SURENDRA KUMAR KOTENDRA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Court: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case type: WRIT PETITION ALL ORDERS CIVIL RELATED TO OTHER MATTER
Decided on: 27-03-2026

<div> 1 2026:CGHC:14659 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 921 of 2020 1 - Surendra Kumar Kotendra S/o Late Shri Dehari Ram Kotendra Aged About 58 Years Occupation Service Lecturer, Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Daundilohara, District Balod Chhattisgarh, R/o Village Badgaon, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes Development Department, Naya Raipur Mantralaya, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through School Education Department, Naya Raipur, Mantralaya, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee Through Its Member Secretary Cum Director, Tribal And Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes Development, Office At Block 4 D, Ground Floor, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. R.K. Bhagat, Advocate For State :- Mr. D.R. Minj, Dy. A.G. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB-Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad 2 2026:CGHC:14659 Order on Board 27.03.2026 1. In the present petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.01.2020 passed by the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee, whereby the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled and the concerned authorities have been directed to take appropriate steps in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 9(3) of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013 and under Rules 23(3), 23(5) and 24(1) of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Rules, 2013. By way of this petition, the petitioner is challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the aforesaid impugned order. 2. The petitioners have filed this Writ Petition seeking following reliefs:- “ 10.1 That the petitioner most humbly and respectfully prays to this Hon'ble Court to issue appropriate writ/order/direction for quashment of impugned order dated 25.1.2020 contained in ANNEXURE-P/1. 10.2 That the petitioner most humbly and respectfully prays to this Hon'ble Court to issue appropriate writ/order/direction to hold that the 3 2026:CGHC:14659 caste certificate issued to the petitioner contained in ANNEXURE-P/2 as valid. 10.3 Any other relief whatsoever, this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be granted to the petitioner.” 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was issued a caste certificate by the competent authority certifying him to be a member of Scheduled Caste namely “Mahar”, which is a notified Scheduled Caste under clause (1) of Article 341 of the Constitution of India in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh and continues to remain so in the State of Chhattisgarh after its bifurcation. That, on the basis of his educational qualifications and the benefit of his social status as a Scheduled Caste candidate, the petitioner was appointed by respondent No. 2 on 24.01.1983 and is presently serving as Lecturer at Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Daundilohara, District Balod (Chhattisgarh). That, in the year 2013, a vague complaint was made against the petitioner along with 17 other persons alleging illegal appointment on the basis of forged caste certificates. Pursuant to the said complaint, preliminary enquiries were conducted by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), District Balod and the District Level Scrutiny Committee and the matter was thereafter referred on 06.02.2013 to the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee. That, the said Committee initiated an enquiry through the Vigilance Cell and Investigation Assistant. The Vigilance Cell, on 4 2026:CGHC:14659 the basis of documentary evidence, raised certain objections and arrived at an erroneous conclusion by introducing a non-existent caste category termed “Baya Mahara”, despite no such entry being found in any of the documents. That, simultaneously, the Investigation Assistant conducted a detailed enquiry including examination of the petitioner’s ancestral profession, mother tongue, family deities and social status and submitted a report affirming that the petitioner shares identical social status with members of the “Mahar” community. That, despite such affirmative findings, the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee, without properly considering the report of the Investigation Assistant and ignoring relevant material on record, passed the impugned order dated 25.01.2020 cancelling the petitioner’s caste certificate and directing the concerned authorities to take action under Section 9(3) of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013 and Rules 23(3), 23(5) and 24(1) of the Rules, 2013. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 25.01.2020 passed by the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee is wholly arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is contended that the caste “Mahar” is a duly notified Scheduled Caste under clause (1) of Article 341 of the Constitution of India and continues to remain so in the State of Chhattisgarh, and therefore the very basis of cancellation of the 5 2026:CGHC:14659 petitioner’s caste certificate is contrary to the constitutional scheme. It is further submitted that the Scrutiny Committee has failed to follow the settled principles governing determination of caste status, inasmuch as it has neither properly appreciated the documentary evidence, including pre-Independence documents having high probative value, nor has it considered the affinity test conducted by the Investigation Assistant, who has categorically affirmed that the petitioner shares identical social status with members of the “Mahar” community. It is argued that the Vigilance Cell has arrived at an absurd and perverse conclusion by introducing a non-existent caste category “Baya Mahara”, which finds no place in any record, and such finding is wholly baseless. It is further submitted that no proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and the principles of natural justice have been violated, as the veracity of documents was not tested through proper enquiry or oral evidence. It is also contended that the Vigilance Officer has nowhere held that the documents submitted by the petitioner are false, nor was any competent authority examined to discredit the same. Learned counsel further submits that as per Rule 21 of the Rules, 2013, once the Vigilance Cell report supports the claim of the petitioner, no adverse action ought to have been taken, however the Scrutiny Committee has deliberately ignored and suppressed the favourable findings of the Investigation Assistant. It is also argued that invocation of Section 9(3) of the Act, 2013 and Rules 23(3), 23(5) and 24(1) of the 6 2026:CGHC:14659 Rules, 2013 is wholly unwarranted, as there is no finding that the petitioner obtained the caste certificate by fraud or misrepresentation. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been serving since 1983 and would suffer irreparable loss if the impugned order is given effect, despite there being no allegation of fraud. It is also pointed out that in the case of a close relative, the caste certificate has already been verified and upheld by the same Scrutiny Committee, and in an identical matter this Hon’ble High Court has granted interim protection. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed being arbitrary, perverse and in violation of settled legal principles. 