Nani Gopal Bhaumik vs State Of Tripura And Others

[1] This petition is filed for challenging an order dated 22.12.2017 passed by State Level Scrutiny Committee (Constituted as per Provisions Contained in Rule 7A of the Tripura Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Reservation Rules, 1992) (hereinafter to be referred to as SLSC).

[2] Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner was engaged as an Assistant Teacher in Government school in the year 1985. In due course of time, he reached the level of headmaster of the school. He retired on superannuation with effect from 31.01.2012.

[3] The petitioner claimed that he belonged to Mahisya Das Community which is a Scheduled Caste recognized in the State of Tripura. He also possessed a Scheduled Caste certificate on such basis and had availed of the reservation policy of the State Government during his service career.

[4] On 17.12.2013, the petitioner received a show-cause notice in which it was stated that a complaint was received against him that he had falsely obtained Scheduled Caste certificate. Upon such complaint an inquiry was also conducted by the Vigilance Cell. The report of the Vigilance Cell dated 30.07.2005 suggested that the petitioner belonged to Debnath Community which is not a Scheduled Caste and not a Mahisya Das Community. In the notice it was further pointed out that the Scheduled Caste Welfare Sub-Committee of Matabari Block had also passed a resolution on 26.08.2011 to the effect that the petitioner did not belong to Scheduled Caste. On the basis of such materials the SLSC was prima facie of the opinion that the petitioner's caste certificate was not genuine.

[5] The petitioner opposed the proceedings. One Shri Pran Krishna Das, Deputy S.P. Special Vigilance Cell was examined by the department. He had inquired into the caste status of the petitioner. He stated that during his inquiry, he visited the birth place of the petitioner and examined his mother as well as the husband of his sister. He examined the Pradhan of Nagar Panchayat and recorded their statements. He also examined one near relative of the petitioner. On the basis of his inquiries he found that the petitioner belonged to Debnath Community which was not recognized as a Scheduled Caste. He accordingly submitted his report on 27.07.2005. He was cross-examined by the petitioner.

[6] The petitioner examined himself as OPW-1 in which he had stated that he was staying in SC/ST boarding school attached to Ramesh H.S School, Udaipur during his school days. His sister and brother also enjoyed Schedule Caste certificate. The petitioner examined his brother Amiya Bhowmik who also supported the petitioner staying in Scheduled Caste boarding hostel during the school days. One Smt. Sanjibani Das was examined as OPW-3 who claimed that her family and the family of the petitioner belonged to Mahisya Das Community and both came from Bangladesh.

[7] On the basis of such materials on record the SLSC passed the detailed speaking order dated 22.12.2017 which the petitioner has challenged in this petition. In the said order detailed analysis of evidence has been undertaken. The committee came to the conclusion that the petitioner belonged to Debnath Community which was not a Scheduled Caste. The committee also referred to the deposition of the petitioner and his supporting witnesses. Detailed reasons have been cited for discarding their depositions. It was noted that none of these witnesses had produced any document in support of their statements. It was recorded that though the petitioner claimed that he had applied to the school for providing documents but the school could not provide due to destruction in fire, in the cross-examination he admitted that he had not made any such written application. Most importantly, it was recorded that the petitioner was born on 25.01.1959 and the Scheduled Caste certificate which he had obtained was issued in the year 1981 meaning by such time he was 22 years old. This would destroy the petitioner's theory that he stayed in the hostel during his school days as an SC student.

[8] In case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another versus Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241, while directing establishment of Caste Scrutiny Committees the Supreme Court gave exclusive original jurisdiction to such committees in the matter of disputes of the caste certificates and caste status and also provided that any decision by such a committee would not be open to challenge before any other Court except before the High Court in a writ petition. It was also cautioned that interference in such decisions would not be as a matter of course by the appellate authority. Even otherwise, when admiring the findings of facts arrived at by the SLSC are based on evidence on record, in absence of any perversity the order calls for no interference.

[9] Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to certain decisions where despite cancellation of the caste certificate the Courts had suggested milder action. However, in the present case, the Government has not even initiated any proceedings against the petitioner. The question of what would be the fall out of the confirmation of the impugned order of the SLSC cannot be forced in at this stage.

[10] In the result, petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.