# Afjaal Ahmad & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1364
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-06
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 12679 of 2022
- **Bench:** Neeraj Tiwari, Mrs. Garima Prashand
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/afjaal-ahmad-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54747
- **Pages:** 8

## Text

1364 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
36. In this case, the transmission line is not an inter-state line hence, the respondents are
directed to grant compensation as per the guidelines issued by the Government of India vide G.O.
dated 14.06.2024 passed by the Ministry of Power.

37. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the matter, the impugned order dated
10.03.2026 is quashed and this writ petition is allowed.

38. This compensation shall be paid within a period of four weeks from communication of
this judgment to respondent no.2, to be made by petitioners.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1364
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. GARIMA PRASHAND, J.

Writ C No. 12679 of 2022

Afjaal Ahmad & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether repeated reopening of caste verification proceedings against the petitioners, despite closure by
competent authorities and absence of locus standi of respondent no.5, is legally sustainable?

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Constitution of India - Article 226: - Writ Petition under Article 226 - against order passed
by Regional Level Committee as well as State Level Committee - seeking quashing of repeated caste
verification proceedings - Petitioners, belonging to OBC category namely Bhishti Abbasi - had notified as an
OBC caste by the Gazette Notification - their caste certificates issued by competent authority - complaint filed
- enquiry - upheld twice by the District Level Committee and the complaint dismissed as baseless by the
State Government in 2015 - after the death of the original complainant, his son (respondent no.5) pursued
successive appeals without authorisation - leading to repeated reopening - Petitioners pleaded harassment,
lack of locus standi, and violation of finality - Respondent no.5 alleged fraud and misuse of reservation
benefits - Court finds that, no fraud was established, substitution was unauthorised, and repeated reopening
is impermissible once competent authorities and the State Government have closed the matter - held, (i) the
impugned orders suffer from arbitrariness and are unsustainable in law and against the principle of finality -
(ii) third-party locus standi in service matters is barred absent prima facie fraud - hence, impugned orders are
quashed - proceedings closed - District Level Committee's findings upholding caste certificates remain
operative - writ petition allowed.
WP Disposed of. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241.
Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham, (2012) 1 SCC 333.
Chairman & Managing Director, FCI v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira, (2017) 8 SCC 670.
4 All. Afjaal Ahmad & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1365
Dr. Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, (1998) 7 SCC 273.
Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto, (2010) 9 SCC 655.
Shakila Begum Faiyazuddin v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 8 SCC 49.
Raju Ramsing Vasave v. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar, (2008) 9 SCC 54.

LIST OF ACTS
Constitution of India - Gazette Notification dated 06.08.1997 (OBC list) - Right to Information Act, 2005.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Writ Petition, Certiorari, Caste certificate, OBC verification, locus standi, repeated enquiry, fraud on
Constitution, Bhishti Abbasi, finality, harassment, substitution of complainant, service jurisprudence, Allowed.

CASE ARISING FROM
orders of State Level and Regional Level Caste Scrutiny Committees (27.11.2020, 18.12.2016, 18.07.2017)
and pending proceedings before District/Regional Committees, Prayagraj.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): - Shri Sri V.K. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Navin Kumar Sharma,
Counsel for Respondent(s): - Shri Anand Bhaskar Srivastava, Standing Counsel, Sri Aushim Luthra with Ms.
Utkarshni Singh.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Garima Prashad, J.)

1. Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Navin Kumar Sharma,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Anand Bhaskar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the
State and Sri Aushim Luthra with Ms. Utkarshni Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

 i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order
dated 27.11.2020 (Annexure No.10 to this writ petition) passed by Respondent No.2 (State Level
Caste Scrutiny Committee, Lucknow).

 ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order
dated 18.12.2016 and 18.07.2017 (Annexure No.8 and 9 to this writ petition) passed by respondent
No.3 (Regional Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, Prayagraj).

 iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the proceedings
pending before Regional Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, Prayagraj as well as District Level
Caste Scrutiny Committee, Prayagraj in respect of the caste verification of the petitioners.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners
belong to the Other Backward Class category, namely Bhishti Abbasi, which has been notified as
an OBC caste by Gazette notification dated 06.08.1997. A caste certificate to that effect was also
issued by the competent authority in favour of petitioner no.2.

4. It is submitted that the dispute arose from a complaint dated 14.12.2011 filed by one
Late Nazmuddin before the State Government alleging that the caste certificates of the petitioners
1366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
were not genuine. Acting upon the said complaint, the State Government by order dated 10.02.2012
directed the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, Prayagraj to conduct an enquiry regarding
the validity of the caste certificates and submit its report.

5. Pursuant to the said direction, the District Level Committee conducted an enquiry and by
order dated 03.04.2014 found the complaint to be baseless and upheld the validity of the caste
certificates of the petitioners. It is further submitted that apart from the said enquiry, a departmental
enquiry was also conducted regarding the caste certificate of petitioner no.2 which culminated in an
order dated 16.05.2012 declaring the certificate to be valid.

6. During the pendency of the proceedings, the original complainant Late Nazmuddin died
on 17.03.2013. Thereafter, his son Zafaruddin (respondent no.5) filed an appeal before the
Regional Level Caste Scrutiny Committee. The Regional Level Committee by order dated
27.05.2015 recorded that the order dated 03.04.2014 passed by the District Level Committee was
correct and required no interference, however it directed the District Level Committee to examine
certain additional documents produced by respondent no.5. In compliance thereof, the District
Level Committee again examined the matter and by order dated 20.01.2016 reiterated its earlier
findings and refused to interfere with its order dated 03.04.2014.

7. It is further submitted that the State Government itself by order dated 28.04.2015
dismissed the complaint dated 14.12.2011 as false and baseless. The said decision was
communicated to the District Magistrate, Prayagraj by letter dated 30.06.2015 and by order dated
04.08.2015 directions were issued to terminate the caste dispute proceedings against the petitioners.

8. Despite the aforesaid orders, respondent no.5 again preferred an appeal before the
Regional Level Committee against the order dated 20.01.2016. The Regional Level Committee by
order dated 18.12.2016 allowed the appeal without considering the earlier government orders
closing the proceedings. The petitioners thereafter filed a review application which was partly
allowed by order dated 18.07.2017, however the Regional Level Committee again directed the
District Level Committee to re-examine the matter. Thereafter, respondent no.5 approached the
State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee which by order dated 27.11.2020 directed the Regional
Level Committee to reconsider the matter.

9. Learned Senior Advocate submits that the issue regarding the caste status of the
petitioners has already been examined repeatedly by the competent authorities. The District Level
Committee twice upheld the caste certificates of the petitioners, the Regional Level Committee
initially affirmed the same, and the State Government itself by orders dated 28.04.2015 and
04.08.2015 closed the proceedings.

10. It is further submitted that in response to an application under the Right to Information
Act, the State Government by communication dated 27.09.2018 clarified that no order had been
passed permitting substitution of the complainant after the death of Late Nazmuddin nor was any
authority directed to conduct repeated enquiries. Reliance is also placed on a further
communication dated 12.09.2022 issued by the Deputy Secretary, State of U.P., wherein it has been
stated that the complaints against the petitioners regarding their caste certificates were found
4 All. Afjaal Ahmad & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1367
baseless and the matter had already been concluded and consigned to record. It is therefore
submitted that the continued proceedings initiated at the instance of respondent no.5, who has no
locus in the matter, amount to harassment of the petitioners and the impugned orders are liable to
be quashed.

11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5 submits that the petitioners
have obtained an interim order dated 31.08.2022 by suppressing material facts. It is submitted that
the petitioners concealed that an appeal had already been filed against the order dated 18.07.2017
and therefore approached this Court without clean hands. It is contended that a person who seeks
equitable relief under Article 226 must disclose all material facts and suppression thereof is
sufficient ground for dismissal of the writ petition.

12. It is further submitted that the petitioners have fraudulently obtained caste certificates
showing themselves as belonging to the Bhishti Abbasi OBC category despite actually belonging to
the general category. By using the said certificate, the petitioners allegedly secured a government
post meant for members of the backward class.

13. Learned counsel for the respondent no.5 further submits that documentary evidence
including educational records of the petitioners and the caste status of their biological relatives
indicate that the family has never belonged to the Bhishti Abbasi community.

14. It is further contended that the objection regarding locus standi raised by the petitioners
is misconceived. Reliance is placed upon the decision in Shakila Begum Faiyazuddin v. State of
Maharashtra (2003) 8 SCC 49 and Raju Ramsing Vasave v. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar,
(2008) 9 SCC 54, wherein it has been observed that the validity of an appointment obtained on the
basis of a caste certificate is a matter of public importance and the Court can examine such issues
even if raised by a third party in order to prevent fraud on the Constitution.

15. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State submits that pursuant to the
complaint dated 14.12.2011 the State Government by order dated 10.02.2012 directed the District
Magistrate, Prayagraj to conduct an enquiry through the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee
regarding the validity of the caste certificate of the petitioners. In compliance thereof, the District
Level Committee conducted the enquiry and submitted its report dated 03.04.2014 to the State
Government.

16. The State Government thereafter by order dated 28.04.2015 dismissed the complaint
dated 14.12.2011 as baseless and consigned the matter to record. The said decision was
communicated to the District Magistrate, Prayagraj by order dated 04.08.2015 directing termination
of the caste dispute proceedings against the petitioners.

17. It is further submitted that the State Government by order dated 12.09.2022 again
communicated to the Commissioner, State Tax and the District Magistrate, Prayagraj that the
matter had already been concluded and no justification exists for conducting a fresh enquiry.
1368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
18. After hearing learned counsels for the parties and perusing the material on record, this
Court finds that the controversy in the present writ petition revolves around the legality of repeated
reopening of caste verification proceedings initiated against the petitioners despite the issue having
been examined on multiple occasions by the competent authorities and the State Government itself
having recorded findings that the complaint was baseless.

19. From the record it emerges that the entire proceedings originated from a complaint
dated 14.12.2011 submitted by one Late Nazmuddin before the State Government alleging that the
caste certificates of the petitioners were not genuine. Acting upon the said complaint, the State
Government by order dated 10.02.2012 directed the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee,
Prayagraj to conduct an enquiry regarding the validity of the caste certificates of the petitioners and
to submit its report to the Government.

20. Pursuant to the said direction, a detailed enquiry was conducted by the District Level
Committee and an order dated 03.04.2014 was passed wherein the complaint was found to be
baseless and the caste certificates of the petitioners were found to be valid. The record further
indicates that apart from the enquiry conducted by the District Level Committee, a departmental
enquiry was also conducted in respect of the caste certificate of petitioner no.2 and the same too
culminated in an order dated 16.05.2012 declaring the caste certificate to be valid.

21. It is also not in dispute that during the pendency of the proceedings, the original
complainant Late Nazmuddin died on 17.03.2013. Thereafter, his son Zafaruddin, who is
respondent no.5 in the present writ petition, sought to continue the proceedings by filing an appeal
before the Regional Level Caste Scrutiny Committee. The Regional Level Committee by order
dated 27.05.2015 recorded that the order dated 03.04.2014 passed by the District Level Committee
was correct and did not warrant interference. However, while recording the said finding, it
remanded the matter to the District Level Committee directing it to examine certain additional
documents that had been produced at the appellate stage by respondent no.5.

