Ramadhar Ahirwar v. State Of C.G. And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 5426 of 2010

1. Ramadhar Ahirwar S/o B.L. Ahirwar, aged 37 years, R/o Sr. M.I.G. 311, B. Block Vejeta Complex, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (Cg) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, through the Principal Secretary, Home (Police) Department, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG).

2. Director, Tribal Research And Training Institute Pt. Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar, Sector-4, Raipur (Cg)

3. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur (Cg) ---- Respondent For Petitioner None For Respondent/State Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 17/05/2017 1.

Perused.

2.

It appears the petitioner appeared in the State Service Examination 2005 as a Scheduled Caste candidate, therefore, by communication dated 9-8-2007 (Annexure - P/11) he was directed to get his caste status verified from the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee by producing

documents to prove that his father/forefathers originally belong to the areas within the geographical limits of the present State of Chhattisgarh as on 10-8-1950/6-9-1950, when the Presidential notification was issued. 3.

According to the petitioner, since he was in Government service and was allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh on 1-11-2000, he has acquired the status of bona fide resident of State of Chhattisgarh, therefore, he should not be compelled to get his caste status certificate verified. 4.

Having perused the papers and after hearing learned counsel for the State, it is manifest that the petitioner appeared as a Scheduled Caste candidate in the State Service Examination 2005, therefore, the authorities have not committed any illegality or arbitrariness by directing the petitioner to get his caste certificate verified from the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others (1994) 6 SCC 241.

5.

In the result, the writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/- Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra Gowri