evidence and the same is not binding on the State Level Committee. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, very fairly states that in terms of the rules framed in Maharashtra in pursuance with the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) , there is a stipulation that the Vigilance Committee report shall be a material relevant for being considered by the State Level Committee, he however states that in terms of the Government Order issued in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the same is binding on a plain reading of clause 6 of the Government Order. The Court appreciates his fairness. 18. Considering the submissions made at the bar and recorded above, what transpires is that in terms of the general directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), the State Government has issued a Government Order which prescribes the manner of taking decisions in the event of a challenge to the caste certificate and clause 6 of the said Government Order, on a plain reading circumsizes the power of the State Level Committee in the event vigilance report is in favour of any candidate, the power of judicial review can be exercised by the State Level Committee only when, the report is contrary to the person whose caste certificate is sought to be scrutinized. In the absence of their being any adverse report, the State Level Committee in terms of the Government Order did not have any power of judicial review sitting over the report of Vigilance Committee as has been done by means of impugned order. It is also relevant to note that the State Level Committee, is created by the Government Order itself and thus, the same cannot exercise the powers which are not vested in a body in the said Government Order itself. 19. In the present case, order of the State Level Committee dismissing the appeal after analyzing and differing with the report of this Vigilance Committee, is beyond the scope of decision making power conferred upon the State Level Committee and finding the same to be beyond the decision making power of the State Level Committee, the same cannot be accepted and is accordingly quashed. The State Level Committee was bound to accept the report of the Vigilance Committee in terms of the mandate of clause 6 as such, the order passed by the State Level Committee is quashed. The State Level Committee was bound to accept the report of the Vigilance Committee in terms of the mandate of clause 6 as such, the order passed by the State Level Committee is quashed. Directions are issued to the State Level Committee to issue directions to the authority concerned to issue a caste certificate to the petitioner in terms of the recommendation of the Vigilance Committee within a period of four weeks from today. In view of the fact that the order of the State Level Committee has been set aside, the consequential order passed by the District Magistrate under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, which is solely founded on the quashing of the caste certificate also deserves to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. 20. It is further directed that on the strength of the caste level certificate as directed to be issued to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today, the petitioner shall be restored to his position as a Pradhan in terms of his election. 21. The State Level Committee shall pass an order and shall ensure that the competent authority issue a fresh certificate of caste of the petitioner in terms of the earlier caste certificate issued to him on 23.07.2015.