Afjaal Ahmad And Another vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 12679 of 2022
Afjaal Ahmad and another
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 4 others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Navin Kumar Sharma, Nikhil
Kumar, Quazi Mohammad Akaram,
Shivam Yadav, Shoar Mohammad
Khan, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Kamal Krishna Roy, Ray
Sahab Yadav, Tausif Asgar Kaifi
AFR
Reserved on 23.02.2026
Delivered on 06.04.2026
Court No. - 4
HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.
HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.
(Per : Garima Prashad, J.)
1. Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Navin Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Anand
Bhaskar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri
Aushim Luthra with Ms. Utkarshni Singh, learned counsel for the
respondent No.5.
2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following
reliefs:
i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the
impugned order dated 27.11.2020 (Annexure No.10 to this writ
petition) passed by Respondent No.2 (State Level Caste Scrutiny
Committee, Lucknow).

2
WRIC No. - 12679 of 2022
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the
impugned order dated 18.12.2016 and 18.07.2017 (Annexure No.8 and
9 to this writ petition) passed by respondent No.3 (Regional Level
Caste Scrutiny Committee, Prayagraj).
iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the
proceedings pending before Regional Level Caste Scrutiny Committee,
Prayagraj as well as District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee,
Prayagraj in respect of the caste verification of the petitioners.
3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners
submits that both the petitioners belong to the Other Backward
Class category, namely Bhishti Abbasi, which has been notified as
an OBC caste by Gazette notification dated 06.08.1997. A caste
certificate to that effect was also issued by the competent authority
in favour of petitioner no.2.
4. It is submitted that the dispute arose from a complaint dated
14.12.2011 filed by one Late Nazmuddin before the State
Government alleging that the caste certificates of the petitioners
were not genuine. Acting upon the said complaint, the State
Government by order dated 10.02.2012 directed the District Level
Caste Scrutiny Committee, Prayagraj to conduct an enquiry
regarding the validity of the caste certificates and submit its report.
5. Pursuant to the said direction, the District Level Committee
conducted an enquiry and by order dated 03.04.2014 found the
complaint to be baseless and upheld the validity of the caste
certificates of the petitioners. It is further submitted that apart from
the said enquiry, a departmental enquiry was also conducted
regarding the caste certificate of petitioner no.2 which culminated
in an order dated 16.05.2012 declaring the certificate to be valid.
6. During the pendency of the proceedings, the original
complainant Late Nazmuddin died on 17.03.2013. Thereafter, his
son Zafaruddin (respondent no.5) filed an appeal before the
Regional Level Caste Scrutiny Committee. The Regional Level

3
WRIC No. - 12679 of 2022
Committee by order dated 27.05.2015 recorded that the order dated
03.04.2014 passed by the District Level Committee was correct and
required no interference, however it directed the District Level
Committee to examine certain additional documents produced by
respondent no.5. In compliance thereof, the District Level
Committee again examined the matter and by order dated
20.01.2016 reiterated its earlier findings and refused to interfere
with its order dated 03.04.2014.
7. It is further submitted that the State Government itself by
order dated 28.04.2015 dismissed the complaint dated 14.12.2011
as false and baseless. The said decision was communicated to the
District Magistrate, Prayagraj by letter dated 30.06.2015 and by
order dated 04.08.2015 directions were issued to terminate the caste
dispute proceedings against the petitioners.
8. Despite the aforesaid orders, respondent no.5 again preferred
an appeal before the Regional Level Committee against the order
dated 20.01.2016. The Regional Level Committee by order dated
18.12.2016 allowed the appeal without considering the earlier
government orders closing the proceedings. The petitioners
thereafter filed a review application which was partly allowed by
order dated 18.07.2017, however the Regional Level Committee
again directed the District Level Committee to re-examine the
matter. Thereafter, respondent no.5 approached the State Level
Caste Scrutiny Committee which by order dated 27.11.2020
directed the Regional Level Committee to reconsider the matter.
9. Learned Senior Advocate submits that the issue regarding the
caste status of the petitioners has already been examined repeatedly
by the competent authorities. The District Level Committee twice
upheld the caste certificates of the petitioners, the Regional Level
Committee initially affirmed the same, and the State Government

