Fraud on Reservation Cannot Be Tolerated: Calcutta High Court Directs Immediate Cancellation of OBC Certificate of Elected Pradhan

“Once It Is Concluded That the Incumbent Does Not Belong to OBC, Authority Is Duty-Bound to Cancel the Certificate”, Calcutta High Court delivered a significant judgment on the powers of certificate issuing authorities and the consequences of fraudulent claims to reserved category status. Justice Krishna Rao directed the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Tamluk, to cancel within one week the OBC certificate of an elected Pradhan, after a re-enquiry conclusively held that she did not belong to the OBC (Tanti, Tantubaya) community.

The Court held that once a finding is recorded that the incumbent does not belong to the reserved category, the authority cannot remain passive and must take consequential steps for cancellation. While upholding the SDO’s findings, the Court dismissed the challenge to the enquiry and clarified the harmonious interplay between Sections 8A and 9 of the West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Act, 1994.

The dispute arose out of the 2023 Panchayat Elections in West Bengal. The post of Pradhan of Iswarpur No. 5 Gram Panchayat under Chandipur Block was reserved for candidates belonging to the Other Backward Classes (OBC).

The private respondent, Smt. Khukurani Mondal Ghorai, contested and was elected as Pradhan on the strength of an OBC certificate issued on 01/06/2013, claiming to belong to the OBC sub-caste “Tanti, Tantubaya”. The petitioner, Ranajit Rakshit, who had also contested the election, alleged that the certificate had been obtained fraudulently and that she did not belong to the OBC community.

Earlier, by order dated 15th January, 2025, a Coordinate Bench directed the SDO to conduct a re-enquiry to ascertain the correct social status of the certificate holder and to pass a reasoned order. The SDO, after enquiry, concluded on 23rd July, 2025 that the private respondent “does not belong to the OBC community, subcaste ‘Tanti, Tantubaya’.” However, no formal cancellation order was passed thereafter.

This led to two writ petitions: one seeking cancellation of the OBC certificate, and the other challenging the SDO’s adverse finding.

The core issues before the Court were whether the SDO was competent to initiate and conclude proceedings for cancellation under Section 9 of the 1994 Act read with Rule 3 of the 1995 Rules, whether prior intervention of the State Scrutiny Committee under Section 8A was mandatory, and whether the SDO’s findings suffered from procedural infirmity.

The Court examined Sections 8A and 9 of the 1994 Act in light of the Division Bench decisions in Darvell Investment and Leasing (I) Pvt. Ltd. and Biswajit Das. In Darvell Investment, it was held that the State Scrutiny Committee possesses wide supervisory powers under Section 8A(3)(c), (e) and (i), and may enquire into contraventions including illegal cancellation of caste certificates. However, the judgment did not denude the certificate issuing authority of its power under Section 9(1).

The Division Bench in Biswajit Das clarified that “Reading of section 9(1) with rule 3 does not impose any obligation on the certificate issuing authority to obtain any report of the Committee.” It further held that a certificate issuing authority may, either suo motu or on complaint, initiate proceedings upon prima facie satisfaction of fraud or misrepresentation.

Applying harmonious construction, Justice Rao observed that Section 9(1) empowers the certificate issuing authority to cancel or revoke a certificate obtained by false information, while Section 9(2), beginning with a non-obstante clause, preserves the independent power of the State Scrutiny Committee to act even if the issuing authority fails to do so. The absence of prior reference to the Committee does not invalidate proceedings initiated by the SDO.

The Court rejected reliance on earlier contrary views and reaffirmed that the SDO was competent to initiate and conclude proceedings under Section 9(1) read with Rule 3.

Findings of the Enquiry

Pursuant to the Court’s earlier direction, a joint enquiry was conducted by the Block Development Officer, Joint BDO and Inspector (BCW). The report recorded that although the OBC certificate issued in 2013 was genuine as to issuance, the certificate holder failed to produce any supporting documents establishing OBC status.

Field enquiry revealed that the locality predominantly consisted of the Mahishya sub-caste community. The private respondent’s mother belonged to Mahishya community prior to marriage. Depositions indicated that the clan (Gotra) was “Sandilya” and that their birth, death and marriage rituals aligned with Mahishya practices. No material substantiated ancestral occupation or identity consistent with Tanti (Tantubaya) status. An affidavit alone was held insufficient to establish caste status.

The SDO, after hearing parties, concluded that the private respondent did not belong to the claimed OBC sub-caste.

The High Court held that it “did not find any illegality” in the SDO’s order dated 23rd July, 2025 and upheld the factual conclusion.

Fraudulent Claim and Constitutional Mandate

Relying on Biswajit Das, the Court reiterated the settled principle that when a person who does not belong to a reserved category obtains a certificate “with a view to gain undue advantage to which he is/was not otherwise entitled, that would amount to commission of fraud calling for immediate corrective action so as to prevent subversion of the constitutional purpose and no leniency can be shown.”

The Court underscored that the post of Pradhan was reserved exclusively for OBC candidates. Permitting a person who does not belong to the OBC category to continue in such office would defeat the constitutional scheme of reservation and cause grave prejudice to the intended beneficiaries.

Duty to Pass Consequential Order of Cancellation

A critical aspect of the judgment lies in the Court’s insistence on consequential action. Justice Rao observed that once the SDO reached the conclusion that the private respondent does not belong to the OBC community, the authority “ought to have passed an order of cancellation of the OBC Certificate” and could not remain inactive.

Accordingly, the SDO was directed “to take appropriate immediate steps for cancellation of the OBC certificate… within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of this order.”

Maintainability and Alternative Remedy

Although it was contended that the order was appealable under Section 7(G) of the 1995 Rules and that the writ petition challenging cancellation was not maintainable, the Court entertained the matter considering the earlier direction of the Court, the seriousness of fraudulent occupation of a reserved public office, and the absence of infirmity in the SDO’s decision. The writ petition challenging the SDO’s finding was dismissed, while the petition seeking cancellation was allowed.

The Calcutta High Court’s ruling sends a clear message that reservation benefits cannot be appropriated by misrepresentation. The judgment harmonises Sections 8A and 9 of the 1994 Act, affirms the power of the certificate issuing authority to initiate cancellation proceedings, and emphasises the supervisory jurisdiction of the State Scrutiny Committee without rendering the statutory framework redundant.

By directing immediate cancellation of the OBC certificate of the sitting Pradhan, the Court reinforced that fraudulent claims to reserved status strike at the heart of the constitutional scheme and must be corrected without delay.

Date of Decision: 25/02/2026