Tripura SC/ST Reservation Rules | Enquiry For Verifying Caste Certificate Not Absolutely Barred In View Of Favourable Report By SDM: High Court

The decision came from Justice T. Amarnath Goud who held that merely because the Petitioner had a favourable report in his favour as contemplated under Rule 7A(5) of the Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Reservation Rules, 1992, there is no absolute bar on SLSC for conducting the enquiry and for issuing and cancelling the certificate in terms of Rule 7A(4) thereof.

"Sub-rule(5) cannot be read separately but has to be read in entirety in connection with Rules 7A, 7A(4) and 7A(5). Since 7A of the said rule deals with the concerned authority and the procedure has been enunciated in Rulte 7A(4), to have the benefit of Rule 7A(5) the petitioner needs to face the committee and then take the advantage of Rule 7A(5)."

In Rule 7A the persons having the jurisdiction with regard to issuance and cancelling the certificates has been given under Scheduled Caste category.

Rule 7A(4) provides that the procedure has been contemplated for purpose of conducting the enquiry and for issuing and cancelling the certificate.

Rule 7A(5) provides that in case the report is in favour of the certificate holder and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in sub-rule(4) shall be followed.

The Petitioner claimed that he belongs to Namasudra Community and in the year 1981 the Scheduled Caste certificate was issued in his favour. Since then, he is utilizing the said certificate for all legitimate purposes. In 2005, in course of verification of his caste status vigilance cell of the SLSC conducted enquiry and submitted verification report holding that the petitioner belongs to SC community. Despite that, in the year 2015, the SLSC issued show cause notice to the petitioner as to why his SC certificate shall not be cancelled.

In reply, the petitioner stated that in view of the vigilance report which is in his favour further proceeding is forbidden in terms of Rule 7A(5). Nonetheless, another summons/notices was issued to him, following which the instant writ petition was filed.

Government counsel submitted that there is no infirmity in calling for the enquiry in order to verify the correctness and the vigilance report and to get rid of any doubt with regard to the said certificate.

The Court noted that since the petitioner is taking benefit of the said certificate and if it is true that the petitioner belongs to Namasudra Community, so far the petitioner is concerned, this is for the first time he has to face the Committee and the said summons have been against him and nothing prevented the petitioner from facing the same and no prejudice would be causing to the petitioner in facing the Committee.

"A reasonable apprehension has been drawn against the petitioner, when a Caste certificate is issued and is doubted and the enquiry is conducted and after enquiry, the concerned authority needs to pass a speaking order by verifying the complaint or allegations, if any, and after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner an adverse order is passed against the petitioner that would amounts to violation of principles of natural justice."

In view of the same, the court was not convinced with the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that the Committee summoning him for making his submissions is not relevant and the same is without any jurisdiction. The same was not acceptable to the court.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Bimal Chandra Sarkar Versus The State of Tripura, with connected matter

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Trip) 20 

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment