Page 1 of 17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) Nos. 37572 and 37576 of 2023

[ODHC010922202023 ] & [ODHC010922302023 ]

Applications under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of

India.

---------------

W.P. (C) No. 37572 of 2023

Nirmal Chandra Behera …. Petitioner

-Vs.-

State of Odisha & Others & …. Opp. Parties

Others.

W.P.(C) No. 37576 of 2023

Sarat Chandra Behera …. Petitioner

-Vs.-

State of Odisha & Others …. Opp. Parties

Advocate(s) appeared in these cases:-

_______________________________________________________

For Petitioner : M/s. Subhransu Bhusan Mohanty

S.Mohapatra & B.B.Mohapatra,

Advocates.

Vs.

Page 2 of 17

For Opp. Parties : Mr. G. Mohanty,

[Standing Counsel]

[W.P. (C) No. 37572 of 2023]

For Petitioner : M/s. Subhransu Bhusan Mohanty

S.Mohapatra & B.B.Mohapatra,

Advocates.

Vs.

For Opp. Parties : Mr. G. Mohanty,

[Standing Counsel]

[W.P. (C) No. 37576 of 2023]

__________________________________________________________

CORAM:

JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

JUDGMENT

18.09.2026

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

Both the writ petitions involve similar facts and

a common question of law and were therefore , heard

together. The present common judgment shall dispose of

both. For convenience and brevity, the facts of W.P.(C)

No.37572 of 2023 are being considered.

2. The petitioner claims to be member of the

Kaibarta community, otherwise known as “Dewar”, which

Page 3 of 17

is a Schedule Caste. On his application, the Tahasildar,

Banki issued caste certificate in his favour on 08.09.1981

in terms of the Odisha Caste Certificate (for Scheduled

Caste and Scheduled Tribe) Rules 1980 (for short, 1980

Rules) mentioning his caste as “Dewar (Kaibarta)”. Basing

on such caste certificate, the petitioner applied and being

selected, was appointed as a Constable by the S.P.,

Rourkela vide order dated 17.06.1993. Upon completion of

training, he served at different places and ultimately was

posted in Cuttack district. Because of a family feud, his

sister-in-law, being the wife of his younger brother (Sadhu

Charan Behera), namely, Golap Kumari Behera submitted

a complaint before the Revenue Divisional Commissioner

(CD) on 08.11.2013, alleging that the petitioner belongs to

Girgiria caste but suppressing such fact, had obtained the

caste certificate as Dewar. As such, the petitioner being

fraudulently appointed as Constable, the complaint was

sent to the District Vigilance Cell for inquiry. Accordingly,

the State Level Scrutiny Committee (SLSC) called upon the

petitioner to show cause by letter dated 27.01.2016. The

petitioner submitted his reply on 11.02.2016, stating that

Page 4 of 17

he belongs to the Dewar, Kaibarta (Girgiria Caste) and the

traditional business of his family is to catch fish from river

Mahanadi and also boating. The petitioner was also asked

to personally appear before the SLSC on 11.08.2016 ,

during which he produced certain RORs relating to some of

his relatives showing that he belongs to Kaibarta/Keuta

caste. However, on 08.12.2016, the SLSC directed the

Tahasildar, Banki to cancel the certificate and to initiate

criminal case against the petitioner. The SLSC also directed

the S.P. to dismiss the petitioner from service and to

initiate disciplinary action against him. Basing on such

order, further action was taken and ultimately, the service

of the petitioner was terminated vide order dated

11.01.2017.

3. The petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C)

No.1834 of 2017 against the order of the SLSC. By order

dated 20.12.2022, this Court set aside the order of the

SLSC and remitted the matter for fresh consideration by

taking note of the further evidence supporting his stand.

The matter was thus heard afresh but by order dated

Page 5 of 17

09.06.2023, the earlier order was reiterated, which is

impugned in the present writ petition.

4. Be it noted that the facts in the connected case

[W.P.(C) No. 37576 of 2023] are more or less identical, save

for the following: the caste certificate in favor of the

petitioner herein was issued on 08.09.1986. Further, the

petitioner in this case, having been terminated from service

also by order dated 11.01.2017, approached this Court in

W.P.(C) No.1832 of 2017, which was disposed of by order

dated 21.12.2022, remitting the matter to the SLSC for

fresh consideration. An identical order was passed by the

SLSC on 09.06.2023 in respect of this petitioner as well.

Accordingly, this petitioner has claimed relief identical to

that claimed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 37576 of

2023.

5. Under such circumstances, the petitioner has

approached this Court seeking the following relief: -

“It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble

Court be graciously pleased.

i) To admit the Writ application.

ii) To call for the record.

Page 6 of 17

iii) To issue Rule Nisi upon the Opp. Parties to show

cause as to why the order dated 09.06.2023

passed in SSD Case No. 3 of 2023 shall not be

quashed.

iv) To it the opp. Parties do not show cause or show

insufficient cause issue a writ in the nature of

certiorari or any other appropriate Writ/Writs,

order/orders quashing the order dated

09.06.2023 passed by the SLSC under Annexure-

16 and declare all the consequential action as

illegal and arbitrary and contrary to 1980 Rules.

v) To issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus or any

other appropriate Writ/Writs order orders,

direction/directions directing the opp. Parties

particularly opposite parties Nos. 3 & 4 to restore

back the earlier caste certificate under (Annexure-1)

issued by the Tahasildar, Banki on 08.09.81 vide

Misc. Case No. 1066 of 81 that was prevailing prior

to the passing of the impugned order dated

09.06.2023 by the SLSC.

vi) To declare all consequential action pursuant to the

impugned order as invalid and inoperative in the

eye of law.

vii) To and/or pass any other order/orders,

direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court fit and

proper for the ends of justice.

And for the act of kindness, the petitioner as in

duty bound shall every pray.”

6. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State-

Opposite Parties justifying the decision of the SLSC. It is

stated that the order of the SLSC was in consonance with

the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case

of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another vs. Additional

Page 7 of 17

Commissioner Tribal Development, Maharashtra

1. It

was reiterated that the petitioner belongs to Girgiria caste,

which does not find place in the list of Schedule Castes in

the Presidential Order, 1950 for the State of Odisha. The

SLSC meticulously examined the materials placed on

record and the show-cause reply submitted by the

petitioner and found that he, being a member of the

Girgiria caste cannot be treated as a Schedule Caste

person. Though conflicting RORs published in the name of

the petitioners’ father were produced, it was clearly

revealed from inquiry at the field level that he is Girgiria

and not Kaibarta.

7. The petitioner filed a rejoinder stating that his

caste certificate was issued under the 1980 Rules, which is

saved by all subsequent Rules. The certificate was issued

after proper verification by the Tahasildar and therefore

cannot be cancelled as a matter of course, that too on the

basis of unacceptable documents.

1

(1994) 6 SCC 241

Page 8 of 17

8. Heard Mr. S.B. Mohanty, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mr. G. Mohanty, learned Standing Counsel

for the State.

9. Mr. Mohanty contends that the SLSC ,

constituted purportedly as per the guidelines of the

Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil

(supra), has no jurisdiction in respect of the caste

certificate issued in favour of the petitioner under the 1980

Rules. As per the subsequent interpretation by the Apex

Court in the case of Dayaram vs. Sudhir Batham and

others

2, the scheme in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra)

applies only in the absence of legislation. Since the State of

Odisha has its own Rules, i.e., 1980 Rules, prior to the

judgment passed in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), the

SLSC has no authority or jurisdiction to cancel the

certificate issued under the said Rules.

10. Mr. Mohanty refers to judgments passed by this

Court in the case of Sridhar Kumar Dalai vs. State of

Odisha and others [WP.(C) No. 19763 of 2017 ] and

2

(2012) 1 SCC 333

Page 9 of 17

Kunalata Nayak vs. State of Odis ha and others

[W.P.(C) No. 15048 of 2022] in this respect. Mr. Mohanty

further argues that, even otherwise, the State of Odisha

framed the Odisha Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribes and

Backward Classes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification

of Caste Certificate) Act, 2011, (for short, 2011 Act) which

was notified on 15.10.2014. The Rules under the said Act

being Odisha Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribes and

Backward Classes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification

of Caste Certificate) Rules, 2023 (for short, 2023 Act) was

issued on 06.01.2026 but it is clearly provided in the said

Rules that, though the same superseded the earlier Rules

of 1980, but the same had no application in respect of

things done or omitted to be done before such

supersession. Therefore, the certificate issued under the

1980 Rules is automatically saved. Any alteration with

regard to the certificate can only be made as per the 1980

Rules and not the subsequent Rules.

