Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

SANJAY KUMAR GONDversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The court set aside the District Scrutiny Committee’s order and restored the petitioner's application to the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee pending the outcome of his father's case.

Summary

The petitioner, Sanjay Kumar Gond, challenged the rejection of his application for a caste certificate on the ground that the Scrutiny Committee failed to consider a 6 May 2020 report from the Backward Class Welfare Directorate indicating that his father belongs to the Scheduled Tribe Gond. The State argued that the report was not presented before the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee and that the matter was pending before the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, which is the highest authority for such certificates. Relying on a prior judgment in Bhagwan Prasad Gond v. State of U.P., the court noted that the earlier order of the District Scrutiny Committee was liable to be set aside. Consequently, the court set aside the District Committee’s order, restored the petitioner’s application, and directed that it be dealt with by the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee in accordance with the pending decision on his father’s case. The writ petition was thereafter disposed of.

Issues considered

  • Whether the Scrutiny Committee erred in rejecting the petitioner's caste certificate application by not considering the report that his father belongs to the Scheduled Tribe Gond.
  • Whether the petitioner's application should be restored and pending before the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee.
  • Whether the order of the District Scrutiny Committee dated 25 April 2026 is liable to be set aside.

Subjects

  • caste certificate
  • Scheduled Tribe
  • Gond
  • Scrutiny Committee
  • restoration of application
  • writ petition
  • administrative law
  • Backward Classes

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                           WRIT - C No. - 21055 of 2026

Sanjay Kumar Gond
                                                                    .....Petitioner(s)
                                       Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                                  .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)           : Jeet Bahadur Singh, Satyendra Narayan
                                      Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)           : C.S.C.

Court No. - 21
                    HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
                    HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.

1. Petitioner's grievance is, in spite of his father having been reported to
belong to Scheduled Tribe 'Gond' by the Backward Class Welfare
Directorate on report dated 6th May, 2026, without considering it the
Scrutiny Committee rejected his application for issuance of the caste
certificate. Mr. Satyendra Kumar Singh, learned advocate appears for
petitioner and Mrs. Archana Tyagi, learned advocate, Additional Chief
Standing Counsel, for State.

2. Paragraph 2 from our order dated 6th August, 2026 is reproduced
below.

     "2. Mrs. Archana Tyagi, learned advocate Additional Chief Standing
     Counsel appears on behalf of State. On query she submits, there is no
     reference in impugned report of said report dated 6th May, 2020. She is
     to obtain instructions/file counter as to why the omission. If deliberate,
     reasons therefor be stated as otherwise, there is likely to be direction for
     restoration of the inquiry."

Mrs. Tyagi submits, counter has been filed. On query she draws attention
to paragraph 6. Part of said paragraph is reproduced below.

     "6. That, in reply, it is submitted that the Report dated 06.05.2020 of the
     Vigilance Cell, Backward Classes, Welfare Directorate, Indira Bhawan,
     Lucknow is related with the petitioner's father and the same was
                                                            WRIC No. 21055 of 2026
                                  2


     considered by the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee at the time of
     verifying the caste certificate of the petitioner's father- Bhagwan Das
     Gond and the Committee came to the conclusion that the petitioner's
     father does not belong to the Gond community and the decision was taken
     by the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee as well as Divisional
     Level Caste Scrutiny Committee considered that the petitioner's father
     does not belong to the Gond community and he is not entitled to grant the
     certificate belongs to the Scheduled Tribe, by considering him as a Gond
     caste. A photocopy of the Decision which has been taken by the State
     Level Scrutiny Committee dated 07.02.2023 is being filed herewith and
     marked as Annexure No.C.A.-1 to this affidavit.

     It is further submitted that the petitioner does not submit this report
     before    the    District   Level    Caste    Certificate   Verification
     Committee/District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, so the same was
     not considered by the District Level Caste Certificate Verification
     Committee/District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee at the time of taking
     the decision dated 25.04.2026."

                                                         (emphasis supplied)

3. Fact emerges that report dated 6th May, 2020 of Backward Class
Welfare Directorate saying that petitioner's father belongs to Scheduled
Tribe 'Gond', was not considered in dealing with petitioner's application
for issuance of the caste certificate. Mrs. Tyagi submits, certificate of
petitioner's father is pending scrutiny by the State Level Caste Scrutiny
Committee. It is the highest of the investigating committees in matter of
issuance of caste certificates. She suggests, petitioner's application can be
restored and kept pending awaiting decision of the State Level Caste
Scrutiny Committee on his father's certificate.

4. Mr. Singh relies on order dated 13th January, 2026 of a Division
Bench at Lucknow in disposing of writ petition filed by father of his
client [Writ-C no.2633 of 2023 (Bhagwan Prasad Gond v. State of
U.P. and others)]. Paragraph 8 from said order is reproduced below.

     "8. In light of the same, the impugned order dated February 07, 2023 is
     quashed and set aside with a direction upon the authority being State
                                                                                                     WRIC No. 21055 of 2026
                                                                         3


                                            Level Caste Scrutiny Committee to follow the procedure as per
                                            Paragraphs No. 6 & 7 of the judgment of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra)
                                            and thereafter to pass fresh order. The entire process should be
                                            completed within a period of twelve weeks from date."

                                    Mrs. Tyagi reiterates, the matter is pending before the State Level Caste
                                    Scrutiny Committee.

                                    5. In view of aforesaid, order dated 13th April, 2026 of the District
                                    Scrutiny Committee is liable to be and is set aside. We accept submission
                                    made on behalf of State that fate of petitioner's application for issuance of
                                    the caste certificate is dependent on result in the case of his father,
                                    restored to the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee. As such,
                                    petitioner's application, restored hereby, is to be dealt with pursuant to
                                    decision in his father's case pending before the State Level Caste Scrutiny
                                    Committee. Petitioner has leave for his father to produce website copy of
                                    this order to the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee and pray for
                                    expedition.

                                    6. The writ petition is disposed of.




                                                                                                     (Arindam Sinha,J.)




                                                                                                    (Satya Veer Singh,J.)

                                    September 16, 2026
                                    Salim




Digitally signed by :-
SALIM PRAVEJ
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.