4
WRIC No. - 12679 of 2022
itself by orders dated 28.04.2015 and 04.08.2015 closed the
proceedings.
10. It is further submitted that in response to an application under
the Right to Information Act, the State Government by
communication dated 27.09.2018 clarified that no order had been
passed permitting substitution of the complainant after the death of
Late Nazmuddin nor was any authority directed to conduct repeated
enquiries. Reliance is also placed on a further communication dated
12.09.2022 issued by the Deputy Secretary, State of U.P., wherein it
has been stated that the complaints against the petitioners regarding
their caste certificates were found baseless and the matter had
already been concluded and consigned to record. It is therefore
submitted that the continued proceedings initiated at the instance of
respondent no.5, who has no locus in the matter, amount to
harassment of the petitioners and the impugned orders are liable to
be quashed.
11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5
submits that the petitioners have obtained an interim order dated
31.08.2022 by suppressing material facts. It is submitted that the
petitioners concealed that an appeal had already been filed against
the order dated 18.07.2017 and therefore approached this Court
without clean hands. It is contended that a person who seeks
equitable relief under Article 226 must disclose all material facts
and suppression thereof is sufficient ground for dismissal of the writ
petition.
12. It is further submitted that the petitioners have fraudulently
obtained caste certificates showing themselves as belonging to the
Bhishti Abbasi OBC category despite actually belonging to the
general category. By using the said certificate, the petitioners

5
WRIC No. - 12679 of 2022
allegedly secured a government post meant for members of the
backward class.
13. Learned counsel for the respondent no.5 further submits that
documentary evidence including educational records of the
petitioners and the caste status of their biological relatives indicate
that the family has never belonged to the Bhishti Abbasi
community.
14. It is further contended that the objection regarding locus
standi raised by the petitioners is misconceived. Reliance is placed
upon the decision in Shakila Begum Faiyazuddin v. State of
Maharashtra (2003) 8 SCC 49 and Raju Ramsing Vasave v. Mahesh
Deorao Bhivapurkar, (2008) 9 SCC 54, wherein it has been
observed that the validity of an appointment obtained on the basis
of a caste certificate is a matter of public importance and the Court
can examine such issues even if raised by a third party in order to
prevent fraud on the Constitution.
15. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State submits
that pursuant to the complaint dated 14.12.2011 the State
Government by order dated 10.02.2012 directed the District
Magistrate, Prayagraj to conduct an enquiry through the District
Level Caste Scrutiny Committee regarding the validity of the caste
certificate of the petitioners. In compliance thereof, the District
Level Committee conducted the enquiry and submitted its report
dated 03.04.2014 to the State Government.
16. The State Government thereafter by order dated 28.04.2015
dismissed the complaint dated 14.12.2011 as baseless and
consigned the matter to record. The said decision was
communicated to the District Magistrate, Prayagraj by order dated

6
WRIC No. - 12679 of 2022
04.08.2015 directing termination of the caste dispute proceedings
against the petitioners.
17. It is further submitted that the State Government by order
dated 12.09.2022 again communicated to the Commissioner, State
Tax and the District Magistrate, Prayagraj that the matter had
already been concluded and no justification exists for conducting a
fresh enquiry.
18. After hearing learned counsels for the parties and perusing the
material on record, this Court finds that the controversy in the
present writ petition revolves around the legality of repeated
reopening of caste verification proceedings initiated against the
petitioners despite the issue having been examined on multiple
occasions by the competent authorities and the State Government
itself having recorded findings that the complaint was baseless.
19. From the record it emerges that the entire proceedings
originated from a complaint dated 14.12.2011 submitted by one
Late Nazmuddin before the State Government alleging that the
caste certificates of the petitioners were not genuine. Acting upon
the said complaint, the State Government by order dated 10.02.2012
directed the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, Prayagraj to
conduct an enquiry regarding the validity of the caste certificates of
the petitioners and to submit its report to the Government.
20. Pursuant to the said direction, a detailed enquiry was
conducted by the District Level Committee and an order dated
03.04.2014 was passed wherein the complaint was found to be
baseless and the caste certificates of the petitioners were found to be
valid. The record further indicates that apart from the enquiry
conducted by the District Level Committee, a departmental enquiry
was also conducted in respect of the caste certificate of petitioner

7
WRIC No. - 12679 of 2022
no.2 and the same too culminated in an order dated 16.05.2012
declaring the caste certificate to be valid.
21. It is also not in dispute that during the pendency of the
proceedings, the original complainant Late Nazmuddin died on
17.03.2013. Thereafter, his son Zafaruddin, who is respondent no.5
in the present writ petition, sought to continue the proceedings by
filing an appeal before the Regional Level Caste Scrutiny
Committee. The Regional Level Committee by order dated
27.05.2015 recorded that the order dated 03.04.2014 passed by the
District Level Committee was correct and did not warrant
interference. However, while recording the said finding, it
remanded the matter to the District Level Committee directing it to
examine certain additional documents that had been produced at the
appellate stage by respondent no.5.
22. In compliance with the said direction, the District Level
Committee again examined the matter and by order dated
20.01.2016 reiterated its earlier finding and refused to interfere with
its order dated 03.04.2014. The State Government itself thereafter
passed an order dated 28.04.2015 dismissing the complaint of Late
Nazmuddin as false and baseless. The said decision was
communicated to the concerned authorities and further directions
were issued on 04.08.2015 to terminate the caste dispute
proceedings against the petitioners. A communication dated
30.06.2015 issued by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P.,
Lucknow also recorded that the State Government had already
closed the proceedings relating to the caste certificates of the
petitioners.
23. Despite the aforesaid orders and the repeated findings
recorded in favour of the petitioners, respondent no.5 again
preferred an appeal before the Regional Level Committee against

8
WRIC No. - 12679 of 2022
the order dated 20.01.2016. The Regional Level Committee by
order dated 18.12.2016 allowed the appeal and reopened the issue.
Subsequently, upon a review application filed by the petitioners, the
Regional Level Committee by order dated 18.07.2017 modified its
earlier order but again directed the District Level Committee to
examine the matter afresh. Thereafter, respondent no.5 approached
the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee which by order dated
27.11.2020 directed the Regional Level Committee to reconsider
the matter.
24. The consequence of the aforesaid orders is that despite the
issue having been examined repeatedly by the competent authorities
and even after the State Government itself had recorded a
categorical finding that the complaint was baseless and the
proceedings stood closed, the matter continued to be remanded
from one authority to another resulting in the same issue being
reopened again and again.
25. This Court finds substance in the submission advanced on
behalf of the petitioners that such repeated reopening of the
proceedings cannot be permitted once the competent authorities as
well as the State Government itself have examined the matter and
closed the complaint. Administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings
cannot be permitted to continue indefinitely as that would defeat the
principle of finality and would result in unnecessary harassment of
the parties.
26. The law relating to verification of caste status stands
authoritatively laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumari
Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, (1994)
6 SCC 241, wherein a detailed mechanism was prescribed for
scrutiny of caste certificates through Scrutiny Committees. The said
position has been subsequently explained and reaffirmed in

9
WRIC No. - 12679 of 2022
Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham, (2012) 1 SCC 333, wherein it has been
emphasized that the determination of caste status must be
undertaken by the competent scrutiny authorities and cannot be left
open to indefinite reconsideration.
27. A necessary corollary of the above principle is that once the
issue of caste verification has been duly examined by the competent
authorities in accordance with law, and findings have been
recorded, such proceedings must attain finality. Repeated reopening
of the same issue, particularly on the same set of allegations, would
defeat the very purpose of constituting scrutiny committees and
would lead to uncertainty and harassment.
28. In this regard, it is well settled that repeated enquiries into the
validity of a caste certificate are impermissible, except in
exceptional circumstances where the earlier determination is shown
to be vitiated by fraud or was rendered without jurisdiction or
without proper enquiry.
29. There can be no dispute with the proposition that a false caste
claim amounts to a fraud on the Constitution, as held in Chairman
& Managing Director, FCI v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira, (2017) 8
SCC 670. However, the said principle cannot be invoked in a
mechanical manner. Mere allegations of fraud, without any fresh or
cogent material, cannot justify repeated reopening of proceedings
which have already been concluded by the competent authorities
and accepted by the State Government.
30. In the present case, there is no such finding of fraud recorded
by any competent authority despite multiple enquiries. The record
clearly demonstrates that the issue was examined by the District
Level Committee, then reaffirmed upon reconsideration, further
considered by the Regional Level Committee, and thereafter the

10
WRIC No. - 12679 of 2022
State Government itself, upon due consideration, declared the
complaint to be baseless and directed closure of proceedings.
31. Further, the State Government has clarified that it had neither
authorised the substitution of any person after the death of the
original complainant nor directed the authorities to conduct
repeated enquiries. Moreover, the Government Order dated
12.09.2022 categorically records that the matter has already been
examined and closed, and that no further enquiry is required.
32. Once the State Government itself has accepted the findings
and consigned the matter to record, and the issue has already been
examined repeatedly by the competent scrutiny authorities, it could
not have been reopened or remanded in the absence of any fresh
material or jurisdictional infirmity in the earlier proceedings. The
impugned action, therefore, cannot be sustained in law as it permits
repeated re-agitation of a concluded issue.
33. Such action is clearly contrary to the settled principles of
finality, certainty and fairness in administrative and quasi-judicial
decision-making. Permitting such repeated reopening would render
the entire statutory scrutiny mechanism otiose and expose
individuals to perpetual uncertainty.
34. As regards the objection relating to locus standi of respondent
no.5, it is undisputed that the original complaint was filed by Late
Nazmuddin who admittedly died on 17.03.2013. After his death, the
proceedings were sought to be pursued by his son, respondent no.5.
The material on record indicates that respondent no.5 is a resident
of the same village, but he has not demonstrated any direct legal
injury arising out of the caste certificates of the petitioners.
35. It is well settled that service matters cannot ordinarily be
agitated at the instance of a third party, as held by the Hon’ble

11
WRIC No. - 12679 of 2022
Supreme Court in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra,
(1998) 7 SCC 273, and Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto,
(2010) 9 SCC 655, wherein it has been categorically held that
strangers have no locus standi to challenge appointments or service
benefits and such disputes are essentially between the employer and
the employee. The present dispute, being essentially in the realm of
service benefits arising out of caste certification, falls squarely
within the aforesaid principle.
36. It is contended by the respondent no.5 that issues relating to
false caste claims may be raised even by a third party in view of
their public importance, as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Shakila Begum (supra) and Raju Ramsing (supra) wherein it has
been held that although ordinarily a third party may lack standing,
the Court can intervene in exceptional cases where fraud is
apparent. The proposition is not in dispute. However, both the
aforesaid decisions operate in a limited field. In Shakila Begum
(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court intervened in peculiar facts
where there was prima facie material indicating fraud and misuse of
reservation benefits, thereby justifying departure from the general
rule of locus standi. Similarly, in Raju Ramsing (supra), it was held
that issues of caste fraud affecting public employment or electoral
rights may be examined in view of their public importance.
37. However, neither of the aforesaid decisions lays down that a
private individual can perpetually re-agitate a matter which has
already been examined and concluded by the competent statutory
authorities. Both judgments proceed on the existence of prima facie
material indicating fraud or illegality warranting judicial scrutiny. In
the present case, no such circumstance exists. On the contrary, the
issue has been examined repeatedly by the competent scrutiny
committees as well as by the State Government, and all authorities

12
WRIC No. - 12679 of 2022
have consistently recorded findings in favour of the petitioners. In
absence of any fresh material or demonstrated fraud, the reliance
placed upon the aforesaid decisions is misconceived and does not
justify repeated reopening of concluded proceedings.
38. Even assuming that respondent no.5 could initially bring the
issue to notice, he cannot be permitted to sustain successive rounds
of proceedings in the absence of any fresh material or legal
justification. In the present case, respondent no.5 is only a co-
villager and has not demonstrated any direct legal injury and,
therefore, does not fall within the category of an aggrieved person
in service jurisprudence. More importantly, the State Government
itself has categorically clarified that no substitution of the
complainant was permitted and no further enquiry was warranted.
In such circumstances, the continuation of proceedings at his
instance is wholly unjustified.
39. In these circumstances, the Court is of the view that the
impugned orders dated 18.12.2016 and 18.07.2017 passed by the
Regional Level Caste Scrutiny Committee and the order dated
27.11.2020 passed by the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee
cannot be sustained in law, as they result reopening an issue which
has already attained finality. The impugned orders, therefore, suffer
from arbitrariness and are unsustainable in law.
40. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.11.2020 passed by
the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, Lucknow as well as the
orders dated 18.12.2016 and 18.07.2017 passed by the Regional
Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, Prayagraj are hereby quashed.
41. Consequently, the proceedings pending before the Regional
Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, Prayagraj and the District Level
Caste Scrutiny Committee, Prayagraj in respect of the caste

13
WRIC No. - 12679 of 2022
verification of the petitioners shall stand closed. The findings
recorded by the District Level Committee in its orders dated
03.04.2014 and 20.01.2016 declaring the caste certificates of the
petitioners to be valid shall remain operative.
42. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
43. No order as to costs.
(Garima Prashad, J.) (Neeraj Tiwari, J.)
April 6, 2026
Kuldeep
Digitally signed by :-
KULDEEP SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad