ANAND MASIH vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1


CGHC010155062023 2026:CGHC:46383
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 2159 of 2023
Reserved on 11.09.2026
SHYNA
AJAY
Pronounced on 03.11.2026
Digitally signed
by SHYNA AJAY
Date:
2026.11.03
18:36:49 +0530
Anand Masih S/o Shri Ishu Prasad Masih, Aged About 59 Years,
Occupation Service (IAS)- Secretary Police Accountability Authority,
Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, R/o 125, Paradise Complex
Colony, Borsi Bhata, Durg District - Durg Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Schedule Castes and
Scheduled Tribes Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya
Raipur, Mantralaya, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General
Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur,
Mantralaya, 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-4D, Ground Floor, Naya Raipur,
Atal Nagar, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh

2
4 - Collector, Janjgir-Champa, District - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh.
5 - Collector, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
(Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery)
For Petitioner(s) : Mt. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Pravesh Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent/
:
Mr. R.K. Gupta, Additional Advocate General
State
For Intervenor
:
Mr. Mohd. Naqeeb and Ms. Puja Sahu,
Advocates
SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
C A V Order
1.
By way of this petition, the petitioner calls in question the
legality and validity of the order dated 24.2.2023/27.2.2023
passed by the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee,
Office of the Commissioner, Tribal and Scheduled Caste
Development, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as
“the Scrutiny Committee”). By the said order, the Scrutiny
Committee cancelled the Caste Certificate dated 22.1.1981
issued in favour of the petitioner certifying membership in the
‘Uraon’ Scheduled Tribe, which had been issued by the District
Organisor, for- Collector {Tribal Welfare}, Bilaspur [MP] [Now
CG]). While cancelling the Caste Certificate, the Scrutiny
Committee further directed that appropriate steps be initiated
against the petitioner in accordance with Rule 23 (3), 23(5) and

3
24(1) of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes
and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status
Certification) Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules
of 2013”).
2. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs in the petition:
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 24.2.2023/27.2.2023 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 caste certificate
issued to the petitioner contained in ANNEXURE-P/6
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. The case, as set forth by the petitioner, is that the petitioner
belongs to the ‘Uraon’ Caste, a Scheduled Tribe notified under
the provisions of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order,
1950, promulgated pursuant to Article 342 of the Constitution
of India vide Notification dated 6.9.1950. The grandfather of
the petitioner namely Baldev Prasad migrated to Bilaspur in the
year 1915, whereupon he acquired a parcel of Abadi land
situated in the erstwhile Champa Zamindari Estate (presently
Janjgir-Champa District). Thereafter, the father of the petitioner
also purchased a plot of land upon which an old residential
structure was situated. Revenue proceedings were also

4
initiated in respect of the aforesaid properties, culminating in an
order dated 29.11.1972 passed by the District Collector,
wherein certain observations were recorded. The father of the
petitioner namely I.S. Masih completed his education in the
erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh and served as public
servant under the State Government of Madhya Pradesh. He
was serving in the Department of Ayurveda, as is evident from
the Service Book (Annexure P/5) maintained in respect of the
father of the petitioner. Further, the Caste Certificate dated
22.1.1981 was issued in favour of the petitioner by the District
Organiser, for- Collector (Tribal Welfare), Bilaspur. The Caste
Certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner after
conducting due inquiry and upon verification of the petitioner’s
ancestral background by the concerned Naib Tehsildar.
Subsequently, in the year 1991, on the strength of the
aforesaid Caste Certificate, the petitioner was selected for
appointment to the post of Deputy Collector in the erstwhile
State of Madhya Pradesh through a competitive examination.
The Caste Certificate of the petitioner was verified at the time
of his initial appointment and no dispute whatsoever was
raised from any quarter regarding the social status of the
petitioner as belonging to the Uraon Scheduled Tribe.
Subsequently, upon certain complaints being lodged against
the petitioner concerning his social status, his caste claim was
referred for verification to the Scrutiny Committee,
Chhattisgarh, Raipur. The said Committee, vide order dated

