Gayatri Sethi vs State Of Odisha And Others

Arindam Sinha, J

Mr. Satpathy, learned advocate, appears on behalf of petitioner and with reference to order dated 11th January, 2023 presses for hearing.

Mr. Rout, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and Mr. Singh, learned advocate, Standing Counsel, for the department.

It appears, petitioner’s contention is that on being required to produce fresh caste certificate for verification, his client accordingly applied. There was mistake made in the application, based on which fresh caste certificate was issued saying that his client’s caste is ‘Rajak’. He submits, his client belongs to scheduled caste ‘Dhoba’. He hands up and relies on Odisha- List of Scheduled Castes, to demonstrate that against serial no.26 in the list of scheduled castes included in the Presidential Order, inter alia, both ‘Dhoba’ and ‘Rajak’ stand mentioned.

On query from Court it could not be shown that there was requirement upon petitioner to produce fresh caste certificate. Petitioner already possessed a caste certificate certifying her caste to be ‘Dhoba’. She again applied for and obtained fresh caste certificate but this time certifying her caste to be ‘Rajak’. The different caste, though also a scheduled caste and mentioned under the same entry as aforesaid, it being different than the scheduled caste mentioned in her earlier certificate, has caused confusion.

Court presumes, purpose of the verification is to detect fake caste certificates. Both caste certificates stand issued to petitioner, presumably on enquiry. There is no enquiry pending against the caste certificates issued to petitioner by the competent authority. It therefore appears, petitioner belongs to a scheduled caste. As such, petitioner is entitled to the reservation obtained in getting her job.

Mr. Satpathy relies on view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Dhruba Charan Patra vs. State of Odisha, reported in 83 (1997) Cuttack Law Time (C.L.T.) 423 being that when different Record of Rights published at different points of time present different entries regarding castes, the authorities should have called upon the parties to adduce other evidence in support of their claims. In the facts and circumstances of present case, the authorities, in issuing earlier and later caste certificates, did not have any difficulty on petitioner’s claim of belonging to the scheduled caste. Petitioner says, in prior RoR entry there is mention of caste of ‘Rajak’ while in a later entry in the RoR, her caste is mentioned as ‘Dhoba’. She belongs to scheduled caste ‘Dhoba’. Hence, she is seeking correction of her fresh caste certificate, required for verification by her employer. On query from Court Mr. Satpathy submits, his client has other evidence like lease allotment by the Government, mentioning her caste to be scheduled caste ‘Dhoba’.

Impugned order dated 18th November, 2022 is set aside and quashed restoring petitioner’s application for issuance of fresh caste certificate. The authority will allow petitioner to amend the application and thereafter, on due verification, will proceed to either issue fresh certificate or give any other finding. This must be done within three weeks of communication. The department is to allow petitioner two weeks’ time beyond issuance or rejection of fresh caste certificate, applied for on correction made, pursuant to this order.

The writ petition is disposed of.

…………………………………