5. Learned State counsel submits that the present writ petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed, as the impugned order dated 25.01.2020 passed by the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee is just, proper and in accordance with law. It is submitted that the said Committee has been duly constituted in compliance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ku. Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development & Others in Civil Appeal No. 5854/1994 dated 02.09.1994 and is fully competent to examine the validity of caste certificates. It is further submitted that, upon receipt of complaint alleging that the petitioner had secured appointment on the basis of a forged caste certificate, a detailed enquiry was conducted through the Vigilance Cell, wherein statements of the petitioner and other witnesses were recorded, documentary evidence 7 2026:CGHC:14659 including school admission registers and ancestral records were examined and village level enquiry (Munadi) was also carried out. It is contended that the enquiry revealed inconsistencies in the caste entries of the petitioner’s forefathers, wherein different documents reflected caste as “Mahara” and “Baya”, and on cumulative assessment of the material available on record, the Vigilance Cell concluded that the petitioner belongs to “Baya Mahara”, which is not a notified Scheduled Caste in the State of Chhattisgarh. It is further submitted that the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity of hearing and to produce documents in support of his claim, however, he failed to produce any reliable document, particularly pre-1950 record, to substantiate that he belongs to “Mahar” Scheduled Caste, and therefore failed to discharge the burden of proof cast upon him. It is also submitted that the Scrutiny Committee has considered the entire material placed before it and has rightly relied upon the findings of the Vigilance Cell, which were based on proper enquiry conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure and the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is contended that there is no violation of principles of natural justice or statutory provisions, as the enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2013 and the Rules framed thereunder. It is further submitted that as per the Presidential Notification and settled legal position, the caste status has to be determined on the basis of authentic records of the forefathers 8 2026:CGHC:14659 prior to 1950, and in absence of such proof, the claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted. It is thus submitted that the Scrutiny Committee has rightly cancelled the caste certificate issued to the petitioner, as the same was found to be not in accordance with law, and therefore the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Hon’ble Court and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. From the bare perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner has placed on record documentary evidence pertaining to the year 1929 , wherein the caste of his predecessor/forefather has been recorded as “Mahar” . Such entry, being an old document of pre- Constitution period, carries significant evidentiary value in caste determination, particularly when it relates to the paternal lineage of the claimant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil Guidelines laid down that greater probative value is to be attached to ancient documents and entries relating to the forefathers of the candidate, especially those prepared prior to the commencement of the Constitution, as such documents are less susceptible to manipulation and provide a reliable basis for determination of social status. 8. Further, merely because in some subsequent documents there appears variation in nomenclature such as “Mahara” or “Baya”, 9 2026:CGHC:14659 the same by itself cannot dislodge the earlier authentic entry unless there is clear material to establish that the petitioner belongs to a different social group altogether. Variations in spelling, local dialect or descriptive usage cannot be treated as conclusive proof of exclusion when the core caste identity remains traceable to the notified caste. 9. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims (2011) 6 SCC 523 has held that caste verification must be based on the cumulative effect of documentary evidence and affinity, and not on isolated discrepancies in nomenclature. The Supreme Court emphasized adherence to due process and natural justice during verification. It held that individuals must receive notice, reasons, and opportunity to present evidence before certificates are invalidated. The Court distinguished between fraudulent claims and procedural deficiencies, stressing that legitimate claimants should not be penalized by administrative lapses. 10. It is also noticeable that the Investigation Assistant, after conducting enquiry with regard to family background, social customs, mother tongue, traditional occupation and affinity traits, submitted a report supporting the petitioner’s claim that he shares identical social characteristics with members of the “Mahar” community. Once such favourable material was available, the Scrutiny Committee was required to assign cogent reasons for 10 2026:CGHC:14659 discarding the same; however, the impugned order does not reflect any proper consideration of that report. On the contrary, the Vigilance Cell introduced the expression “Baya Mahara” , which admittedly does not find place in any statutory Scheduled Caste notification. Such conclusion, unsupported by any authentic material, cannot form a valid basis to deprive a person of his established caste status. 11. The Court further takes note of the fact that the petitioner was appointed in service as far back as 24.01.1983 and has continued in service for several decades. At present, he is serving on the post of Lecturer and is stated to be near retirement/promotion stage. There is no finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner obtained the caste certificate by practising fraud or by deliberate suppression of material facts. In absence of any proved fraud, long standing civil consequences flowing from service cannot be disturbed on doubtful interpretation of caste entries. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind (2001) 1 SCC 4 has emphasized that while caste verification must be strict, findings must rest on clear legal foundation and not on conjectural assumptions. The decision reaffirmed the constitutional scheme that protects the integrity of Scheduled Tribe lists. It curtailed state-level flexibility and underscored the finality of presidential notifications. The judgment 11 2026:CGHC:14659 also affected thousands of individuals who had received benefits under mistaken caste certificates, leading to subsequent policy and legal discussions on protecting bona fide beneficiaries while maintaining constitutional fidelity. 13. It is equally settled that a person cannot be denied the caste status to which he genuinely belongs merely because of marginal inconsistency in later records when foundational ancestral documents support his claim. In the present case, the earliest available document of the year 1929 consistently supports the petitioner’s claim of belonging to “Mahar” , which is a notified Scheduled Caste under Article 341 of the Constitution, and the said document has not been declared forged or fabricated by any competent authority. 14. Accordingly, considering the totality of facts, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 25.01.2020 passed by the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee suffers from illegality, perversity and non-consideration of material evidence and therefore cannot be sustained in law. 15. Consequently, the impugned order dated 25.01.2020 is hereby quashed and set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha </div>