AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.12.2006 passed by the respondent
No.3./Committee thereby the Committee has held that the petitioner does not belong to Silawat Caste and also cancelled the caste certificate issued
by the Naib Tehsildar, Ratlam on 5.6.1991 and also directed to the Collector to remove the petitioner from service.
That, the petitioner is a government servant working as Staff Nurse in Health Department at Manasa. The respondent No.3 is a Committee
constituted by the Government as per direction issued by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner reported
in AIR 1995 S.C.94. The petitioner belongs to Silawat caste. Silawat caste is included as serial No.46 of part IX (M.P.) in Constitution (Scheduled
Castes) order 1950. The Nayab Tehsildar Ratlam has issued a caste certificate to the petitioner on 5.6.1991. The petitioner has entered in a
government service as Staff Nurse in Health Department at Manasa on the basis of caste Silawat. A complaint has been made to the government
against the petitioner stating that some persons including petitioner has obtained government service claiming as member of the scheduled caste
(Silawat caste). But they are not belonging to Silawat caste and actually they are belonging to Kumawat caste, which is included in Other Backward
Classes. That, after receiving the complaint, the respondent No.3 Committee has directed to the Collector Mandsaur to make an enquiry and submit
report. The Collector Mandsaur has submitted his report on 3.7.2003. The respondent No.3 again on 20.7.2004 directed to other Officers to make an
enquiry and submit report. The second report was submitted his report on 9.8.2005. The respondent No.3 Committee again directed to the S.P.
Ratlam on 25.4.2005 to make an enquiry and submit report. The S.P. Ratlam has also submitted his report on 9.8.2005. The respondent No.3
thereafter has issued a notice to the petitioner on 12.4.2005, directing him to appear before the Committee on 26.4.2005, with all documents. The
petitioner has appeared before the Committee and submitted some relevant documents. Thereafter the respondent No.3/Committee has not make any
enquiry and passed impugned order dated 29.12.2006 thereby set aside the petitioner’s caste certificate and also directed to the Collector to
remove her from service. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner belongs to Silawat community, which comes under Scheduled Caste and she
does belongs to Kumawat community, which comes under Other Backward Classes. He further submitted that Mohanlalji, father of the petitioner,
was a government servant as member of Scheduled Caste belonging to Silawat community. The parents of the petitioners and all other relatives also
belonging to Silawat Caste. Therefore, the respondent No.3/Committee has committed an error in holding that the petitioner belongs to Kumawat
Caste and not belongs to Silawat Caste. He further submitted that the respondent No.3/Committee did not make any enquiry before passing the
impugned order. The respondent No.3 has not considered the documents filed by the petitioner and has not given proper opportunity to lead her
evidence. The Committee has also failed to supply enquiry reports conducted by the Collector, S.P. and other Officers to the petitioner. The impugned
order passed by the Committee is contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Madhuri Patil (supra). He further relied on the
judgments passed by the Apex Court in the cases of Sayanna vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 2009 SC (Suppl.) 268 4and Vilas
Dinkar Bhat vs. State of Maharashtra and others; reported in AIR 2018 SC 3776. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed
that the petition be allowed the present petition.
The respondents have filed their reply and in the reply they have stated that, in the present case, the controversy revolves around the status of the
petitioner, whether the petitioner is a person belonging to Silawat community (Scheduled Caste) or is a member of Kumawat community (Other
Backward Classes). The respondents have stated that the petitioner is a member of Kumawat community, which comes under the O.B.C. category.
The said presidential notification in this regard is filed as Annexure -R/1 with the reply in which the Kumawat community is placed in the O.B.C.
category. The petitioner has not obtained her caste certificate (Permanent Caste Certificate) from the competent Authority as per requirement of law
because as per the circular dated 1.8.1996, the appropriate authority in this regard is District Collector/Additional Collector/Deputy Collector/Sub
Divisional Officer (Revenue). It seems that the certificate has not been issued by the competent Authority, rather it has been issued by the Naib
Tehsildar. It is also stated that, the Screening Committee has duly examined the case of the petitioner, as per directions given by the Apex Court in the
case of Madhuri Patil and decided the case of the petitioner as per law. The respondents have further stated that the Committee while passing the
impugned order has considered all the documents submitted by the petitioner and found that the petitioner belongs to Kumawat community, which
comes under Other Backward Classes.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
In the present case, the petitioner is a government servant working as Staff Nurse in Health Department at Manasa. The petitioner belongs to
Silawat community, which comes under Scheduled Caste. A complaint has been made against the petitioner to the Government regarding her caste
certificate. On the basis of the said complaint, the State Government constituted a committee for scrutinizing the caste certificate of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the Committee has issued notice to the petitioner to appear before the Committee.
The petitioner appeared and produced all the relevant documents before the Committee. After hearing the petitioner, the Committee has passed the
impugned order thereby cancelling the caste certificate issued to the petitioner and also held that the petitioner does not belongs to Silawat community
and also directed to the Collector to remove the petitioner from services.
Per contra, the respondents have filed their reply and stated that the petitioner does not belongs to Silawat community, but she belongs to Kumawat
community, which comes under Other Backward Classes. All the documents, which have been filed by the petitioner were duly considered and in all
these documents, it has been found that the petitioner belongs to Kumawat community. The respondents have stated that the caste certificate of the
petitioner was not issued by the competent authority and the Committee after following the directions as given in the case of Madhuri Patil, has passed
the impugned order.
The Committee has mainly cancelled the caste certificate of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not produced any revenue record or
any other certificate to show that he belongs to Silawat community. It is further stated that the Superintendent of Police, Ratlam in his report has
stated that the petitioner belongs to Kumawat community. The petitioner, in the present case, has filed the relevant documents whichÂ
have not been considered by the Committee while passing the impugned order. The documents which have been produced by the
petitioner are as under:-
(i) Caste Certificate of her father Mohanlal dated 1.10.1982.
(ii) Copy of the service book of her father Mohanlal.
(iii) Copy of a document dated 29.3.1930 related to grandfather of her mother.
(iv) Caste certificate issued on 1.10.1982 in favour of the petitioner.
(v) A domicile Certificate dated 16.6.1993, issued in favour of petitioner.
(vi) A copy of the certificate issued by the District employment exchange dated 21.6.2001.
(vii) Copy of mark sheet of the year 1990.
(viii) Copy of the mark sheet of the year 1995.
(ix) Copy of the petitioner’s registration as nurse in 1999.
(x) Copy of the registration dated 30.4.2005.
The petitioner has filed copy of the caste certificate of her father Mohanlal dated 1.10.1982. Father of the petitioner was in government service and
he was appointed on the basis of Scheduled Caste category. Even in service book of her father, his caste is shown as schedule caste category. The
Apex Court in the case of Sayanna (supra) in para 10 has held as under:-
“10. In support of his claim that he belongs to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribes, the appellant had produced before the Scrutiny Committee four Xerox copies of
the Caste Certificate issued by Talathi of the Village and (C) Certificate dated November 25, 2002 issued by C.E.O., Nagar Parishad. The perusal of the record
shows that these documents were arbitrarily and lightly brushed aside by the Scrutiny Committee by observing that the documents were issued in a casual manner
and that too on the personal knowledge without verifying the facts. It is an admitted position that none of the officers, who had issued the certificate concerned, was
either summoned or examined by the Scrutiny Committee. The affidavit filed by Dr. L.N. Datte, nephew of the appellant, and the caste certificate issued to the son of
the appellant would indicate that near relatives of the appellant have been always treated by the authorities as belonging to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe. The
claim of the appellant that he belongs to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe could not have been negatived on the ground that he had no basic knowledge of traits,
characteristics, customs and culture, etc. of Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe or that he failed to prove his affinity and ethnic linkage to Mannerwarlu Scheduled
Tribe. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case this Court is of the opinion that the decision of the Scrutiny Committee to cancel and confiscate the caste
certificate issued to the appellant is based on irrelevant considerations and suffers from the vice of non-consideration of relevant factors. Therefore, the said
decision as well as the decision of the High Court, confirming the said decision, are liable to be set aside.â€
Thus, as per this judgment, if any caste certificate has been issued in favour of close relatives of the petitioner are not considered by the Committee
and, therefore, the order of scrutiny of the Committee is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.
In the present case also, from perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that, the Committee while passing the impugned order, does not consider
the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner as well as the service book of her father. In such circumstances, the impugned order passed by
the respondent No.3/Committee deserves to be set aside and is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Committee to decide the matter
in accordance with law after considering all the documents submitted by the petitioner including the caste certificate of father of the petitioner within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. As the order passed by the respondent No.3/Committee has been
set aside, the petitioner will continue in service till her age of superannuation.
With the aforesaid, the present petitioner stands disposed of.