JUDGMENT
P.S. Brahme, J.
1. The petitioner-Rameshwar Dadaji Suryawanshi has filed this writ petition challenging the legality and validity of the orders passed by the second respondent namely Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and the subsequent order passed by the respondent No. 1, Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur. The respondent No. 2 Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur by his order cancelled the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Hinganghat and the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur by his order dated 19-2-1987 terminated the services of the petitioner. In this petition the petitioner is seeking direction to quash and set aside these orders and further declaration that the petitioner is in continuous service as Headmaster of Zilla Parishad, High School.
2. In this petition on 17-3-1987 Rule came to be issued and there was ad interim stay in terms of prayer Clause ‘C’ of the petition whereby the effect, execution and operation of the impugned orders came to be stayed and further by order dated 9th April, 1987 that interim stay has been confirmed. So, inspite of there being termination of the services of the petitioner vide order dated 19-2-1987, the petitioner’s services are continued and he is working as Headmaster in the Zilla Parishad, High School.
3. We propose to state certain facts of the case in order to appreciate and decide the controversy in this case as follows:
The petitioner after obtaining B.Com. Degree so also professional qualification i.e. D.Ed. Degree was appointed as Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 1-7-1972 in Jawahar Vidyalaya at Makardhokda and he worked there upto 21-8-1980. The petitioner’s appointment was in open category though according to him he was belonging to ‘Ghisadi Khati’ community which comes under the Nomadic Tribes.
In the month of March 1979, petitioner noticed an advertisement by which the applications were invited by the first respondent for the post of Extension Officer (Education). It is admitted that two posts were to be filled in and both the posts were reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribe and Nomadic Tribes. Admittedly the petitioner applied for the post as he was belonging to Nomadic Tribes. However, the caste certificate which petitioner had obtained somewhere in the year 1972 and which was issued by the Tahsildar Hinganghat described the petitioner as belonging to the community ‘Ghisadi Blacksmith’ which is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe. The copy of the said caste certificate is at Annexure 1 to the petition. However, petitioner was not aware whether his caste i.e. ‘Ghisadi Khati’ is Scheduled Tribe or Nomadic Tribe. The petitioner also obtained the recent caste certificate on 18-3-1986 issued by Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Pohna, the copy of which is at Annexure 2. The petitioner was interviewed and the appointment order came to be issued on 16-8-1980 and as such petitioner was appointed on the post of Extension Officer (Education) on temporary basis initially for a period of six months. However, his services were continued from time to time and was regularised by the respondent No. 1 by condoning the breaks. By order dated 4-8-1983, his services were continued, copy of which is at Annexure 5 to the petition. Subsequently by order dated 27-1-1987 his appointment by way of nomination was regularised from the date of his first appointment i.e. 22-8-1980. This was the order dated 27-1-1984 which is at Annexure 6. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Headmaster, Zilla Parishad, High School, Deoli by order dated 10-8-1984 and he was serving even on the date, when the order of termination of services came to be passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, dated 11-4-1986. While the petitioner was working as Headmaster in Zilla Parishad High School, there was one complaint against him filed before the Revenue Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur alleging that the petitioner has given a false certificate. In view of this, a notice was issued to the petitioner and he was informed to appear on 21-7-1986. The petitioner appeared on 26-8-1986 before the Commissioner on which date his statement was recorded, the true copy of which is annexed herewith as Annexure : 11. The petitioner was represented by his Advocate who filed on 20-10-1986 a written note of arguments. After taking into consideration the material on record and it appears that mostly relying on the statement of the petitioner himself, the second respondent came to the conclusion that the certificate obtained by the petitioner was not true and the petitioner was belonging to the caste “Khati” and as such he was not belonging to either of the tribes, so he sent a communication to the petitioner about his finding and also informed the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, informing the office that the petitioner has obtained false certificate for securing that job, though he was aware that the job was reserved for the category of Scheduled Tribe and Nomadic Tribe, but his caste certificate found false being issued by the Tahsildar without making any inquiry. The petitioner was not entitled to continue to hold the post which he has secured on the basis of the caste certificate issue by the Tahsildar. Therefore, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur issued a letter dated 11-11-1986 whereunder the services of the petitioner came to be terminated, that is how, the petitioner has come to this Court challenging the order of termination.