5
5.2.2007, held that the petitioner failed to prove that he
belongs to the Uraon Scheduled Tribe and accordingly
cancelled his Caste Certificate. Since the petitioner was
serving as a public servant, the Committee further directed that
he be removed from service, with a consequential direction to
the Collector, Bilaspur to take necessary action against him in
accordance with law. The petitioner challenged the said order
before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3136 of 2007, wherein, initially,
an interim protection was granted in favour of the petitioner, by
virtue of which he continued to hold the subject post.
Subsequently, while finally disposing of the said writ petition,
this Court, vide order dated 24.7.2018, upon due appreciation
of the arguments advanced by the concerned parties and
documents appended to the petition, remanded the matter
back to the concerned authorities for fresh consideration. In
doing so, this Court issued directions to the authorities to
conduct a proper inquiry, observing that the inquiry hitherto
conducted and the order passed pursuant thereto were in clear
violation and total non-compliance of the specific directives laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inasmuch as the
procedure/method of inquiry adopted by the Committee was
not in accordance with law. Consequently, the order dated
05.02.2007 passed by the Committee was set-aside with
consequences to follow. The State being aggrieved by the said
order dated 24.07.2018 preferred a Writ Appeal bearing W.A.
No. 388 of 2019, however, the said appeal was dismissed by

6
the Division Bench vide order dated 29.08.2019, thereby
confirming the findings and directions of the learned Single
Judge. While dismissing the said appeal, the Division Bench
reserved liberty to the State, observing that inasmuch as there
is no estoppel against law, the right of the State to proceed in
the matter would not stand barred by virtue of the course and
events before this Court, provided any further steps are
pursued strictly in conformity with the relevant statutory
provisions and the binding judicial precedents. Subsequent to
the disposal of the aforesaid Writ Appeal, a fresh show cause
notice dated 05.01.2021 was issued to the petitioner by the
respondent authorities, referencing the orders dated 24.7.2018
and 29.08.2019 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3136 of 2007 and W.A.
No. 388 of 2019 respectively. Vide the said notice, the
petitioner was called upon to state whether (i) he desired a
personal hearing; (ii) he sought an oral inquiry; and (iii) he
wished to adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support
of his social status, along with a direction that if in the
affirmative, a list thereof be submitted. It was specified in the
memo dated 05.01.2021 that in the event, a reply was not
received within the prescribed time limit, it would be presumed
that the petitioner had nothing to submit in that regard and ex-
parte action would be taken against him accordingly. The
petitioner duly submitted his response to the said show-cause
notice, wherein he tendered a request for a personal hearing
and evinced his intention to adduce oral as well as

7
documentary evidence in support of his defence during the

course of the inquiry. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted all
relevant documents to enable the Committee to examine the
matter thoroughly and arrive at a just conclusion. However, to
the utter shock and surprise of the petitioner, a perusal of the
impugned order reveals that the respondent authorities failed to
examine the matter in a proper, fair and judicious manner. The
Committee completely turned a blind eye to the directions
issued by the learned Single Judge and affirmed by the
Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court. Ultimately, the Committee
proceeded to mechanically reaffirm the very same order dated
5.2.2007 that had previously been quashed and set aside by
this Court, acting in an exceedingly casual and cavalier
manner. Hence, this Petition.
4. Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr.
Pravesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits
that the Committee failed to consider the specific directions
issued by this Court vide order dated 24.07.2018 passed in
WPS No.3136/2007, which was subsequently affirmed by the
Division Bench vide order dated 29.08.2019 in W.A. No. 388 of
2019. Learned Senior Counsel submits that neither was the
inquiry conducted in a proper and lawful manner nor was a
reasonable opportunity of hearing afforded to the petitioner.
The entire exercise was carried out in a mechanical and casual
manner in total disregard of the principles of natural justice. He
also submits that the petitioner had placed on record cogent

8
documentary evidence demonstrating long standing residence
and landholding within the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh
(now the State of Chhattisgarh) since the year 1915. However,
the respondent authorities failed to evaluate these material
documents. Furthermore, the authorities deprived the petitioner
of a fair opportunity to adduce oral evidence or cross-examine
the official witnesses produced during the inquiry. He also
submits that the authorities failed to consider the valid Caste
Certificate issued in favour of the father of the petitioner, which
conclusively certifies his status as belonging to the ‘Uraon’ (ST)
community. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the
order passed by this Court has been rendered a nullity in
effect, as the respondent authorities, specifically the Scrutiny
Committee, have again passed the impugned order in total
disregard and contravention of the Rules of 2013 as well as the
various dictums laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
matters of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another Vs. Additional
Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others, reported
in [(1994) 6 SCC 241] and Director of Tribal Welfare,
Government of A.P. Vs. Laveti Giri and another reported in
(1995) 4 SCC 32 . He further submits that had the respondent
authorities adhered to the specific directions issued by this
Court and applied the principles enunciated in Madhuri Patil
(supra) and Laveti Giri (supra) , the outcome would have been
entirely different. He further submits that where an order entails
grave civil consequences for a citizen, the requirement to afford

