High Power Scrutiny Committee possesses jurisdiction to verify caste certificates upon reference by State instrumentalities.

The Petitioner, a Forester in the Office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Jagdalpur, challenged an order passed by the High Level Certification Scrutiny Committee (Respondent No. 6) on 24.09.2021, which invalidated her caste certificate.

The invalidation was based on the Petitioner's failure to produce documents relating to her descendants to prove her aboriginal tribal status.

Following this, the Chief Conservator of Forests issued a letter on 10.03.2022 providing her a final opportunity to defend herself before further action.

The Petitioner contended that the Scrutiny Committee lacked jurisdiction because the matter was not referred by the District Level Committee and alleged a violation of the principles of natural justice.

1. Whether the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee had the jurisdiction to inquire into the Petitioner's social status certificate upon a reference from the State Scheduled Tribes Commission.

2. Whether the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Section 7 of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Social Status Certification) Act, 2013, which mandates that the High Power Certification Scrutiny Committee inquire into certificates referred to it by either the District Level Certificates Verification Committee or by the State Government.

Section 7(2) of the Act, which requires providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard before arriving at an adverse finding.

The Court distinguished the precedent of Dr. Rajkumar Gadpayle v. State of Chhattisgarh, cited by the Petitioner regarding jurisdictional limits.

The Court rejected the Petitioner's jurisdictional challenge, noting that under Section 7 of the Act of 2013, the Scrutiny Committee is competent to act on references from the "State Government".

Since the matter was referred by the Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Tribes Commission—a state instrumentality—to the Committee, the initiation of the inquiry was legally valid despite originating from a private complaint.

On the issue of natural justice, the Court found that the Petitioner had been duly served with notice but voluntarily chose to abstain from the proceedings.

Consequently, the lack of participation was a self-created hurdle, and the Petitioner could not claim a violation of the right to be heard after failing to submit relevant documents to substantiate her tribal status.

The direct answer to the issues is that the reference by a state commission is valid under the Act and the Petitioner’s failure to appear waived her right to further hearing.

The writ petition was dismissed, the interim relief was vacated, and the impugned orders remained upheld.

No order as to costs was made.