1

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Writ Petition (S) No. 7013 of 2011

Order reserved on : 18/06/2024

Order delivered on : 02/07/2024

Divya Gautam Aged about 25 years, D/o- Late Shri S.P. Gautam, R/o-

Aganpur, Chitrakot Road, Infront of Pollution Control Board, Post Office

Dharampura, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.)

---- Petitioner

Versus

1.State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department,

D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.)

2.High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, Through its President Cum

Secretary, Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe Development Department,

Tribal Research & Training Institute, Pt. Deendayal Upadhayay Nagar,

Sector-4, Raipur (C.G.)

3.Commissioner Cum Member Secretary High Power Caste Scrutiny

Committee Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe Development

Department, Tribal Research & Training Institute, Pt. Deendayal

Upadhayay Nagar, Sector-4, Raipur (C.G.)

4.Secretary, Department of Forest D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur

(C.G.)

5.Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Department of Forest, Aranya

Bhawan, Medical College Road Raipur (C.G.)

6.Divisional Forest Officer South Forest Division, Kondagoan, District

Bastar (C.G.)

---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Kishore Shrivastava, Senior Advocate

along with Mr. Kunal Thakre and Mr. Anumeh

Shrivastava, Advocates

For Respondents/State : Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

C.A.V. Order

1.The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

“10.1To kindly quash the impugned order issued

vide order issued vide No. Chas/Ja.Sa/ S.C./09/2011,

Dated 20/09/2011 by the respondent High Power 2024:CGHC:23290

Neutral Citation

2

Caste Scrutiny Committee, State of Chhattisgarh.

Copy of which is annexed as ANNEXURE P/1.

10.2To kindly direct respondent High Power

Caste Scrutiny Committee to reconsider the case of

the petitioner and verify the petitioner's caste

certificate, without insisting on the records prior to

the year 1950.

10.3To kindly direct respondents No. 4 to 6 not to

take any action against the petitioner till final

decision of reconsideration of the candidature by the

High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee.

10.4 To kindly make any other order that may be

deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of

the case including awarding of the costs to the

petitioner.”

2.The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as follows:-

A)The father of the petitioner, who belongs to the Scheduled

Caste, joined his services in the post of Lower Division

Clerk (LDC) in the Department of Panchayat and Social

Welfare in the year 1972 at Jagdalpur, CG. The date of the

birth of the petitioner is 13.12.1983. She was born and

brought up in Jagdalpur. She passed Class-8th in the year

1997, Class-10th in the year 1999 and Class-12th in the

year 2001 from Nirmal Higher Secondary School,

Jagdalpur (Bastar), CG. She completed her Graduation in

the year 2004 and Post Graduation in the year 2007 from

Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur, CG.

B)The petitioner had applied for issuance of social status

certificate and the same was issued by the competent

authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue),

Jagdalpur, C.G. 15.07.2004 showing her caste ‘Chamar’

which is notified Scheduled Caste within the State of

Chhattisgarh as per the Presidential Order, 1950.

C)An advertisement was issued for the post of Assistant

Conservator of Forest on 29.11.2007. The petitioner 2024:CGHC:23290

Neutral Citation

3

applied as a member of Scheduled Caste, she appeared in

the examination and she was duly selected as she secured

11th rank in the merit list. The petitioner was informed

with regard to her selection by the Chhattisgarh Public

Service Commission vide letter dated 18.05.2009. An

appointment order was issued by the Forest Department,

State of Chhattisgarh on 04.07.2009 and thereafter the

petitioner joined the services.

D)The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste category,

therefore, the petitioner was asked by the department to

get the certificate verified within a period of 03 months.

E)The petitioner moved an application before respondent

No. 2 for verification of her social status certificate which

was received on 24.06.2009.

F)On 21.07.2009, the Committee directed the petitioner to

produce the necessary record prior to the year 1950.

G)On 09.12.2009, the Committee observed in its order sheet

that pursuant to the order dated 21.07.2009, the petitioner

could not produce any document, whereas the burden lies

on the petitioner to prove her social status and again time

was granted.

H)On 11.12.2009 and 16.08.2010 again time was granted to

the petitioner to produce the record prior to the year 1950.

On 18.03.2011, the Committee directed the Vigilance Cell

to submit its report pursuant to the judgment passed by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari

Madhuri Patil and Another Vs. Addl. Commissioner,

Tribal Development and Others, (1994) 6 SCC 241. The

Vigilance Cell submitted its report on 02.08.2011 and it

was considered by the Committee on 03.08.2011. On that

date, notice was issued to the petitioner to afford her the 2024:CGHC:23290

Neutral Citation

4

opportunity of hearing. On 20.09.2011, the order

impugned was passed by the Committee and the social

status certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was

cancelled.

3.Mr. Kishore Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

petitioner argued that:-

I)The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste and her caste is

“Chamar” which is duly recognized by the State of

Chhattisgarh. The caste certificate of the petitioner was not

verified by the Committee within a reasonable time, therefore,

WP(C) No. 477 of 2010 was filed, which was disposed of with

the direction to verify the caste certificate within a period of

four weeks vide order dated 27.07.2010. A contempt petition

was also filed when the order passed in WP(C) No. 477 of

2010 was not complied with and the same was disposed of vide

order dated 10.10.2011 on the ground that the final order had

already been passed on 20.09.2011.

II)The petitioner submitted her educational qualification

documents, various mark sheets, caste certificate issued by the

Tehsildar, Jagdalpur and also by the Sub-Divisional Officer

(Revenue), Jagdalpur, but all the documents are post

Presidential Notification dated 10.08.1950. The father of the

petitioner was a resident of the geographical limits of the State

of Chhattisgarh prior to the bifurcation of the State of Madhya 2024:CGHC:23290

Neutral Citation

5

Pradesh and the reorganization of the State of Chhattisgarh.

III)The Committee adopted the procedure for verification of the

social status certificate of the petitioner contrary to the

judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter

of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). He referred to paras 5, 6

and 7 of the judgment and submitted that the Vigilance Cell

has to submit its report after investigating various factors like

school records, birth registration, the caste of parents, and

guardians, anthropological and ethnological traits of a

particular tribe or caste, deity, rituals, customs, mode of

marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies

and the Committee should also examine such other persons

who have knowledge of social status of the candidates.

IV)If the Committee after receipt of a report from the Vigilance

Officer finds the social status to be “not genuine” or 'doubtful'

or ‘spurious’ or ‘falsely or wrongly claimed’, notice has to be

issued for supplying a copy of the report. If the report is in

favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no

further action need be taken. It is argued that in the present

case, the Committee directed the petitioner to produce the

record prior to the year 1950 and such direction was contrary

to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). The report from

Vigilance Cell was called thereafter. 2024:CGHC:23290

Neutral Citation

6

V)Though the notice was issued to the petitioner on 03.08.2011

after receipt of the report of Vigilance Cell, no opportunity of

hearing was afforded to the petitioner and on 20.09.2011, the

order impugned was passed.

VI)The father of the petitioner has been a government servant

since 1972; therefore, he attained the status of a permanent

resident of the State of Chhattisgarh. He contended that since

the petitioner was born and brought up within the territory of

the State of Chhattisgarh, she was entitled to get the social

status certificate. He submits that though the father of the

petitioner migrated from Village Shivapar, Tehsil and District

Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh, his caste is mentioned as “Chamar”, a

member of Scheduled Caste in the school admission register as

well as in the revenue records of the State of Uttar Pradesh.

VII)It is further contended that it is not a case of the Committee

that the petitioner is not a member of the Scheduled Caste

category. Learned Senior Counsel stated that the father of the

petitioner passed the intermediate examination in the year 1975

from the Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal and B.A.

Final Year Examination in the year 1983 from Pt. Ravishankar

University, Raipur.

VIII)He further referred to the circular issued by the State of

Chhattisgarh dated 17.06.2003 which defines the domicile of

Chhattisgarh, Circular dated 18.07.2004 and 17.06.2007 which 2024:CGHC:23290

Neutral Citation

7

says that persons who are born in the State of Chhattisgarh

although their father/guardian may have their origin in some

other State, yet such persons are deemed to be permanent

residents of the State of Chhattisgarh. He also contended that

the Committee failed to consider various orders issued by the

High Court of Chhattisgarh; and Circulars issued by the State

from time to time and thus cancelled the social status

certificate of the petitioner.