9
an opportunity of hearing is of paramount importance and
cannot be brushed aside in a casual manner. He submits that
the deliberate non-compliance with the directions of this Court,
coupled with the failure to adhere to the mandatory procedure
prescribed in Madhuri Patil (supra) and Laveti Giri (supra)
vitiates the entire proceedings and renders the impugned
order illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law. He further
submits that the initiation of fresh proceedings by the Scrutiny
Committee suffers from a jurisdictional defect, rendering the
entire exercise void. Under the statutory framework of the
Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other
Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification)
Act, 2013 (in short “the Act, 2013”), specifically Section 6, the
High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee is a purely
statutory body functioning within legislative limits and lacks
any inherent or suo motu power to re-open or re-adjudicate
social status claims in the absence of a valid fresh statutory
reference. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed
5. On the other hand, Mr. RK Gupta, learned Additional Advocate
General for the State submits that the Scrutiny Committee has
meticulously evaluated every single aspect and contention
raised before this Court. He submits that the impugned order
was passed in accordance with law after affording a full and
fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He contends that it
was the petitioner himself who defaulted in adducing any
cogent evidence in support of his claim nor did he ever seek

10
leave to cross-examine any official witness during the course of
the inquiry. Having voluntarily failed to exercise his procedural
rights during the inquiry proceedings, it is not open to the
petitioner at this belated stage to plead violation of the
principles of natural justice before this Court. He also submits
that the scope of interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is not for reexamining the matter again
and again. Learned counsel submits that under Section 14 of
the Act of 2013, read with the settled dicta of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), Laveti Giri
(supra) and Anand Vs Committee for Scrutiny and
Verification of Tribal Claims reported in (2012) 1 SCC 113 ,
the heavy and unshifting burden of establishing social status
rests exclusively upon the applicant or certificate holder at
every stage, whether issuance, verification or scrutiny and the
Scrutiny Committee is under no legal duty to hunt for evidence
on behalf of the claimant. He submits that a person inherits
caste status strictly through paternal lineage and not from the
mother, yet the petitioner who knew that his father belonged to
the Satnami (SC) community while his mother was from the
Uraon (ST) community deliberately withheld his three-
generation family tree from the Halka Patwari as mandated
under Rule 3(3)(e) of the Rules of 2013 to conceal his true
paternal lineage. The petitioner utterly failed to produce any
pre-cut-off (06.09.1950) documentary evidence from his
ancestral native village under Rule 3(3) of the Rules of 2013

11
nor did he obtain a Gram Sabha resolution under Rule 3(3)(e)
(XI), relying instead on post cut-off revenue records from non-
native districts which carry no evidentiary value in law.
Furthermore, the Scrutiny Committee acted within the
procedural ambit of Sections 7 and 14 of the Act of 2013 read
with Rules 19 to 23 of the Rules of 2013 and after conducting a
full inquiry through the Vigilance Cell and affording a
meaningful opportunity of hearing under Rule 22(2), rightly
concluded that the caste certificate pertaining to the year 1981
was secured through suppression, misrepresentation and
fraudulent means. As held in Chairman and Managing
Director, Food Corporation of India v. Jagdish Balaram
Bahira reported in (2017) 8 SCC 670 , procuring a false social
status certificate to siphon off constitutional reservation benefits
constitutes a deliberate fraud on the Constitution, rendering the
impugned order of cancellation wholly legal, constitutional and
unassailable. He submits that the petitioner has failed to point
out anything on record by which it can be inferred that he has
not been afforded opportunity of hearing or the inquiry was not
conducted in accordance with law and as such, the
interference as sought by the petitioner cannot be ordered for.
He lastly submits that the Committee has passed a detailed,
well-reasoned and speaking order based on proper
appreciation of the material on record, which warrants no
interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ
jurisdiction. Hence, the petition sans merits is liable to be

12
dismissed.
6.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the
documents annexed with the petition with utmost
circumspection.
7. The following points for determination arise for consideration
before this Court :
Point No.I : Whether the proceedings before the High Power
Certification Scrutiny Committee were void for want of a
fresh statutory reference under Section 6 of the Act of
2013 and whether the Committee failed to execute the
binding directions of this Court (order dated 24.7.2018
passed in WPS No.3136/2007, as affirmed by the Division
Bench vide order dated 29.08.2019 passed in W.A. No.
388 of 2019) upon remand?
Point No.II: Whether the petitioner was afforded a
reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard in
accordance with the principles of natural justice and the
directions passed by this Court in the said writ petition?
Point No. III: Whether the Scrutiny Committee complied with
the statutory procedure prescribed under the Act of 2013
and the Rules of 2013, particularly in light of Section 14 of
the Act of 2013 regarding the burden of proof?
Point No.I (Jurisdictional challenge under Rule 6 of the Act,
2013)
8. In the earlier round of litigation, the Committee had cancelled
the Caste Certificate of the petitioner belonging to the 'Uraon'
Scheduled Tribe community vide order dated 05.02.2007.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner instituted W.P.(S) No. 3136 of
2007, wherein this Court, vide order dated 24.07.2018,

13
observed vide para 10 and 11 as under:
10. Now taking into consideration the aforesaid legal position
as it stands in the light of the judgments of the Supreme
Court if we peruse the impugned order under challenge
Annexure P-1 what clearly reflects is that the impugned
order Annexure P-1 has been issued on the basis of a
report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
District Janjgir-Champa to the Superintendent of Police
Janjgir-Champa who in turn had forwarded communication
to respondent no.2 Committee. If we read the said report of
the Deputy Superintendent of Police dated 29.05.2004, it
clearly reflects that all that the Deputy Superintendent of
Police has mentioned in his report is that the forefathers of
the petitioner do not seem to be the resident of District
Janjgir-Champa but were resident of Bhatapara. Apart from
the said observation, the Deputy Superintendent of Police
has not stated anything so far as the caste status of the
petitioner is concerned or whether the father of the
petitioner or forefather of the petitioner were not belonging
to “Uraon” community. It further reflects from the said report
that except for the fact that the petitioner and his forefathers
were not resident of District Janjgir-Champa, there does not
appear to be any further enquiry conducted either by the
Superintendent of Police, Janjgir-Champa or by the
concerned Superintendent of Police under whom Bhatapara
comes. Moreover, there also does not appear to be any
document in possession of the respondents which would
reflect that the petitioner does not in fact belong to “Uraon”
community or that he belongs to a different community. In
the absence of a finding by the Caste Scrutiny Committee to
the extent that the petitioner does not belong to a different
community in stead of “Uraon” community which the
petitioner claims, the impugned order Annexure P-1 itself
may not be sustainable.
11. Moreover, what further reflects is that the directives which
have been given by the Supreme Court in the case of
Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) and which further stands
reiterated in the case of Laveti Giri (supra), there does not
appear to be any enquiry so far as the anthropological and

14
ethnological traits are concerned. If we read the directives
given in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), it would
reflect that there was a specific direction given to the State
Authorities as to how the enquiry and investigation has to
be conducted. From a plain reading of the impugned order,
there does not appear to be any such enquiry instituted or
conducted by respondent no.2 except for the issuance of
repeated letters to the petitioner for appearing before the
Tribunal and for proving that he belongs to “Uraon”
community. The very fact that the State Authorities
particularly respondent no.2 has not been able to reach to a
conclusion as to which community or caste the petitioner
belongs which itself is a sufficient proof that the petitioner
has not played any fraud with the authority while obtaining
the caste certificate as early as on 22.01.1981. What also
cannot be brushed aside is the fact that the certificate was
issued in favour of the petitioner when the petitioner was too
young an age to have played mischief or fraud for the
purpose of obtaining employment.
9. After the order of remand, the respondent authorities were
under a legal obligation to comply with the directions issued by
this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3136 of 2007 vide order dated
24.07.2018 in letter and spirit. The State challenged the said
order before the Division Bench in W.A. No. 388 of 2019, which
was dismissed on 29.08.2019, thereby confirming the findings
and directions of the learned Single Judge. The authorities
could not under any circumstances deviate from or bypass the
mandated procedure unless the said order had been set-aside
or annulled by a Superior Court.
10. In the instant case, the petitioner specifically contends that the
very initiation of proceedings by the Committee is void ab initio
and without jurisdiction. Under the governing provisions of the

15
Act of 2013, the Committee lacks the statutory mandate to
entertain or initiate proceedings suo motu without a valid
reference from the District Level Certificates Verification
Committee or the State Government. Hence, the entire
exercise suffers from a fundamental jurisdictional defect that
goes to the root of the matter and vitiates the proceedings at
the very threshold.
11.
However, this Court finds the aforesaid contention to be
thoroughly misconceived and unsustainable in law. It is an
undisputed fact that in the earlier round, the Committee had
cancelled the Caste Certificate of the petitioner certifying him
as belonging to the 'Uraon' Scheduled Tribe community, vide
order dated 05.02.2007. The said order was assailed in W.P.(S)
No. 3136 of 2007, wherein this Court set-aside the order dated
05.02.2007 and issued certain directions remanding the matter
back for a fresh re-examination of the social status of the
petitioner. Once this Court was seized of the matter and had
issued an order of remand directing the Scrutiny Committee to
re-scrutinize the claim, the requirement of a fresh statutory
reference from the District Level Committee or the State
Government under Section 6 of the Act, 2013 was rendered
completely inapplicable and redundant. This being the second
round of litigation, arising directly out of the order of remand
passed by this Court, the threshold jurisdictional objection fails
to impress this Court and is accordingly rejected. In view of the
above, Point No.I is answered against the petitioner.

16
Point No.II (Natural Justice and Opportunity of Hearing)
12. It is undisputed that pursuant to the directions issued by the
learned Single Judge vide order dated 24.07.2018 passed in
W.P.(S) No. 3136 of 2007 and confirmed by the Division Bench
of this Court vide order dated 29.8.2019 passed in WA
No.388/2019, a show cause notice was issued by the
Committee to the petitioner asking him whether he would opt
for a personal hearing, participate in an oral inquiry or adduce
oral or documentary evidence in support of his social status.
However, despite the petitioner explicitly exercising this option,
the Scrutiny Committee failed to adhere to the statutory
mandate. In total disregard of the procedural safeguards, the
Committee arbitrarily proceeded to cancel the petitioner's
'Uraon' Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate and recommended
consequential action under the Rules of 2013.
13. It is a settled proposition of law that where an administrative
order visits a person with grave civil consequences, such as
dismissal or removal from service, the principles of natural
justice assume paramount importance and must be observed
on a high pedestal, as any departure therefrom works severe
and irreparable prejudice to the individual.
14. While remanding the matter vide order dated 24.07.2018
passed in WPS No.3136/2007, this Court had directed the
respondent authorities and the Scrutiny Committee to re-
examine the claim after extending a full and fair opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner, including the right to adduce both oral

17
and documentary evidence. In light of the directions issued by
this Court, the Scrutiny Committee was required to examine
whether the petitioner had committed any fraud in securing the
Caste Certificate on 22.01.1981. It is pertinent to note that this
Court had previously observed in the order dated 24.7.2018
that since the certificate was issued when the petitioner was at
a tender and impressionable age, the allegation of committing
fraud to secure future employment was highly improbable at
the relevant point of time.
15. A perusal of the record further reveals that despite the binding
directions issued by this Court, the petitioner was denied an
effective opportunity to cross-examine the adverse witnesses
or lead rebuttal evidence. The impugned order cancelling the
Social Status Certificate of the petitioner was passed solely
on the grounds that he failed to produce pre-1950 documentary
evidence establishing his membership in the 'Uraon' Scheduled
Tribe community and that certain witnesses had testified
against him.
16. It is a well-settled proposition of law that oral evidence relied
upon by a quasi-judicial authority cannot form the basis of an
adverse finding unless the affected party is extended an
opportunity of cross-examination in strict adherence to the
principles of natural justice. In the instant case, the witnesses
who testified against the petitioner were never subjected to
cross-examination, as a result whereof the veracity and

18
credibility of their statements remained wholly untested.
Uncorroborated oral testimony which has not passed through
the crucible of cross-examination cannot lawfully sustain an
order visiting a citizen with severe civil consequences. Point
No.II is answered in favour of the petitioner.
Point No.III (Statutory Procedure & Burden of Proof under
Section 14 of the Act, 2013)
17. With the coming into force of the Act of 2013 and Rules of
2013 made thereunder, a defined statutory procedure has been
established to govern caste verification proceedings. Prior to
the enactment of the Act and Rules of 2013, when statutory
mechanisms were absent, the field was governed by the
landmark decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumari
Madhuri Patil (supra) , wherein detailed guidelines were laid
down directing the constitution of the Caste Scrutiny
Committees and prescribing the procedure for verification of
social status claims. If the procedure mandated under the
applicable Act and Rules is departed from, any consequential
order cancelling the Caste Certificate stands vitiated as an
exercise conducted without authority of law.
18. It is the cardinal principle of statutory interpretation that where
a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, it must
be done in that way or not at all and all other modes of
performance are necessarily forbidden. When the present case
is evaluated in light of this settled legal position and the

19
governing principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) and Laveti Giri (supra) , it
becomes manifestly clear that a fair and meaningful opportunity
of hearing, in compliance with due process of law, was denied
to the petitioner.
19. The respondent authorities proceeded on the erroneous
premise that the petitioner's claim was liable to be rejected
merely because he failed to adduce pre-1950 documentary
evidence. However, it is a settled canon of jurisprudence,
repeatedly reaffirmed by this Court as well as the Apex Court,
that the non-production of pre-1950 documents cannot, by
itself, be treated as fatal when verifying a claim of social status.
The Scrutiny Committee is under a statutory obligation to
consider the totality of the material on record, including local
inquiry reports, oral evidence, ethnological traits and affinity
test results, before arriving at a lawful determination. In this
context, the finding recorded by the Committee that the
forefathers of the petitioner do not reside in the erstwhile
Champa Zamindari Estate (presently Janjgir-Champa District)
before migrating to Durg was arrived at without properly
appreciating the historical revenue records, thereby rendering
the impugned order perverse, arbitrary and legally
unsustainable.
20. So far as the reliance on Section 14 of the Act of 2013 by
learned counsel for the State is concerned, while the statutory

20
burden of establishing social status initially rests upon the
applicant/certificate holder, Section 14 cannot be interpreted in
isolation to abrogate the principles of natural justice. Section 14
is an evidentiary provision that operates dynamically. Once the
claimant produces prima facie documentary evidence or long-
standing public records, the onus shifts to the State/Vigilance
Cell to rebut the same through lawful and verified material.
Importantly, Section 14 does not confer unbridled power on the
Committee to deny the claimant an opportunity to lead rebuttal
evidence or cross-examine official witnesses. The right to
discharge the burden under Section 14 inherently incorporates
the right to a fair procedure. By denying the petitioner the right
to adduce evidence and cross-examine adverse witnesses, the
Committee effectively deprived him of the statutory means to
discharge his burden under Section 14. Hence, Point No. III is
answered in favour of the petitioner.
21. In view of the foregoing discussion and having regard to the
material on record, this Court is of the opinion that the
impugned order passed by the Scrutiny Committee cancelling
the 'Uraon' Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate of the petitioner
cannot be sustained in the eye of law and is accordingly
quashed.
22.
The matter is remanded back once again to the respondent -
the Scrutiny Committee for a fresh decision on merits. The
Committee is directed to afford the petitioner a full, fair and

21
effective opportunity of hearing strictly in accordance with the
statutory procedure envisaged under the Act of 2013, the Rules
of 2013 made thereunder and the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) and Laveti
Giri (supra) .
23. The Committee shall furnish copies of all inquiry reports
(including the Vigilance Cell report) relied upon against the
petitioner, afford him an opportunity to adduce oral and
documentary evidence and extend the right to cross-examine
all adverse witnesses prior to reaching any conclusion.
Considering that the dispute has been pending in litigation
since the year 2007, the Committee shall conclude the inquiry
and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with
law expeditiously preferably within a period of 90 days from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
24. Till the fresh adjudication is completed by the High Power
Certification Scrutiny Committee, no coercive or adverse action
affecting the service status, salary or retiral/pensionary benefits
of the petitioner shall be taken on the basis of the quashed
order.
25. Consequently, the Writ Petition is Allowed to the extent
indicated above . No order as to costs.
01
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Shyna Ajay