Prakash Shrivastava,J. - (1.)This order will govern the disposal of WP No.32/2011 and WP No.57/2011. In WP No.57/2011 petitioner has challenged the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee finding the caste certificate to be false and by WP No.32/2011 the petitioner has challenged the consequential dismissal order. WP No.32/2011 was allowed by this Court by order dated 20/3/2014 and the writ appeal was dismissed on 12/5/2016 and this order was challenged before Supreme Court. The Hon ble Supreme Court by order dated 22nd July, 2019 passed in Civil Appeal(S)No.5776/2019 (arising out of SLP(C) No.14510/2017) has set aside the order of this Court and has directed for deciding both these petitions together.
(2.)In WP No.57/2011, the case of the petitioner is that he belongs to Halba/Halba Koshti caste which is a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Madhya Pradesh as per Presidential Notification. The caste certificate dated 18/8/2005 was issued by the SDO. The petitioner was appointed as District Excise Officer on 15/02/2001 and by order dated 24/1/2004 his past service rendered from 4/9/1991 to 14/2/2001 were counted in his service tenure in continuation. On the basis of certain complaints, proceedings were initiated before the Caste Scrutiny Committee to examine the caste certificate issued to the petitioner and a notice was issued to the petitioner to which he had filed the reply annexing there with the material relating to Halba/Halbi/Koshta/Koshti and the Caste Scrutiny Committee without following the due procedure, by the order dated 21/6/2010 has found the caste certificate to be false and cancelled it. The order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 15/7/2010. Hence, the present petition has been filed challenging the same.
(3.)The stand of the respondents in the reply is that the petitioner belongs to Koshti caste which does not fall under the category of either scheduled caste or scheduled tribe in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Hence, the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee does not require any interference. The parties had also filed the rejoinder, reply to the rejoinder and additional rejoinder to substantiate their stand.