4. Respondent No. 2 contended in his return that in the school record the petitioner’s caste is shown as “Khati” which is one of the Other Backward Classes, scheduled by the State of Maharashtra vide entry at Serial No. 65. When the inquiry was made by the respondent, petitioner’s statement was recorded, who has stated that he does not desire to lead any other evidence. As such the case was closed for final orders on 9-9-1986. The order sheet to that effect has been duly recorded on 26-8-1986. There is no basis for petitioner to carry an impression that the case was posted to 20-10-1986. The case being already closed, there was neither any purpose, nor any occasion for the petitioner to file any written note of arguments. The petitioner was granted sufficient opportunity from time to time. It is denied that the documents filed by the petitioner were not considered. The primary school and secondary school leaving certificates in respect of the petitioner and his father, which were produced and so also the material on record consistently showed the caste of the petitioner and his father as “Khati”. Therefore, it was found that the certificate issued by the Tahsildar stating that the petitioner is “Ghisadi Khati” or is member of Scheduled Tribe, was incorrect, issued without any proper inquiry. The petitioner never asked for copy of the complaint. It is contended by the respondents that “Ghisadi Khati” is not included in any of the scheduled of Backward Class/Tribes prescribed by the State of Maharashtra. In terms of the Government resolution dated 29-10-1980, this respondent was fully competent to inquire into the complaint. The respondent further contended that to secure the benefit, the petitioner made a claim belonging to the community other than to which the petitioner actually belonged.
5. So far as the respondent No. 1 is concerned, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, Mr. Mishra submitted that respondent No. 1 has objected and resisted the claim of the petitioner by their preliminary submissions. It is contended that two posts of Extension Officer (Education), Grade IInd were to be filled in by nomination from the Scheduled Tribe and/or Nomadic Tribe, for which the advertisement was issued. So both the posts were reserved for reserved category. The petitioner as he gave this respondent to believe that he is belonging to the category “Scheduled Tribe” was selected and by order dated 16-8-1980 he was appointed as Extension Officer. It is contended with emphasis by respondent No. 1 that had the petitioner not belonging to the category of Scheduled Tribe, he would not have been selected. Subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner, the petitioner was considered for being promoted as Headmaster and that too in preference to others only because petitioner made us to believe that he came from specified reserved category. In the inquiry conducted by respondent No. 2, petitioner has admitted in his statement that he has no other evidence to show that he belongs to any of the categories.
6. We have heard Mr. Masodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. By referring to the orders of appointment which came to be passed from time to time. The learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Extension Officer (Education) not on the basis of or in pursuance of the advertisement issued by respondent No. 1. By referring to the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar which was long back and also the certificate issued by Sarpanch, it was contended with emphasis that the petitioner belongs to “Ghisadi Khati” caste/community and the same comes under the Nomadic Tribes category for which two posts were reserved of Extension Officer (Education). It is submitted that when the advertisement was issued by the respondent No. 1 for filling those two posts which were reserved, petitioner was already in employment as Assistant Teacher in the school. That appointment which the petitioner had secured was from open category and the petitioner had already obtained caste certificate from the Tahsildar which was much prior i.e. almost 8 years before the issuance of the advertisement. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, it does not stand to reasons to say that with a view to secure the appointment which was to be filled in by the candidate belonging to reserved category, petitioner obtained certificate that was issued by the Tahsildar. Learned Counsel however, submitted that it was mistake on the part of the Tahsildar to state in the certificate at Annexure : 1 “Ghisadi Khati-Blacksmith” which is recognised as Scheduled Tribe. It is submitted that admittedly the community “Ghisadi Khati” comes under Nomadic Tribe and therefore, petitioner’s selection even if it is accepted that it was in pursuance of the advertisement issued by respondent No. 1, was proper. Therefore, the respondent No. 2 the Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur was not right in holding that the petitioner is belonging to “Khati” caste/community. Therefore, it was submitted that respondent No. 1 also committed error in terminating the services of the petitioner.
7. The learned Counsel further submitted that respondent No. 2 was not justified or empowered to verify the caste claim of the petitioner. He pointed out that the work of scrutiny and verification of the caste claim was to be done by Caste Scrutiny Committee, as that was prevailing then. The respondent No. 2 was Appellate Authority, where rejection of caste claim by the Scrutiny Committee could have been challenged. Therefore, the order passed by the respondent No. 2 cannot stand, it is illegal. It is against, principles of natural justice, in as much as no opportunity was given to the petitioner apart from the fact that respondent No. 2 was not empowered to scrutinize and verify the caste claim of the petitioner. He submitted that the order passed by respondent No. 2 be quashed and set aside and the petitioner’s services be continued. He submitted that because of the order of stay and its confirmation by this Court, petitioner has continued his services inspite of order of termination of his services and therefore having regard to the credentials of the petitioner and his unblemish record, respondent No. 1 has confirmed him in the post of Headmaster. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel even from equity point of view, there was no justification to terminate the services of the petitioner merely because Tahsildar by mistake described the caste of the petitioner “Ghisadi Blacksmith” as belonging to Scheduled Tribe. The learned Counsel further submitted that the respondent No. 2 has not made any inquiry as was contemplated for the purpose of verification and scrutiny of the caste claim of the petitioner. It was only on this ground that the respondent No. 2 has invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner and cancelled the certificate issued by the Tahsildar. The respondent No. 2 has not carried any investigation into the caste claim of the petitioner. Therefore, learned Counsel in the alternative submitted that it would be befitting in the interest of justice to remit the matter to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for verification of the caste claim.
8. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 as stated earlier vehemently opposed the claim of the petitioner contending that petitioner has secured job on the basis of false certificate of caste deriving benefits enshrined under the Constitution of India regarding the policy of reservation in the appointments for the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. However, learned Counsel submitted that this Court may remit the matter for verification of the caste claim by the scrutiny committee.
9. Learned A.G.P. submitted that the Court may however refer the caste claim to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for verification.
10. The submission of the learned Counsel Mr. Masodkar appearing for petitioner was also to the effect that petitioner is entitled to protection in view of the Government Resolution of 1995 and corrigendum of 1998 dated 24-7-1998, whereunder it is stated that when the persons belonging to Halba- Mana a particular caste/category and who have secured the services by filing such caste certificate for reservation and when the persons belong to that category are not being removed and protection is granted to them, on the ground of parity, similar protection should be given to the petitioner. He also placed reliance on the recent Government Resolution dated 27-5-2002 wherein it is declared that those O.B.C. employees have secured appointment or even promoted to the post which are kept reserved for reserved category of Scheduled Tribe, those persons should be declared as belonging to Special Backward Class and their services should be protected. It is submitted that petitioner also is entitled to earn protection on the basis of the same Government Resolution.
11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties in the petition which we have narrated in earlier part of the judgment. The Counsel for the petitioner has made hue and cry for statement of the respondents that the petitioner sought the appointment to the post of Extension Officer (Education) on the basis of the advertisement issued by respondent No. 1, but having regard to the pleadings of the petitioner that we have stated elaborately in earlier part of the judgment, we are of the view that the petitioner secured the job as Extension Officer (Education) Grade II in pursuance of the advertisement issued by respondent No. 1 and his selection was made after he was interviewed and he was given the appointment order only on the basis of the fact that as per the certificate issued by the Tahsildar he was stated to be belonging to category of Scheduled Tribe. There are various circumstances which support the admission of the petitioner that he secured the job and he was given the appointment to the post of Extension Officer (Extension), as he made to believe that he was belonging to the category of Scheduled Tribe. It is true that petitioner’s initial appointment was that of Assistant Teacher and it was a post which was filled in from open category. It is also true that petitioner after having secured that appointment as Assistant Teacher worked for almost 8 years. Therefore, his subsequent appointment to the post of Extension Officer (Education) was obviously in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the respondent No. 1 which made it clear that the two posts which were vacant were to be filled in by the candidate belonging to reserved category namely Scheduled Tribe and Nomadic Tribe. That is how in the petition itself the petitioner has candidly stated that he applied for the post as he was aware that the post was reserved for Scheduled Tribe/Nomadic Tribe category and he was belonging to reserved category of Nomadic Tribe.