11 On merits, Mr. Mohanty would submit that the

principal caste Dewar has 10 sub-groups, such as Radhi,

Page 10 of 17

Niali, Girgiria etc. which are well recognized in all quarters.

All the ethnic members of the petitioner ’s family are

Kaibarta/Dewar. Only because a complaint was submitted

by a disgruntled relative, the petitioner’s certificate could

not have been cancelled.

12. Per contra, Mr. G. Mohanty, learned Standing

Counsel submits that the State Government constituted

the State Level Scrutiny Committee as per the guidelines of

the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil

(supra). The complaint against the petitioner was that he

had fraudulently obtained the caste certificate projecting

himself as Dewar (Kaibarta), even though he belongs to the

Girgiria caste. These factual aspects were duly proved in

the inquiry conducted by the Investigating Officer, who

recorded the statements of several villagers. The reply

submitted by the petitioner was also duly considered. The

complainant was aggrieved because her husband , who is

none other than the younger brother of the petitioner, was

refused to be issued with Schedule Caste certificate on the

ground that their caste was Girgiria. In course of inquiry,

Page 11 of 17

the anthropological and ethnological characteristics such

as rituals and customs etc. were duly inquired into by the

SLSC. It was found that the petitioner despite not being a

member of the Schedule Caste, falsely obtained the caste

certificate and on such basis got himself appointed as

Constable. He was therefore rightly terminated from

service.

13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at

length and on perusal of the pleadings and materials on

record, this Court is of the view that the principal issue

that falls for determination in the present case is, whether

the SLSC had jurisdiction to inquire into the correctness of

caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioners under

the provisions of the 1980 Rules.

14. Admittedly, the petitioner’s certificate was issued

on 08.09.1981 (and on 08.09.1986 in case of the petitioner

in W.P.(C) No.37576 of 2023) by the Tahasildar, Banki

mentioning his caste as Dewar (Kaibarta). Under the 1980

Rules, Rule-6 mentions the competent authority for

issuance of caste certificates, which includes Tahasildar.

Page 12 of 17

Rule-7, which is reproduced below, provides for certain

persons to recommend issuance of the caste certificate.

Rule-8 being also relevant is reproduced: -

“7. Recommendatory Authority .

- The following authorities for the purpose of these Rules

may recommend to the competent authority for issue of

caste certificates to the persons belonging to Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Orissa :

(1) The Sarpanch of the Grama Panchayat in respect of

persons residing within the jurisdiction of the Grama

Panchayat concerned.

(2) Members of the Orissa Legislative Assembly in respect

of persons belonging to their constituencies.

(3) Members of Parliament from Orissa in respect of their

constituencies:

Provided that the competent authority may issue caste

certificates on the basis of the recommendation of the

recommendatory authority. He may, however, cause such

verification or enquiries as may be necessary for the

purpose of his own satisfaction.

8. Miscellaneous.

(1) The competent authority shall issue caste certificate in

the form prescribed in Appendix I of these Rules.

(2) If after issue of caste certificate in any particular case,

subsequent verification reveals that the candidate's claim

was false, the competent authority who issued the

certificate shall have the right to cancel the same and pass

orders for revocation of the benefits that might have

acquired by-the person concerned.

(3) Any person securing an appointment in any office or in

an establishment on the basis of a false claim regarding

his caste, shall be liable for termination from service.

Page 13 of 17

(4) The competent authority before whom an application is

made for issue of caste certificate for the purpose of

securing an employment under the State, shall ensure

disposal of such application within a period of one month.

In case of failure to issue a caste certificate or to dispose of

the application otherwise by passing appropriate orders

within the stipulated time, the competent authority shall

record in the order sheet of the case record the reasons for

such violation of the time limit.

(5) If any competent authority is found to have issued a

wrong caste certificate carelessly or deliberately without

proper verification, he shall make himself liable for his acts

of commission and omission under relevant provision of

the I.P.C. and also under the appropriate disciplinary rules

applicable to him.”

[Emphasis Added]

15. Thus, as per sub-rule (2) of Rule-8, only the

competent authority, who issued the certificate has the

right to cancel the certificate and pass order for revocation

of the benefits acquired by the persons, in case subsequent

verification reveals that the candidate’s claim was false. So,

under the scheme of 1980 Rules, if the claim of the

petitioner of being a member of the Schedule Caste

community was questioned, the Tahasildar who had issued

the certificate was competent to inquire into the same and

pass appropriate order.

16. In the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra),

the Supreme Court issued a set of guidelines for scrutiny of

Page 14 of 17

caste certificates by a committee constituted for the

purpose and also laid down the procedure to be followed.

However, in Dayaram (supra), the Supreme Court clarified

that the scheme in Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra) was to

continue till the legislature makes an appropriate

legislation in regard to verification of claims for caste

certificates, including those already obtained by

candidates. It was categorically held that if there was

legislation governing or regulating grant of caste

certificates, and if caste certificates were issued after due

and proper inquiry, such caste certificates would not call

for verification by the Scrutiny Committee. In other words,

having regard to the principle of occupied field, Kumari

Madhuri Patil (supra) can have no application in the State

of Odisha.

17. The applicability of the ratio of Kumari Madhuri

Patil (supra) to caste certificates issued earlier also came

up for consideration before this Court in the case

Kunalata Nayak (supra) and Sridhar Kumar Dalai

(supra). After analyzing the facts of the case and the

Page 15 of 17

subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of

Dayaram (supra), this Court in Sridhar Kumar Dalai

(supra) held as follows:-

“7.Recently this Bench had dealt with this question by

judgment dated 4th January, 2023 in WP(C) no.15048 of

2022 (Kunalata Nayak v. State of Odisha and others). There

is no room for doubt, pursuant to clarification by the

Supreme Court in Dayaram (supra) that Kumari Madhuri

Patil (supra) was judgment delivered in exercise of power

under article 142 in the Constitution. It was for purpose of

filling the vacuum in absence of legislation in those States,

where the directions were made to operate. Here, in Odisha,

the rules prevail, as was found by this Bench in Kunalata

Nayak (supra).

8. In facts and circumstances aforesaid, the State Level

Scrutiny Committee did not have jurisdiction to enter into

the question of genuineness of petitioner’s caste certificate.

xxxxx”

18. In view of the above clear pronouncement, it

becomes abundantly clear that the caste certificate of the

petitioners, having been issued under the 1980 Rules, the

scheme laid down in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). As

such, the SLSC constituted pursuant to Kumari Madhuri

Patil (supra) cannot exercise jurisdiction in respect of the

certificates issued under the 1980 Rules. Such being the

finding, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye

of law. As a necessary corollary, all actions taken pursuant

Page 16 of 17

to the impugned order are also rendered unsustainable in

law.

19. An argument was made by the State Counsel

that the earlier order, having been challenged by the

petitioners before this Court and the matter being remitted

and decided by the SLSC implies that the authority of the

SLSC was recognized. This Court is not impressed with the

argument, as the matter was remitted to consider certain

additional documents referred to by the petitioners. The

question of applicability of the scheme of Kumari Madhuri

Patil (supra) and the provisions of the 2023 Rules, per se

was never specifically raised or considered.

20. It may be mentioned in passing that Mr. S. B.

Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to

the 2011 Act as well as the 2023 Rules to submit that even

under the new Rules, the earlier certificate issued under

1980 Rules is saved. However, having regard to the finding

of this Court as narrated hereinbefore, this Court need not

separately examine the applicability of the 2011 Act or the

Page 17 of 17

2023 Rules, since the outcome is independently

determined by the 1980 Rules.

21. For the foregoing reasons therefore, the writ

petitions are allowed. The impugned order in both the writ

petitions is hereby quashed. Further, all consequential

actions taken against the petitioners are declared invalid

and the petitioners are held entitled to all consequential

benefits. Necessary order in this regard shall be passed by

the concerned authority as early as possible, preferably

within three months from the date of production of certified

copy of this order by the petitioners.

..……..…………………..

Sashikanta Mishra,

Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack,

The 18

th September, 2026/ B.C. Tudu, Sr.Steno