State-level scrutiny panel lacks jurisdiction to cancel Odisha caste certificates issued under 1980 Rules, rules HC

The petitioners claimed membership of the Dewar/Kaibarta community, stated to be a Scheduled Caste, and were issued caste certificates by the Tahasildar, Banki under the Odisha Caste Certificate (for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe) Rules, 1980 (“1980 Rules”)—on 8 September 1981 in the case of Nirmal Chandra Behera and on 8 September 1986 in the case of Sarat Chandra Behera.

Relying on their certificates, both petitioners were appointed as Constables in 1993 and subsequently served in the State Police Department.

Following a complaint by the wife of Nirmal Behera’s younger brother alleging that the petitioners actually belonged to the Girgiria caste, the matter was referred for verification.

The State Level Scrutiny Committee (“SLSC”) concluded that the petitioners were Girgiria and not Kaibarta/Dewar, directed cancellation of their caste certificates, initiation of criminal proceedings, and disciplinary action.

Their services were consequently terminated on 11 January 2017.

In earlier proceedings, the matters were remitted for fresh consideration.

On reconsideration, the SLSC reiterated its earlier decision on 9 June 2023, leading to the present writ petitions.

Whether the State Level Scrutiny Committee constituted pursuant to the guidelines in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development had jurisdiction to examine and cancel caste certificates issued under the 1980 Rules?

Whether the cancellation of the petitioners’ caste certificates and the consequential termination of their services could be sustained when the SLSC lacked jurisdiction under the governing Rules?

Rule 8(2) of the 1980 Rules, which provides that where subsequent verification reveals that a caste claim is false, the competent authority that issued the certificate alone has the power to cancel it and revoke the benefits obtained on its basis.

Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241, which prescribed a scrutiny-committee mechanism for verification of caste certificates.

Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham, (2012) 1 SCC 333, holding that the Madhuri Patil framework operated to fill a legislative vacuum and would not apply where legislation or rules governed caste-certificate verification.

The Court also followed its earlier decisions in Sridhar Kumar Dalai v. State of Odisha and Kunalata Nayak v. State of Odisha, which held that, in view of the 1980 Rules applicable in Odisha, the SLSC lacked jurisdiction to scrutinize caste certificates issued under those Rules.

The Court held that the petitioners’ certificates were issued by the Tahasildar, who was a competent authority under the 1980 Rules.

Rule 8(2) expressly vested the power to cancel such a certificate in the authority that had issued it.

Therefore, even assuming that the petitioners’ caste claims required verification, the statutory scheme assigned that function to the issuing competent authority, not to the SLSC.

Although Madhuri Patil contemplated scrutiny by a specialized committee, Dayaram clarified that those directions were intended to operate only in the absence of a governing legislative or regulatory framework.

Since Odisha had the 1980 Rules when the certificates were issued, the Madhuri Patil mechanism could not confer jurisdiction on the SLSC.

The Court further rejected the State’s argument that the earlier remand proceedings amounted to recognition of the SLSC’s jurisdiction, observing that the earlier orders had only directed consideration of additional evidence and had not adjudicated the applicability of the Madhuri Patil scheme or the later Rules.

Consequently, the merits of whether the petitioners were actually Girgiria or Kaibarta/Dewar could not validate an order passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction.

The SLSC orders dated 9 June 2023 in both matters were quashed.

All consequential actions, including the petitioners’ termination from service, were declared invalid, and the petitioners were held entitled to all consequential benefits.

The concerned authorities were directed to pass necessary orders preferably within three months of production of the certified copy of the judgment.