12. The appointment order, initial as well as subsequent orders which the petitioner has appended to the petition no doubt make a reference to the fact that under the provisions of Rule 3(I)(i) of the Maharashtra Public Services (Subordinate) Selection Board (Exemption from Consultation) Rules, 1976, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur has provisionally appointed on purely temporary basis until further orders on the terms and conditions enclosed herewith Shri R. D. Suryawanshi as Extension Officer (Education) Grade II in District Technical Services (Class III) Education …………. under Rules for a period not exceeding one year from the date of his joining the duties or till the list of selected candidates is available, whichever is earlier. It is obvious that this order refers to the first initial appointment order which is at Annexure : 3.
12-A. The order dated 24-1-1984 Annexure : 6 makes it clear that the appointment by way of nomination of the following candidate as “Extension Officer (Education) Grade II in ……….. were made till the receipt of select list from the Regional Selection Board as constituted as per the Maharashtra Public Service (Subordinate) Selection Act, 1973 has seen been repealed by the Maharashtra Public Service (Subordinate) Selection Board Act, 1978 (repealed) Ordinance (No. XIV) of 1983 and the Selection Board have been dissolved w.e.f. 18-6-1983. It is further stated in the order that the following candidates which includes the present petitioner who was appointed on 22-8-1980, admitted to have been validly appointed by way of appointment as Extension Officer (Education) Grade II in District Technical Services (Class III) Educational…. from the date of joining the duties. It was on the basis of these orders or the nomenclature in the order as nomination and selection of the petitioner and confirmation in the service, the learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the appointment of the petitioner can not be said to be in the reserved category for the post of Extension Officer (Education). His further submission was that thereafter the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Headmaster and he has been confirmed in that post. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, petitioner cannot be now said to be the person appointed in pursuance of the advertisement issued by respondent No. 1 to the post of Extension Officer (Education) from the reserved category. We do not find any merit in this submission. It is admitted that initial appointment was admittedly on the basis of advertisement issued by the respondent No. 1 and the post was reserved for special category and the petitioner was selected only on the basis that he was belonging to the special category of Scheduled Tribe as represented by him pursuant to the certificate issued by the Tahsildar. As the initial appointment was for temporary period it came to an end by efflux of time and secondly the petitioner was given fresh appointment from time to time thereafter. It is further clear that as the Board was abolished and by then no selection was made of any candidate for the post of Extension Officer (Education), services of the petitioner and other persons were deemed to be regularised to their post. It was deemed to be valid. The validity was on account of the fact that the petitioner had led to believe that he was belonging to special category i.e. Scheduled Tribe. But later on when it was found that he did not belong to “Ghisadi Khati” community, the petitioner cannot claim protection to his services merely because respondent No. 1 has said in the order that the appointment of the petitioner shall be deemed to be valid.
12-B. Now we come to the crucial issue as to legality of the order passed by respondent No. 2 holding that the caste certificate of the petitioner issued by Tahsildar was false. It is not disputed that the respondent No. 2 passed the order after making inquiry into the complaint made against the petitioner alleging that the caste certificate produced by him was false. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Tahsildar has committed mistake in stating in the certificate that he is belonging to “Ghisadi Blacksmith” which comes under the category of Scheduled Tribe. As stated earlier, it is accepted position that the caste or community belonging to “Ghisadi Khati” comes under the category of Nomadic Tribes. As stated earlier right from the inception, petitioner has come up with the case that he comes under the category of Nomadic Tribes as he is belonging to “Ghisadi Khati” Caste. When it is accepted that community “Ghisadi Khati” comes in the category of Nomadic tribe, it was patently an error on the part of Tahsildar to say that the petitioner who was “Ghisadi Blacksmith” comes under the category of Schedules Tribes. The learned Counsel therefore harping on this error committed by Tahsildar vehemently submitted that when the petitioner claimed to be belonging to the community “Ghisadi Khati” and having substantiated the same fact before the respondent No. 2 it was illegality and error on the part of the respondent No. 2 to say that the caste certificate issued by Tahsildar was false. As against this, learned Counsel for the respondents have pointed out that the petitioner has in the course of inquiry made by respondent No. 2 in his statement admitted that he is belonging to caste “Khati” and the respondent No. 2 has rightly observed that the caste “Khati” comes under the Other Backward Class. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner now to contend that the respondent No. 2 has committed an error or illegality in saying that caste certificate obtained by the petitioner is false. But then we find much force and substance in the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner, when he submitted that respondent No. 2 has exceeded his limits in verifying the caste claim of the petitioner, when even then at that time in the year 1986 the work of scrutiny or verification of the caste claim was to be made by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. It is not disputed that the respondent No. 2 was within his rights so far as the making inquiry into the complaint lodged to him alleging that the caste claim of the petitioner was false. But as we find and understand that duty assigned for scrutiny and verification of the caste claim is entirely different than the work of making inquiry into the complaint in respect of caste certificate. In additional to that respondent No. 2 has not conducted the inquiry as it was contemplated for making investigation to ascertain the veracity of the caste claim. We have carefully gone through the order passed by respondent No. 2 itself very much clear that the order has been passed in pursuance of the note sheet submitted to the respondent No. 2 Commissioner. It is observed that the Tahsildar has not made proper inquiry into the caste claim of the petitioner. It is stated that the Tahsildar had issued certificate without making any proper inquiry into the caste claim, but when it came to the respondent No. 2 while making inquiry into the caste claim, he himself did not make any inquiry except recording the statement of the petitioner, ………….. and school leaving certificate of the petitioner as well as his father. Therefore, the order passed by the respondent No. 2 is vitiated. It is also found from the material on record that no opportunity was given to the petitioner. It appears that the Counsel for the petitioner has rightly contended that the submissions made on behalf of petitioner by his Counsel in terms of written notes of argument were not considered in a much as note sheet was already put up before respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 2 has passed the order simply on the basis of the note sheet that was filed before him. This is the reason why we feel that the order passed by respondent No. 2 should be and the matter be remitted back to the Caste Scrutiny Committee.
13. We have already referred to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 who has pointed out that the respondent No. 2 was empowered to inquire into the complaint and what the respondent No. 2 has done in rejecting the caste claim of the petitioner was within the powers which he had of making inquiry into the complaint, but then it is not disputed by the learned Counsel for respondents that even then, that is in the year 1986, there was provision which required the Caste Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim. The job of verifying or scrutinising the caste claim was to be assigned to the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Therefore, it would have been proper in the fitness of things on the part of respondent No. 2 while inquiring into the complaint in respect of the caste certificate of the petitioner to refer the matter to the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Since the respondent No. 2 himself did not make thorough inquiry as contemplated for verifying the caste claim, it is imperative now to remit the matter for verification of the caste claim.
14. There is much substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Divisional Commissioner was the Appellate Authority who was competent to decide the appeal and there was already provision made even then in the year 1986 for verification of the caste claim by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. So in the absence of verification of the caste claim by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, petitioner’s right of appeal to the Commissioner was impaired. He was deprived of that right of appeal. Therefore, there is justification for remitting the matter to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for verification of the caste claim of the petitioner.
15. We do not appreciate the contention of the Counsel for the petitioner that having regard to the fact that the petitioner has been continued in the service inspite of the order of termination and further respondent No. 1 has promoted the petitioner to the post of Headmaster, the petitioner is entitled to get protection of Government resolution of 1995 as also the recent Government Resolution dated 27-5-2002. We are afraid to uphold the contention of the learned Counsel on the ground of parity. It is true that petitioner is continued in service even after his termination in the year 1986 i.e. obviously because of the interim orders passed by this Court. But that by itself is not sufficient for petitioner to earn equity and protection of his services. There is another reason and the Government Resolution which the Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon, makes it clear that the persons of other backward category class who have secured appointment, which were meant for or reserved for backward categories, should have been declared as persons belonging to Special Backward Class, so as to entitle them to protection of their services. In the instant case, learned Counsel for the petitioner failed to show that the petitioner has been declared or his caste has been declared as belonging to special Backward Class. Therefore, this is not the case where the petitioner is entitled to get any protection.
16. We have come to the conclusion that the petitioner’s caste claim needs to be verified by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. In this connection we are fortified with the following observations of the Apex Court in case of Ku. Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others in which it is laid down with emphasis as to the object and requirement of the scrutiny of the caste claim by the Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted by the State.
16-A. The preamble to the Constitution promises to secure to every citizen social and economic justice equality of status and opportunity assuring the dignity of the individual. The Scheduled Tribes are inhabitants of intractable terrain regions of the country kept away from the main stream of national life and with their traditional moorings and customary beliefs and practices, they are largely governed by their own customary Code of conduct regulated from time to time with their own rich cultural heritage, mode of worship and cultural ethos. The Constitution guarantees to them who are also Indian Citizens of equality.
16-B. Though Articles 14 and 15(1) prohibits discrimination among citizens on certain grounds, Article 15(4) empowers the State to make special provisions for advancement of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Article 15(1) requires equality of opportunity to all citizens in matters of appointments to an office or a post under the Union or a State Government or public undertakings etc. But Article 16(4) empowers the State to make provision for reservation of appointments or posts in favour of classes of citizens not adequately represented in the services under the State. Article 46 enjoins the State by mandatory language employed therein, to promote with special care the educational or economic interest of the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes and to protect them from ‘Social injustice’ and ‘all forms of exploitation’.
16-C. Since the Scheduled Tribes are a nomadic class of citizens whose habitals being generally hilly regions or forests, results in their staying away from the main-stream of the national life. Therefore, the State is enjoined under our constitution to provide facilities and opportunities to them. Reservation in admission to educational institutions and employment are major State policies to accord to the tribes, social and economic justice apart from other economic measures.
16-D. Hence, the tribes, by reason of States’ Policy of reservation, have been given the exclusive right to admission into educational institutions or exclusive right to employment to an office or post under the State etc. to the earmarked quota. For availment of such exclusive rights by citizens belonging to tribes, the President by a Notification specified the Scheduled Tribes or tribal communities or parts of groups of tribes or tribal communities so as to entitle them to avail of such exclusive rights. The Union of India and the State Government have prescribed the procedure and has entrusted duty and responsibility to Revenue Officers of gazetted cadre to issue social status certificate, after due verification.
16-E. It is common knowledge that endeavour of States to fulfil constitutional mandate of upliftment of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by providing for reservation of seats in educational institutions and for reservation of posts and appointments, are sought to be denied to them by unscrupulous persons who come forward to obtain the benefit of such reservations posing themselves as persons entitled to such status while in fact disentitled to such status.
17. 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 the issuance of a social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval, which may be the following:–
i) The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such officer rather than at the Officer, Taluka or Mandal level.
ii) ———
iii) 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.
iv) All the State Government shall constitute a committee of three officers, namely, (1) an Additional or joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the concerned department, (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.
v) 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 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 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 of dead bodies etc. by the concerned castes or tribes or tribal communities etc.
vi) ———-
vii) ———-
viii) ———
ix) ———-
x) ———-
xi) The order passed by the committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
xii) ———
xiii) ———
xiv) ———
xv) As soon as the finding is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the certificate obtained was false, on its cancellation and confiscation simultaneously, it should be communicated to the concerned educational institution or the appointing authority by registered post with acknowledgment due with a request to cancel the admission or the appointment. The Principal etc. of the educational institution responsible for making the admission or the appointing authority, should cancel the admission/appointment without any further notice to the candidate and debar the candidate for further study or continue in office in a post.
18. These observations of the Apex Court thus reinforce our conclusion that order passed by the Divisional Commissioner does not stand the test of verification of the caste claim of petitioner. That was to be done by the Caste Scrutiny Committee.
19. In the result we quash and set aside the impugned orders passed by respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 1. The petitioner be continued in service. No action to terminate his services be taken by respondent No. 1 till caste claim of petitioner is verified by the Caste Scrutiny Committee duly constituted by the State. We direct the respondents to send the caste certificate of the petitioner issued by Tahsildar with all the documents and record to the Caste Scrutiny Committee within 15 days of the communication of this judgment, for scrutiny and verification. We expect the committee to decide the caste claim of petitioner as expeditiously as possible by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no orders as to costs.