1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 27.05.2006, passed by the labour Court, Ujjain and order dated 23.01.2007, passed by the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Court, Indore.

2. Facts of the case, in short, are as under:

According to the petitioner, she belongs to the Majhi Caste which is a Scheduled Tribe under the Constitution of India (Schedule Tribe) order 1950. The respondent is a body constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. The respondent issued an advertisement for recruitment to the post of LDC. As per the roster system, one post was reserved for the candidate belonging to the Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner applied for the said post and vide order dated 13.03.2003 she was appointed as LDC in the pay scale of Rs.3050/-75-3950-80- 4590/-. The aforesaid appointment was for the period of 2 years on probation and also subject to the production of caste certificate issued by the Collector/Additional Collector/Dy. Collector/SDO/SDM/City Magistrate or Tribal Welfare Department within seven days failing which the appointment order would be canceled automatically.

3. In pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner produced the caste certificate dated 11.07.1994 issued by the Nayab Tehsildar, but the same was not accepted by the competent authority of respondent, hence, vide letter dated 21.03.2003, the petitioner requested for extension of time for production of caste certificate in pursuant to the condition of appointment order dated 13.03.2003. The respondent after considering her request extended the time upto 28.03.2003. According to the petitioner, the competent authority has refused to issue a certificate in light of the GAD circular dated 07.09.1998 in which there is prohibition of demand of caste certificate twice. Since, the petitioner could not produce the caste certificate issued by a competent authority, vide order dated 28.03.2003 her appointment has been canceled.

4. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondent, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960. Vide award dated 27.05.2006, the labour Court has passed the award in favour of the petitioner by setting aside the order of cancellation of appointment as illegal and directed respondent to reinstate her into the service w.e.f. 13.03.2003 alongwith backwages.

5. Being aggrieved by the award dated 27.05.2006, the respondent/Ujjain Development Authority filed an appeal before the Industrial Court. Vide order dated 23.01.2007, the Industrial Court has set aside the order of labour Court by placing reliance over the judgement passed in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Commissioner, Tribal Development, reported in AIR 1995 SC 94 , hence, the present petition before this Court.

6. Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is having the valid caste certificate issued by the Teshildar (Exhibit P/1) who was competent to issue such certificate in the year 1994. Vide GAD circular dated 27.07.2017, it has been held that vide circular dated 26.05.1987, the 26.07.1984, the Additional Nayab Tehsildar were given power of Tehsildar and were also authorized to issue a caste certificate. Thereafter, vide circular dated 26.05.1987 the Collector/Additional Collector/Deputy Collector/SDO/SDM/City Magistrate/Teshildar/Nayab Tehsildar/Project Officer were given authorities to issue a caste certificate, therefore, those who were appointed on the basis of earlier caste certificate be not compelled to get fresh caste certificate and the caste certificate issued to others prior to 1996 are still valid. He further submitted that the condition imposed in the appointment order for production of caste certificate issued by the Collector, Additional Collector, Deputy Collector, SDO etc. is an arbitrary condition and the petitioner cannot be denied the appointment. The Labour Court has rightly passed the order in favour of the petitioner but the Industrial Court has wrongly reversed it. The petitioner has filed the additional documents in this petition to demonstrate that her mother also belongs to the category Scheduled Tribe and secured the compassionate appointment. In the revenue records also name of her father is also mentioned as Manjhi Scheduled Tribe, therefore, the impugned order be set aside.

7. Shri Mahesh Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the caste certificate which was issued by the Tehsildar on the recommendation of local member of legislative assembly is not valid. Petitioner was appointed with a condition to produce the caste certificate issued by the Collector/Additional Collector/Deputy Collector/SDO/SDM/City Magistrate/Teshildar/Nayab Tehsildar/Project Officer etc within seven days. Thereafter, further one months time was granted to produce the certificate but till today the petitioner is not having any caste certificate issued by the competent authority. Since, the petitioner has failed to produce valid caste certificate, therefore, the respondent has rightly canceled her appointment and appointed one Nandkishore belonging to Scheduled Tribe candidate by order dated 28.03.2003 who was next in the merit list. He is working on the said post till today and the petitioner despite having knowledge of the aforesaid appointment did not make him respondent in the pending litigation, therefore, at this stage his appointment cannot be canceled behind his back. It is further submitted that in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) the Apex Court has held that the application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the SDO, Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner.

8. Shri Mahesh Choudhary further argued that the petitioner belongs to the sub caste "Raikwar" which is OBC caste in the State of Madhya Pradhesh. The Division Bench of this Court in case of Shankarlal Raikwar v. State of M.P., reported in (2002) 2 MPLJ 317 has held that Raikwar cannot claims to belong to Manjhi Tribe, therefore, the petitioner has wrongly obtained the certificate of Scheduled Tribe from the Tehsildar and tried to secure the appointment, hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

9. The name of the petitioner is mentioned in the caste certificate as Kumari Yamuna Raikwar daughter of Tulsiram. Vide order dated 13.03.2003, she was appointed as Assistant Grade-III by Collector/Additional Collector/Deputy Collector/SDO/SDM/City Magistrate/Teshildar/Nayab Tehsildar/Project Officer etc. in light of GAD circular dated 26.05.1987. She was given 7 days and further 30 days time to produce the caste certificate. Due to some reasons prevailing at that time she could not obtain said certificate, therefore, as per the condition of appointment order her appointment has been canceled and in her place the candidate next in the waiting list Shri Nandkishore was appointed.

Conclusion:

10. The petitioner raised the industrial dispute on 16.04.2003 but did not challenge the order dated 28.03.2003 by which Shri Nandkishore has been appointed as Assistant Grade-III in her place. The labour Court has directed for reinstatement of the petitioner without canceling the appointment of Nandkishore, therefore the petitioner is not entitled for reinstatement without canceling the appointment of Nandkishore.

11. As per one of the condition of the appointment order, the petitioner was required to have caste certificate issued by the Collector/Additional Collector/Deputy Collector/SDO/SDM/City Magistrate/Teshildar/Nayab Tehsildar/Project Officer etc as directed vide GAD circular dated 26.05.1987 prevailing at the relevant point of time. Even till today, the petitioner does not have the caste certificate issued by the competent authority. The Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Commissioner, Tribal Development, reported in AIR 1995 SC 94 has held as under:

"The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such Officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level".

12. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the State Government issued the circular specifying the authorities who can issue the caste certificate. The advertisement was issued for appointment and after 05.12.1998, therefore, the respondent has rightly insisted for a caste certificate issued by the Collector/Additional Collector/Deputy Collector/SDO/SDM/City Magistrate/Teshildar/Nayab Tehsildar/Project Officer. This condition was made applicable for all the selected candidates. At this stage, specially after lapse of 15-16 years it would not be proper to refer the issue of caste of petitioner to High level caste scrutiny committee. The candidates appointed in place of petitioner is working since 2003 and he is not party to this litigation. Petitioner did not obtain caste certificate from the competent authority so far. Hence, additional documents filed by the petitioner will not help her at this stage.

13. Hence, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Industrial Court.

14. Petition is accordingly dismissed.