IX)Mr. Kishore Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel has placed

reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra); orders

passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Writ Petition (C)

No. 5070 of 2007, Narendra Dehariya vs. State of

Chhattisgarh & Others; Writ Petition (C) No. 5314 of 2007,

parties being Ku. Bharti Banpuriya vs. State of Chhattisgarh

& Others; orders passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh

in the matter of Grace Marry Minj vs. State of M.P. & Others

in Writ Petition No. 2215 of 2008; the matter of Ajeeta Khedle

(Smt.) vs. State of M.P. and another, 2010 (1) M.P.H.T. 177

(DB) and the matter of Vandana Dhakad vs. State of M.P. and

another, 2014(3) M.P.L.J. 79.

4.On the other hand, Mr. Satish Gupta, the learned Government Advocate

appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by Mr. Kishore

Shrivastava, Senior Advocate. Mr. Satish Gupta argued that though the 2024:CGHC:23290

Neutral Citation

8

father of the petitioner belongs to the “Chamar” caste which is a notified

Schedule Caste within the State of Uttar Pradesh as well as the State of

Chhattisgarh, he is a permanent resident of the State of Uttar Pradesh,

therefore, his daughter would not be entitled to get the benefit of

reservation in the State of Chhattisgarh. He further argued that in the

year 1972, the father of the petitioner came to Jagdalpur, CG. and he

was appointed as LDC in the Department of Panchayat and Social

Welfare, Jagdalpur, C.G., but his migration from the State of Uttar

Pradesh to the State of Chhattisgarh cannot be said involuntary. He also

argued that the circulars issued by the State of Chhattisgarh dated

27.06.2007 and 18.07.2004 deal with the status of employees who have

been allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh or who are surviving in the

State of Chhattisgarh on account to transfer or allocation, whereas the

father of the petitioner himself came to the State of Chhattisgarh and he

was appointed, therefore, the migration of the petitioner cannot be said

compulsive or involuntary. He further contended that the petitioner in

the form submitted for verification of her social status certificate has

concealed certain facts. In Clause 2.6 the petitioner has shown her father

as a permanent resident of Jagdalpur, whereas in the year 1972, he came

from Uttar Pradesh. In Clause 2.7.1 it is declared by the petitioner that

her father has stayed in the State of Chhattisgarh since birth, whereas

her father was born in the District Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh. He also

contended that in Clause 3.2.3, it is declared by the petitioner that her

father completed his primary education at Bhagat Singh Primary 2024:CGHC:23290

Neutral Citation

9

School, Jagdalpur, whereas her father had completed his primary

education in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In Clause 4.1, the petitioner has

shown her father as landless, but in the report of Vigilance Cell, it has

come that in Village Shivapar, District Jaunpur, agricultural land is

recorded in the name of her father. He further stated that sufficient

opportunity was afforded to the petitioner and after a due scrutiny of the

entire material; the decision was taken by the Committee. Mr. Satish

Gupta, the learned Government Advocate, placed reliance on the

judgment passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in the matter of

Smt. Ranikori Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in Writ Petition (227) No. 307

of 2015 dated 21.09.2017.

5.I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length,

considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and perused the

documents placed on record with utmost circumspection.

6.Along with the application for verification of the social status certificate,

the petitioner had annexed various documents such as:-

I.Domicile Certificate issued by the Tehsildar on 28.09.2002 which

shows that the petitioner was born in the State of Chhattisgarh, her

father or parents have been staying in the State of Chhattisgarh since

last 15 years, her father is a government servant, she has studied in

the State of Chhattisgarh for more than 03 years and she has passed

Class-VIIIth and High Secondary from the State of Chhattisgarh.

II.Social status certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer

(Revenue), Jagdalpur dated 15.07.2004 which reflects that the

petitioner belongs to the “Chamar” caste which is a notified

Scheduled Caste in the State of Chhattisgarh. 2024:CGHC:23290

Neutral Citation

10

III.Mark-sheet of Class-VIIIth passed in the year 1997 from Nirmal

Higher Secondary School, Jagdalpur (Bastar); Class-10th passed in

the year 1999 and Class XIIth passed in the year 2001 from Nirmal

High Secondary School, Jagdalpur (Bastar), Chhattisgarh; B.SC. Part

III/Final passed in the year 2004 and M.SC. passed in the year 2007,

both from Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur, C.G.

IV.Certificate of Intermediate Examination of the Year 1975 issued to

the father of the petitioner and passed from the Board of Secondary

Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal; Mark-sheet of B.A. Final of her

father of the Year 1983 passed from Pt. Ravishankar University,

Raipur.

V.The Circular issued on 18.07.2004 says that the government servants

of undivided Madhya Pradesh and employees of other Commission,

Board etc. and family members of such servants would get the

benefit of reservations if their caste is included in the list of SC, ST

or OBC issued for the State of Chhattisgarh. The cases of such

employees/government servants would fall within the category of

involuntary migration.

VI.Circular dated 27.06.2007 defines bonafide residents of Chhattisgarh

and includes:-

(i)Persons belonging to the central services posted at

Chhattisgarh, their spouses or children;

(ii)All the employees of the State of Chhattisgarh, their spouses or

children;

(iii)Persons appointed on Constitutional or Statutory posts by the

President of India, their spouses or children; and

(iv)Corporations, Agencies, Commissions, Boards, Officials/

Officers/employees, their spouses or children.

VII.Circular issued on 17.06.2003 defines permanent residents.

According to the Circular, such a person would be treated as a

permanent resident of Chhattisgarh, if he fulfills any of the 04 2024:CGHC:23290

Neutral Citation

11

conditions:-

1.If he was born in the State of Chhattisgarh.

2.He and his or her parents are staying in the State of

Chhattisgarh at least for 15 years.

3.His or her parents are government servants of the State or

servants of the Central Government in the State of

Chhattisgarh.

4.He himself or his parents are pursuing any business, or

immovable property in the territory of the State of

Chhattisgarh.

7.Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant

Conservator of Forest on 04.07.2009 as a member of the Scheduled

Caste category and she was directed by the Department for verification

of her social status certificate. She moved an application along with her

social status certificate before respondent No. 2, which was received by

the Committee on 24.06.2009. The Committee after taking cognizance

directed the petitioner to produce records prior to the year 1950, but the

petitioner could not produce such documents and thereafter the report of

Vigilance Cell was called which was submitted on 02.08.2011. The

report of the Vigilance Cell would show that the Vigilance Inspector

recorded statements of Mithlesh Kumar Yadav, resident of Village

Shivapar, District Jaunpur; Shyamlal Gautam, resident of Village

Shivapar, District Jaunpur and Baliram, resident of Village Shivapar,

District Jaunpur. The Vigilance Inspector recorded the finding that

various information given in the form for verification is incorrect as the

petitioner is a permanent resident of Village Shivapar, District Jaunpur, 2024:CGHC:23290

Neutral Citation

12

Uttar Pradesh. The father of the petitioner is also a permanent resident

of the same place. The father of the petitioner has pursued his primary

education at Government Primary School Shivapar, District Jaunpur.

The uncle and aunt of the petitioner are staying in the State of Uttar

Pradesh, whereas no information has been given in this regard in the

verification form. The petitioner has shown her father as a landless

person, whereas the name of her grandfather is recorded in the revenue

records at Village Shivapar, District Jaunpur. The Vigilance Inspector

further recorded a finding that the father of the petitioner himself opted

for the State of Chhattisgarh; therefore, it would not fall within the

definition of involuntary migration.

8.In the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has laid down the procedure for verification of social status

certificates. Para – 13, 13.1 to 7 which are relevant for the decision of

this case are reproduced herein below:-

“13. The admission wrongly gained or appointment

wrongly obtained on the basis of false social status

certificate necessarily has the effect of depriving the

genuine Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or OBC

candidates as enjoined in the Constitution of the benefits

conferred on them by the Constitution. The genuine

candidates are also denied admission to educational

institutions or appointments to office or posts under a State

for want of social status certificate. The ineligible or

spurious persons who falsely gained entry resort to dilatory

tactics and create hurdles in completion of the inquiries by

the Scrutiny Committee. It is true that the applications for

admission to educational institutions are generally made by

a parent, since on the that date many a time the student may

be a minor. It is the parent or the guardian who may play

fraud claiming false status certificate. It is, therefore,

necessary that the certificates issued are scrutinised at the

earliest and with utmost expedition and promptitude. For

that purpose, it is necessary to streamline the procedure for 2024:CGHC:23290

Neutral Citation

13

the issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and

their approval, which may be the following:

1.The application for grant of social status

certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub-Divisional

Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner

and certificate shall be issued by such officer rather than

at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level.

2.The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the

case may be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn and

attested by a competent gazetted officer or non-gazetted

officer with particulars of castes and sub-castes, tribe,

tribal community, parts or groups of tribes or tribal

communities, the place from which he originally hails

from and other particulars as may be prescribed by the

Directorate concerned.

3.Application for verification of the caste

certificate by the Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at

least six months in advance before seeking admission

into educational institution or an appointment to a post.

4.All the State Governments shall constitute a

Committee of three officers, namely, (I) an Additional or

Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the

Director of the department concerned, (II) the Director,

Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/ Backward Class Welfare,

as the case may be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled

Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the

verification and issuance of the social status certificates.

In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer

who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes,

tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal

communities.

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 with all

particulars as envisaged in the pro forma, in particular,

of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar

anthropological and enthnological traits, deity, rituals, 2024:CGHC:23290

Neutral Citation

14

customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of

burial of dead bodies etc. by the castes or tribes or tribal

communities concerned 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 of

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 inquiry 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 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. 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.”

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the procedure

according to which the application for the grant of the social status

certificate has to be made to the Revenue Sub-Divisional Officer and

Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner describing particulars of

castes and sub-castes, tribe, tribal community, parts or groups along

with an affidavit. Application for verification should be made at least six 2024:CGHC:23290

Neutral Citation

15

months in advance before seeking admission into an educational

institution or an appointment to a post. The State government has to

constitute/frame a Committee of three Officers, namely- (I) Additional

or Joint Secretary; (II) The Director, Social Welfare/Tribal

Welfare/Backward Class Welfare and (III) Officer who has intimate

knowledge of the verification and issuance of the social status

certificates concerning Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes. The

Directorate has to constitute a vigilance cell consisting of a Senior

Deputy Superintendent of Police who will submit a report after

examining various aspects like peculiar anthropological and

ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death

ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies and such officer shall also

record the statements of such persons who have knowledge of the social

status of the candidate. If the Director after receipt of the report finds

the social status to be “not genuine”, he should issue a show-cause

notice along with the report and if it is found genuine and true, no

further action need be taken.

9.In the matter of Narendra Dehariya (supra) and Ku. Bharti Banpuriya

(supra), the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court while dealing with

the issue with regard to the social status of students who were denied the

certificates whereas they were born and brought up in the State of

Chhattisgarh considered the arguments advanced by the learned

Advocate General appearing for the State that the State Government has

issued the order dated 27.06.2007 wherein the definition of bonafide 2024:CGHC:23290

Neutral Citation

16

residents of Chhattisgarh has been defined and explained, and observed

thus:-

“Learned Advocate General appearing for the

respondents / State informs that the judgment of the learned

Single Judge was wrongly interpreted and in compliance of

the judgment in Writ Petition No. 2510/2004 dated 04-02-

2005, the Government by an order dated 02.02.2006 had

kept its notification dated 08.07.2004 in abeyance.

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) 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 above-cited judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench

of this Court makes it amply clear that all the employees of the State of

Chhattisgarh, their spouses or children fall within the definition of

bonafide residents of the State of Chhattisgarh and they would be

entitled to get the benefit of social status if their caste is included in

Presidential Order.

10.In the matter of Grace Marry Minj (supra), the High Court of Madhya

Pradesh while dealing with a similar issue held that the parents of the

petitioner migrated to the State of Madhya Pradesh at Bhopal prior to

the birth of the petitioner in the year 1985, they are from Scheduled

Tribes Community, her caste is declared as Schedule Caste in both the

States and she had her entire education and career in the State of 2024:CGHC:23290

Neutral Citation

17

Madhya Pradesh, therefore, she cannot be denied benefit of caste

certificate. The relevant part of the said judgment is reproduced herein

below:-

“That apart, in the case of Kamal Kishore

Barapatre (Supra), this Court had considered the

question of migration of Medical Students from the

State of Maharashtra to the State of Madhya Pradesh

and the matter has been decided after taking note of

the judgments rendered by this Court in W.P. No.

1160/2003- Neetu Singh Vs. State of M.P., decided on

16.9.2003 and W.P. No. 5143/2005-Dr. Yamini

Khapre Vs. State of M.P. & Ors., wherein the matter

has been dealt with in the following manner :

“16. However, in the present case, the facts are

entirely different. Petitioner is born in the State

of Madhya Pradesh. She had her entire

education and career in the State of Madhya

Pradesh. Her father migrated in Madhya

Pradesh before her birth i.e. more than 20-25

years back. The caste “Halba” is declared as

Scheduled Caste in both the States and the

Tehsildar, Jabalpur had issued caste-certificate

in her favour in the year 1999 Annexure-P/1.

Thus, the petitioner in the present case is a

bonafide resident of Madhya Pradesh and as has

been held by this Court in the case of Neetu

Singh (supra) she has acquired the status of

permanent domicile in the State of Madhya

Pradesh as she fulfills the following condition

viz-

(i)She is born in the State of Madhya

Pradesh and had her entire education

right from the beginning to MBBS in the

State of Madhya Pradesh; and

(ii)her parents are continuously residing in

the State of Madhya Pradesh for more

than fifteen years.

17. As the petitioner had complied with the

conditions for acquiring the status of a

permanent domicile and, the caste to which she

belongs is declared as Scheduled Tribe in the

State of Madhya Pradesh, there is no reason to

deny her the benefits of caste certificate. ”

Keeping in view the aforesaid legal principles

and the facts and circumstances of the present case,

particularly the fact that the petitioner's parents are 2024:CGHC:23290

Neutral Citation

18

permanently residing at Bhopal, even prior to the

birth of the petitioner in the year 1985, when Jashpur

was part of un-divided State of Madhya Pradesh and

the fact that the respondents do not deny that status of

the petitioner and the fact that her parents are from

Schedule Tribe Community, the insistence upon

producing a caste certificate from the State of

Chhattisgarh and proposing to cancel the admission

on such consideration is nothing but an arbitrary and

illegal action.”

11.In the matter of Ajeeta Khedle (Smt.) (supra), the High Court of

Madhya Pradesh held that the mere fact that the petitioners’ father was

not a resident of Sehore in 1950 when the Presidential Order came into

existence could not be a ground to hold that the petitioners are not

residents of Sehore. The relevant paras – 10, 11, 13 and 14 are

reproduced herein below:-

“10.In Beniprasad (supra), the respondents had

contested the election from Gotegaon as Scheduled

Caste. The election was challenged on the ground that

his forefather belonged to district Shahdol and was

Kumhar by caste and, therefore, he could not have

contested election as Scheduled Caste. This Court,

while dealing with the election petition, held as

follows :-

“Since residence is only the criteria for deemed

to be a Scheduled Caste of that area then in that

respect, the respondent shall be deemed to be a

Scheduled Caste of that area as he got his

residence change to localities specified in that

order.”

11.The matter travelled to the Apex Court and Their

Lordships expressed the view as follows :-

“2.It appears from the discussion in Para 19

of the impugned judgment that the question

regarding the status of the respondent. In

Shahdol District was considered on facts by the

High Court and the High Court referred to the

evidence which was recorded in this behalf

earlier in point of time and after considering the

evidence, the High Court reached the conclusion

that the respondent had succeeded in proving

that he was an ordinary resident of Shahdol 2024:CGHC:23290

Neutral Citation

19

District and also satisfied the test for being

recognised as a “Kumhar” in Shahdol District

and was, therefore, eligible to contest the

election on that basis. The High Court came to

the conclusion that the earlier enquiry

undertaken for enrollment of his name in the

voters’ list for the constituency in question had

become final and could not be questioned in the

election petition and that when the dispute was

raised earlier in point of time evidence was

recorded and on the basis of that evidence a

decision was taken that the respondent was a

“Kumhar” in Shahdol District. The learned

Counsel for the respondent also took us through

the salient aspect of the oral evidence led in this

behalf to satisfy us that the stand taken by the

respondent was well founded. R.W. 1, A.D.

Srivastava was examined as a witness in the

High Court and he stated that he was an

Assistant Registration Officer, Nagar Palika,

Shahdol and that he had brought the record

pertaining to objections filed against the

respondent. He has further stated that after

making the necessary enquiry he rejected the

objection on the strength of the evidence of the

witnesses who deposed before him and that the

Panchnama was prepared by him. The learned

Judge in the High Court, as stated earlier, had

made a brief reference to the evidence in this

behalf in Paras 19 and 20 of the impugned order

and had come to the conclusion that the name of

the respondent having been entered in the voters’

list pursuant to an enquiry on the premises that

he was an ordinary resident of Shahdol District,

that part of the proceedings had terminated and

could not be reopened. We also found that in the

earlier proceedings after an elaborate enquiry

by R.W. 1 it had been found that his family had

been ordinarily residing in Shahdol District till

1952 when he shifted to the neighbouring

Narsinghpur area where the respondent was

born and thereafter the respondent had shifted to

Shahdol District in 1969 and his name had been

entered in the voters’ list in 1985 and he had

been residing there since then and had also

contested elections earlier in point of time all of

which went to show that he was an ordinary

resident of that district. The fact that he was a

“Kumhar” was not in question and as stated

earlier that question was concluded in favour of

the respondent. If he was a “Kumhar” in the

Narsinghpur area the only question was whether 2024:CGHC:23290

Neutral Citation

20

he could get the benefit of belonging to the

“Kumhar” community in Shahdol area also. It

was not contended that he did not specify the

requirements of being recognised as a

“Kumhar” in the Shahdol District but what was

contended was that he should have been a

“Kumhar” in Shahdol District in 1950 when the

Presidential Notification was issued. That

contention does not appear to be correct because

in that case those who are born after the

Presidential Notification would be rendered

ineligible for being considered as belonging to

the Scheduled Castes.” (Emphasis supplied)

13.In the case at hand, the father of the appellants

shifted in the year 1961 to Sehore. The appellants

were born and got educated at Sehore. Therefore,

there can be no scintilla of doubt that they are

residents of Sehore. Hence, they are to be treated as

ordinarily residing in District Sehore. The Presidential

Order in Entry 22 includes ‘dhobi’ as Scheduled

Caste in the districts of Bhopal, Raisen and Sehore.

That apart, it is interesting to note that the evidence

that has been brought on record shows that the

grandparents and great-grandparents of the

appellants belonged to Sehore. Their father was born

at Betul and later on came and stayed at Sehore. The

said aspect has borne out on record and has gone

uncontroverted. Thus, they are to be treated as

residents of District Sehore from both the angles. In

Beniprasad (supra), Their Lordships have held that

the contention to the effect that the respondent should

have been a ‘kumhar’ in Shahdol District in 1950

when the Presidential Notification was issued was not

correct because in that case those who are born after

the Presidential Notification would be rendered

ineligible for being considered as belonging to

Scheduled Caste. The ratio which has been

reproduced by the learned Single Judge in Paragraph

12 is not correctly applied and, therefore, the error

has crept in as the father of the petitioners was not

ordinary resident of Sehore in 1950 when the

Presidential Order came into existence and hence, the

petitioners shall not be entitled to caste certificate.

14.In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered

opinion that the appellants are entitled to caste

certificate as their ancestors were ‘dhobi’ in the

district of Sehore. They were born at Sehore and got

educated and, therefore, they become residents of

Sehore in view of the factum that they do not lose their

caste because of shifting of their father for some

years.” 2024:CGHC:23290

Neutral Citation

21

12.In the matter of Vandana Dhakad (supra), the High Court of Madhya

Pradesh held that as the petitioner was born in the State of Madhya

Pradesh, she had her entire education and career in the State of Madhya

Pradesh, her father migrated in Madhya Pradesh before her birth, the

caste ‘Dhanuk’ is declared Scheduled Caste in both the States and the

competent authority had issued certificate in her favour and thus, the

petitioner is bonafide resident of the State of Madhya Pradesh. The

relevant para- 8 is reproduced herein below:-

“8.Petitioner is born in the State of Madhya

Pradesh. She had her entire education and career in

the State of Madhya Pradesh. Her father migrated in

Madhya Pradesh before her birth i.e. more than 20-

25 years back. The caste “Dhanuk” is declared as

Scheduled Caste in both the States and the competent

authority had issued caste certificate in her favour in

the year 1989 and on 17-5-2002 by SDO Gwalior.

Thus, the petitioner in the present case is a bona fide

resident of Madhya Pradesh and as has been held by

this Court in the case of Neetu Singh (supra), she has

acquired the status of permanent domicile in the State

of Madhya Pradesh as she fulfills the following

conditions viz --

(i)she has born in the State of Madhya Pradesh and

had her entire education right from the beginning

to M.B.B.S. in the State of Madhya Pradesh; and

(ii)her parents are continuously residing in the State

of Madhya Pradesh for more than 25 years.”

13.Now coming to the judgment relied on by Mr. Satish Gupta, the learned

Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/State.

14.In the matter Smt. Ranikori (supra), the petitioner had claimed the

benefit of reservation on the ground that the caste ‘Kori’ is notified as

Scheduled Caste in the State of Madhya Pradesh and in the State of 2024:CGHC:23290

Neutral Citation

22

Chhattisgarh. The petitioner was married to one Naresh Kumar prior to

the re-organization of the State of Madhya Pradesh; therefore, she is

entitled to the benefit of the caste certificate issued by the State of

Madhya Pradesh. Coordinate Bench concluded that merely because a

given caste is specified in State A as a Scheduled Caste or Tribe does

not necessarily mean that if there be another caste bearing the same

nomenclature in another State, the person belonging to the former would

be entitled to the rights, privileges and benefits admissible to a member

of the Scheduled Caste of the later State and eventually the case was

dismissed. Para – 18 which is relevant is reproduced herein below:-

“18.Thus, taking into consideration the constitutional

provisions and authoritative decisions rendered by

Their Lordship of the Supreme Court (Constitution

Bench) in the matter of Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao

(supra) and Action Committee on Issue of Caste

Certificate to SCs/STs (supra) and the judgment of

this Court in the matter of Raj Kapoor Kachwaha

(supra), this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner

being a member of Scheduled Caste in relation to the

State of Madhya Pradesh having caste certificate of

that State is not entitled to the rights, privileges and

concessions admissible to the Scheduled Castes of the

State of Chhattisgarh.”

15.Now coming to the facts of the present case, in light of the above

discussion held so far, it can be concluded that:-

(I)The petitioner and her father belong to the “Chamar” caste

which is notified Scheduled Caste in the State of Uttar

Pradesh as well as in the State of Chhattisgarh.

(II)The father of the petitioner came to the State of Chhattisgarh

in the year 1972 and he was appointed as LDC in the

Department of Panchayat and Social Welfare at Jagdalpur, 2024:CGHC:23290

Neutral Citation

23

C.G.

(III)The petitioner was born on 13.12.1983, she completed her

education in Jagdalpur, C.G.

(IV)The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Conservator of

Forest as a member of the Scheduled Caste and she was

selected and appointed.

(V)As per the definition of bonafide residents of Chhattisgarh

according to the circular dated 17.06.2003, the petitioner has

pursued her entire education in the State of Chhattisgarh, her

father was a government servant and he was staying in the

State of Chhattisgarh for more than 15 years, therefore, it can

safely be held that the petitioner had obtained the status of a

permanent resident of the State of Chhattisgarh when she was

appointed as Assistant Conservator of Forest.

(VI)The Circulars were issued by the State of Chhattisgarh dated

18.07.2004 and 27.06.2007 which clarified the status of

government servants / employees of the State Government;

Central Government; Local Bodies; employees of State

Government; Local bodies; their Spouses and Children and

according to these circulars they have been given the status of

permanent residents of the State of Chhattisgarh and their

spouses and children would be entitled to get the benefit of

reservation if their caste is notified in the Presidential Order

of both the States.

(VII)The Committee vide order dated 21.07.2009 directed the

petitioner to produce documents prior to the year 1950

without calling any report from the Vigilance Cell and the

procedure adopted by the Committee was contrary to the

judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter

of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). The Committee cannot

compel the petitioner to produce documents prior to the year 2024:CGHC:23290

Neutral Citation

24

1950.

(VIII)On 03.08.2011, after the receipt of the report of Vigilance

Cell, notice was issued to the petitioner for her appearance,

but without affording any opportunity of hearing, the final

order was passed on 20.09.2011 and such procedure cannot be

held fair, just and proper.

16.Taking into consideration the above-stated facts and the law discussed

above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the order passed by the

High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee / respondent No. 2 dated

20.09.2011 is not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, the same is

hereby quashed.

17.The matter is remitted back to the High Power Caste Scrutiny

Committee / respondent No. 2 to decide the matter afresh in light of the

facts and the law discussed above after affording a due opportunity of

hearing to the petitioner.

18.With the aforesaid observation(s) / direction(s), this petition is disposed

of.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)

Judge

vatti 2024:CGHC:23290

Neutral Citation