22. In compliance with the said direction, the District Level Committee again examined the
matter and by order dated 20.01.2016 reiterated its earlier finding and refused to interfere with its
order dated 03.04.2014. The State Government itself thereafter passed an order dated 28.04.2015
dismissing the complaint of Late Nazmuddin as false and baseless. The said decision was
communicated to the concerned authorities and further directions were issued on 04.08.2015 to
terminate the caste dispute proceedings against the petitioners. A communication dated 30.06.2015
issued by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P., Lucknow also recorded that the State
Government had already closed the proceedings relating to the caste certificates of the petitioners.

23. Despite the aforesaid orders and the repeated findings recorded in favour of the
petitioners, respondent no.5 again preferred an appeal before the Regional Level Committee against
the order dated 20.01.2016. The Regional Level Committee by order dated 18.12.2016 allowed the
appeal and reopened the issue. Subsequently, upon a review application filed by the petitioners, the
Regional Level Committee by order dated 18.07.2017 modified its earlier order but again directed
the District Level Committee to examine the matter afresh. Thereafter, respondent no.5 approached
4 All. Afjaal Ahmad & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1369
the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee which by order dated 27.11.2020 directed the Regional
Level Committee to reconsider the matter.

24. The consequence of the aforesaid orders is that despite the issue having been examined
repeatedly by the competent authorities and even after the State Government itself had recorded a
categorical finding that the complaint was baseless and the proceedings stood closed, the matter
continued to be remanded from one authority to another resulting in the same issue being reopened
again and again.

25. This Court finds substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners that
such repeated reopening of the proceedings cannot be permitted once the competent authorities as
well as the State Government itself have examined the matter and closed the complaint.
Administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings cannot be permitted to continue indefinitely as that
would defeat the principle of finality and would result in unnecessary harassment of the parties.

26. The law relating to verification of caste status stands authoritatively laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal
Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241, wherein a detailed mechanism was prescribed for scrutiny of
caste certificates through Scrutiny Committees. The said position has been subsequently explained
and reaffirmed in Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham, (2012) 1 SCC 333, wherein it has been
emphasized that the determination of caste status must be undertaken by the competent scrutiny
authorities and cannot be left open to indefinite reconsideration.

27. A necessary corollary of the above principle is that once the issue of caste verification
has been duly examined by the competent authorities in accordance with law, and findings have
been recorded, such proceedings must attain finality. Repeated reopening of the same issue,
particularly on the same set of allegations, would defeat the very purpose of constituting scrutiny
committees and would lead to uncertainty and harassment.

28. In this regard, it is well settled that repeated enquiries into the validity of a caste
certificate are impermissible, except in exceptional circumstances where the earlier determination
is shown to be vitiated by fraud or was rendered without jurisdiction or without proper enquiry.

29. There can be no dispute with the proposition that a false caste claim amounts to a fraud
on the Constitution, as held in Chairman & Managing Director, FCI v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira,
(2017) 8 SCC 670. However, the said principle cannot be invoked in a mechanical manner. Mere
allegations of fraud, without any fresh or cogent material, cannot justify repeated reopening of
proceedings which have already been concluded by the competent authorities and accepted by the
State Government.

30. In the present case, there is no such finding of fraud recorded by any competent
authority despite multiple enquiries. The record clearly demonstrates that the issue was examined
by the District Level Committee, then reaffirmed upon reconsideration, further considered by the
Regional Level Committee, and thereafter the State Government itself, upon due consideration,
declared the complaint to be baseless and directed closure of proceedings.
1370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
31. Further, the State Government has clarified that it had neither authorised the
substitution of any person after the death of the original complainant nor directed the authorities to
conduct repeated enquiries. Moreover, the Government Order dated 12.09.2022 categorically
records that the matter has already been examined and closed, and that no further enquiry is
required.

32. Once the State Government itself has accepted the findings and consigned the matter to
record, and the issue has already been examined repeatedly by the competent scrutiny authorities, it
could not have been reopened or remanded in the absence of any fresh material or jurisdictional
infirmity in the earlier proceedings. The impugned action, therefore, cannot be sustained in law as
it permits repeated re-agitation of a concluded issue.

33. Such action is clearly contrary to the settled principles of finality, certainty and fairness
in administrative and quasi-judicial decision-making. Permitting such repeated reopening would
render the entire statutory scrutiny mechanism otiose and expose individuals to perpetual
uncertainty.

34. As regards the objection relating to locus standi of respondent no.5, it is undisputed that
the original complaint was filed by Late Nazmuddin who admittedly died on 17.03.2013. After his
death, the proceedings were sought to be pursued by his son, respondent no.5. The material on
record indicates that respondent no.5 is a resident of the same village, but he has not demonstrated
any direct legal injury arising out of the caste certificates of the petitioners.

35. It is well settled that service matters cannot ordinarily be agitated at the instance of a third party,
as held by the Honble Supreme Court in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, (1998) 7 SCC
273, and Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto, (2010) 9 SCC 655, wherein it has been categorically
held that strangers have no locus standi to challenge appointments or service benefits and such disputes are
essentially between the employer and the employee. The present dispute, being essentially in the realm of
service benefits arising out of caste certification, falls squarely within the aforesaid principle.

36. It is contended by the respondent no.5 that issues relating to false caste claims may be raised
even by a third party in view of their public importance, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Shakila Begum (supra) and Raju Ramsing (supra) wherein it has been held that although ordinarily a third
party may lack standing, the Court can intervene in exceptional cases where fraud is apparent. The
proposition is not in dispute. However, both the aforesaid decisions operate in a limited field. In Shakila
Begum (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court intervened in peculiar facts where there was prima facie material
indicating fraud and misuse of reservation benefits, thereby justifying departure from the general rule of locus
standi. Similarly, in Raju Ramsing (supra), it was held that issues of caste fraud affecting public employment
or electoral rights may be examined in view of their public importance.

37. However, neither of the aforesaid decisions lays down that a private individual can
perpetually re-agitate a matter which has already been examined and concluded by the competent
statutory authorities. Both judgments proceed on the existence of prima facie material indicating
fraud or illegality warranting judicial scrutiny. In the present case, no such circumstance exists. On
the contrary, the issue has been examined repeatedly by the competent scrutiny committees as well
4 All. Neeraj Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1371
as by the State Government, and all authorities have consistently recorded findings in
favour of the petitioners. In absence of any fresh material or demonstrated fraud, the reliance
placed upon the aforesaid decisions is misconceived and does not justify repeated reopening of
concluded proceedings.

38. Even assuming that respondent no.5 could initially bring the issue to notice, he cannot be
permitted to sustain successive rounds of proceedings in the absence of any fresh material or legal
justification. In the present case, respondent no.5 is only a co-villager and has not demonstrated any direct
legal injury and, therefore, does not fall within the category of an aggrieved person in service jurisprudence.
More importantly, the State Government itself has categorically clarified that no substitution of the
complainant was permitted and no further enquiry was warranted. In such circumstances, the continuation of
proceedings at his instance is wholly unjustified.

39. In these circumstances, the Court is of the view that the impugned orders dated
18.12.2016 and 18.07.2017 passed by the Regional Level Caste Scrutiny Committee and the order
dated 27.11.2020 passed by the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee cannot be sustained in law,
as they result reopening an issue which has already attained finality. The impugned orders,
therefore, suffer from arbitrariness and are unsustainable in law.

40. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.11.2020 passed by the State Level Caste
Scrutiny Committee, Lucknow as well as the orders dated 18.12.2016 and 18.07.2017 passed by the
Regional Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, Prayagraj are hereby quashed.

41. Consequently, the proceedings pending before the Regional Level Caste Scrutiny
Committee, Prayagraj and the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, Prayagraj in respect of the
caste verification of the petitioners shall stand closed. The findings recorded by the District Level
Committee in its orders dated 03.04.2014 and 20.01.2016 declaring the caste certificates of the
petitioners to be valid shall remain operative.

42. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.

43. No order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1371
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

Writ C No. 13932 of 2026

Neeraj Singh & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents