State Of Tripura vs State Level Scrutiny Committee And Ors

This petition is filed by the State of Tripura through the Director, Welfare of Scheduled Caste Department, Government of Tripura. The prayers made in the petition are for conducting a fresh inquiry into the status of the respondent No.2, Sri Uttam Kumar Das being a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste. The petitioner has also prayed that the authorities may be allowed to cancel the Scheduled Caste certificate of the said respondent No.2 after setting aside a verification report dated 06.01.2007 and an order dated 05.01.2013. The said report dated 06.01.2007 is one submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) as an Inquiring Officer, Special Vigilance Cell in which after conducting detailed inquiry into the caste status of the respondent No.2 it was concluded that Sri Probodh Rn. Das actually belonged to Mahishya Das community which is recognized as a Scheduled Caste in the State of Tripura. Accordingly, it was concluded that the Scheduled Caste certificate issued in favour of the said respondent No.2 dated 27.05.1986 was genuine. The order dated 05.01.2013 was one passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee constituted in terms of Rule 7A of Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Reservation Rules, 1992 in consonance with a decision of the Supreme Court in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another vrs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241. By the said order the committee examined the various reports and documents on record and came to the conclusion that respondent No.2 did belong to Scheduled Caste and the allegation of the caste certificate being false is wrong. The inquiry into the caste status was, therefore, dropped.

Strangely, the Government of Tripura in the present petition has virtually challenged the said report dated 06.01.2007 of the Vigilance Cell and the order dated 05.01.2013 passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee.

This petition is a sequel to a writ petition being WP(C) No.1396 of 2019 filed by the respondent No.2 herein. In the said petition, brief facts were that the said petitioner was issued a certificate belonging to Scheduled Caste on which basis he had secured Government job. He retired on 22.01.2020. As noted, the State Level Scrutiny Committee after inquiries under its order dated 05.01.2013 confirmed that the said petitioner did belong to Mahishya Das community which is a Scheduled Caste and the allegations against him were false. Once again, the inquiry was made with respect to the caste status of the said petitioner. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, West Tripura had made a report dated 01.06.2019 to the District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura in which also it was concluded that the said petitioner did belong to the Scheduled Caste. Thereafter, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, West Tripura had issued a show-cause notice dated 04.11.2019 to the petitioner therein calling upon him to show-cause why it may not be held that he does not belong to the Scheduled Caste. This was on the basis that in the inquiry report dated 19.10.2019 submitted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jirania it was found that the said petitioner did not belong to the Scheduled Caste. Thereafter, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, West Tripura passed an order dated 26.11.2019 holding that the petitioner did not belong to the Scheduled Caste. Consequently, he cancelled the Scheduled Caste certificate of the petitioner dated 27.05.1986. This order dated 26.11.2019 was challenged in the said petition. The petition was allowed by the judgment dated 19.02.2020 in which after referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra) following observations were made:

"[11] Perusal of the said directions would show that in addition to constituting Caste Scrutiny Committees, they were vested with exclusive jurisdiction to decide such disputes in relation to the caste certificates. It was provided that the order passed by the Committee would be final and conclusive and only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

[12] The Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Reservation Act, 1991 (the Act, for short) was enacted to provide for reservation of vacancies in services and posts for the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Section 17 of the said Act pertains to the rule making powers of the Government. In exercise of powers under Section 17 of the said Act the State Government had framed the said Rules. Rule-6 which existed prior to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Madhuri Patil (supra) provided that an authority who issued a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe certificate may at a subsequent stage cancel it if after an inquiry and after giving an opportunity being heard to the concerned person, it finds that the person to whom the certificate was issued does not actually belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe as the case may be. After the decision of the Supreme Court, sub-rule 6 was amended and a further provision was added which reads as under:

"Provided further that the Scrutiny Committee shall also be competent to cancel a community certificate issued by a competent authority. For arriving at a decision whether the community certificate in question shall be cancelled or not, the Scrutiny Committee shall follow the procedure prescribed in Rule 7A hereinafter along with reports/records obtained from the competent authority."

[13] Rule 7A was inserted. Under sub-rule 1 of Rule 7A two scrutiny committees at the State level were constituted. This Rule also envisaged Constitution of a vigilance cell under the director of vigilance and laid down the procedure for examining the correctness of the caste certificates at the hands of the Scrutiny Committee.

[14] Reverting back to the facts of the case, one may recall that it was this State level Scheduled Castes Scrutiny Committee constituted under Rule 7A of the said Rules which had already once examined the caste status of the petitioner on a complaint being received. Way back in the year 2013 it was held that the petitioner did belong to the said community further proceedings were dropped. Thereafter, it was simply not open for the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to undertake a fresh inquiry under any circumstances. The Supreme Court in case of Madhuri Patil has provided that the decision of the scrutiny committee would be subject to challenge only before the High Court in writ petition under Section 226 of the Constitution. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate virtually overruled the decision of the Scrutiny Committee which has been given a special status and exclusive jurisdiction by the Supreme Court in the field of scrutiny of caste certificates.

[15] I have serious doubt if Rule-6 of the said Rules can be stated to be a valid in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Madhuri Patil. While incorporating the directions of the Supreme Court, the rule making authority has inserted Rule 7A constituting and empowering the Caste Scrutiny Committees but also retained the power of the authority issuing caste certificate to cancel the same. First the question would be can there be two different authorities which can cancel the same order? Further question would be in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Madhuri Patil can any authority other than the scrutiny committees exercise the power of scrutinizing the caste certificates and if needed cancel it?

[16] The reliance of the learned Additional Government on the decision of Supreme Court in case of Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of Andhra Pradesh versus Laveti Giri and another dated 10.03.1997 is of no assistance. It was the case in which the legislature of Andhra Pradesh contained provisions for scrutiny of caste certificates based on the act the State Government had also framed Rules. These legislations were prior to the decision in case of Madhuri Patil. In this background, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that minor leverage may be kept open with the State Governments. In the said case it was found that the Rules were substantially in confirmation with the directions of the Supreme Court in case of Madhuri Patil. In the present case, the parent act under which the said Rules are framed, does not contain specific provisions for scrutiny of caste certificates. Rule 7A has been inserted pursuant to the direction of the Supreme Court in case of Madhuri Patil. However, since Rule-6 of the said Rules is not in challenge in this petition, I refrain from making any final observations in this regard.

[17] An inescapable conclusion however would be that in a case like present one where the Scrutiny Committee has already examined the correctness of the caste certificate issued to a person, it would thereafter be, in any case, not open for the authority issuing the caste certificate to cancel the same under purported exercise of powers under Rule-6 of the said Rules. Only on this ground petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 26.11.2019 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar SubDivision, West Tripura is set aside.

[18] The petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of."

From the above portion of the judgment, it can be seen that the entire question of holding a fresh inquiry by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate once the State Level Scrutiny Committee had conducted an inquiry and declared that the respondent No.2 herein did belong to Scheduled Caste was examined at length. It was noted that previously even at the Sub-Divisional Magistrate level such an inquiry was conducted. The conclusion was that the caste certificate issued in favour of the respondent No.2 herein was genuine. It was in such a background held that a fresh inquiry at the hands of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was simply not permissible. Strangely, now the State Government has filed an independent fresh petition seeking direction or permission to cancel the caste certificate of the respondent No.2 and for striking down the reports of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as well as the order of the State Level Scrutiny Committee which were in favour of the respondent No.2. Such a petition is simply not maintainable. The Government was a party to the writ petition filed by the respondent No.2 which came to be allowed. The decision was rendered after full participation by the State Government. In this petition indirectly what the petitioner desires is to recall and set aside the judgment dated 19.02.2020 in WP(C) No.1396 of 2019 filed by the respondent No.2 herein which cannot be done in the present petition. If the State Government is aggrieved by the said decision, it is always open to challenge the same in accordance with law. However, as long as the said judgment dated 19.02.2020 survives, prayers in this petition cannot be granted. Under the circumstances, this petition is dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.