JUDGMENT R.M. Savant, J.
Page 3567
1. By this Petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the Petitioners are challenging the order dated 21.11.2000 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad invalidating their caste claim as belonging to "Lingder" which is a Schedule Caste.
2. Such of the facts which are necessary for adjudication of the above matter are narrated herein below:
The Petitioners after passing the 12th Standard Examination are prosecuting studies in BHMS and MBBS course in the Respondent No. 3 and 4 colleges. Since the Petitioners had secured admission on the basis of belonging to the Lingder Scheduled caste, the caste certificates of the Petitioners were forwarded to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for verification. One of the Petitioners approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 4692 of 1999 seeking a direction that the Caste Scrutiny Committee be directed to complete the verification proceedings in respect of the caste certificate issued to the said Petitioner within a particular time frame. This Court by order dated 21.10.1999 directed the Caste Scrutiny Committee to consider the caste claim of the said Petitioner on the basis of the caste certificate submitted alongwith the application dated 20.9.1999 after giving her an opportunity as provided.
The caste scrutiny committee thereafter proceeded to determine the caste claim of both the Petitioners above named and vide its order dated 28.8.2000 invalidated the caste claim of the Petitioners. The said order of the caste scrutiny committee was challenged by both the Petitioners by filing writ petition being nos. 4143 of 2000 and 3128 of 2000 which were disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court (Chandrachud, J.) by his order dated 10.10.2000. Since the Petitions were filed on the ground that the material produced by the Petitioners had not been considered by the Page 3568 Caste Scrutiny Committee, the learned Single Judge had directed the Caste Scrutiny Committee to take into consideration the said documents and also granted liberty to the Petitioners to file further documents if they so desire. Since the Petitioners were already admitted to BHMS and MBBS Course the said admissions were made subject to the result of the Caste Scrutiny. On remand of the matter by the learned Single Judge vide his order dated 10.10.2000 the Petitioners appeared before the Caste Scrutiny Committee and filed originals of the documents on which reliance was placed by them in support of their caste claim. The Caste Scrutiny Committee has exhaustively considered the said documents and has arrived at a conclusion that the Petitioners have failed to prove their caste claim as belonging to Lingder caste and therefore has invalidated the caste certificates issued to the Petitioners by the impugned order dated 21.11.2000
3. In the above Petition Rule came to be issued and in view of the interim orders granted by this Court the Petitioners have pursued their studies for the BHMS and MBBS course and we are now informed that they have completed the said courses. We have heard the learned Counsel Shri Urgunde for the Petitioners and Shri Suryawanshi learned AGP for the Respondents. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners Shri Urgunde while challenging the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee has made two fold submissions. It was firstly contended by the learned Counsel that the Caste Scrutiny Committee failed to take into consideration that the Petitioners have produced as many as eight documents which were prior to the year 1950 i.e. before the issuance of the Presidential order and therefore the said documents had great probative value. In support of the said contention the learned Counsel has relied upon judgment reported in 2006 All MR page 131 Rajesh Gode v. State of Maharashtra and 2002 (3) Mh LJ 290 Sarangappa v. State of Maharashtra. Both the said judgments lay down that the documents which are prior to the Presidential order carry a great probative value in the matter of considering the caste claim of the Applicant. Second submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that the said documents produced by the Petitioners have not been considered in their proper prospective. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioners the Scrutiny Committee has unnecessarily laid too much emphasis on the words used to describe the caste of the Petitioners in the translated copies of the documents. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that since there is no other scheduled caste than Lingder the description of the said caste in the translated documents as Lingdhar or Lingdir would only mean as Lingder and none else.
4. On behalf of the Respondents the learned AGP submitted that the Petitioners are not entitled to any reliefs as the basis on which the caste claim is made by the Petitioners i.e. the caste certificate dated 15.4.1987 purportedly issued by the Tahsildar Mukhed is itself a bogus document. As the Tahsildar vide his letters dated 4.12.1999 and 28.3.2000 has informed the Caste Scrutiny Committee that the said certificate has not been issued by him. It is further submitted by the learned AGP that there is no explanation forthcoming from the Petitioners as to how they have Page 3569 procured the said caste certificate which is the basic document on which the caste claim is based. It is next contended by the learned AGP that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has taken into consideration all the documentary evidence produced by the Petitioners in support of their caste claim and on such consideration the Caste Scrutiny Committee has given a finding of fact that the Petitioners have not been able to substantiate their caste claim. It is submitted by the learned AGP that this Court should therefore not exercise its writ jurisdiction in such a case and upset the finding of fact recorded by the caste Scrutiny Committee.
5. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the respective counsels. We find that there is considerable merit in the submissions made on behalf of the Respondents. We are of the view that the Petitioners are not entitled to any reliefs in the exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the fact that the basic document i.e. the Caste Certificate purportedly issued by the Tahsildar, Mukhed is itself a document which is not beyond suspicion. It is pertinent to note that the Petitioners have not given any explanation as to how they have procured the said document either in the Petition or before the Committee. Since the Petitioners have based their claim on a basic document which is not above suspicion we decline to exercise our writ jurisdiction in such a case.
6. However since the issue regarding the caste claim of the Petitioners has had a checquered history we have closely examined the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee and we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the caste scrutiny committee.
7. As stated hereinabove the Caste Scrutiny Committee has thoroughly examined the documentary evidence produced by the Petitioners before it and we are satisfied with the exercise carried out by the Scrutiny Committee. The Petitioners have laid much stress on the documents in Urdu and the documents in Modi script which according to them are pre 1950 documents. The Said documents have been reflected in the order of the caste scrutiny committee as item nos. 1 to 8. The Petitioners had furnished private translation of the said Urdu and Modi documents. Since the said documents were not translated by any authorised or competent authority the Caste Scrutiny Committee vide its letter dated 20.11.2000 forwarded the said documents to the Assistant Director Marathwada Archives Aurangabad for translation. The said documents were translated by one Shahanaz Sultana Khan reputed to have proficiency in translation of Urdu to Hindi and the Modi documents were translated by Laxman Govind Kale. Assistant Director, Marathawda Archives, Aurangabad. It is pertinent to note that the said translated documents relate to the Petitioners great grandfather and grandfather. In the said documents the caste of the Petitioners great grandfather and grandfather is mentioned as "Lingdir". Some of the other documents referred to in the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee refer to the Petitioners ancestors caste as "Lingdhar". It is therefore clear that the caste which is recognised as scheduled caste is "Lingder" and the documents disclose the caste as "Lingdir" or Lingdhar. Apart from this it is pertinent to note that in the service book of the Petitioners father the caste is mentioned Page 3570 as "Lingayat". If the caste of the Petitioners great grandfather and grandfather were mentioned as Lingdir or Lingdhar the same should have been followed in respect of the Petitioners father also. However as stated earlier in the Petitioners fathers service record the caste is mentioned as "Lingayat". Therefore the Petitioners cannot rely upon the mentioning of the caste as "Lingdir" or Lingdhar in the documents of the Petitioners great grandfather and the grandfather so as to contend that "Lingdir" or Lingdhar is synonymous to "Lingder". In any event it is not for us to decide that Lingdir or Lingdhar is synonymous to Lingder which is a schedule caste. It is well settled by the judgments of the Apex court that the entries in the Presidential order cannot be added to by synonyms. The contention of the Counsel for the Petitioners therefore cannot be accepted. The Committee has also caste doubts about the antiquity and authenticity of the said documents and has observed that the said documents appear to be of recent origin. Another aspect to be noted is that though the documents are of pre 1950 vintage the Petitioners filed the said documents only on 16.10.2000 and not at the inception of the enquiry. This gives rise to a serious doubt of the genuineness of the said documents as observed by the Committee.
8. What we have seen in the instant case is that there are too many loose ends in respect of the caste claim, which according to us has an adverse bearing on the caste claim made by the Petitioners. It is significant to note that in one of the documents the name of the Petitioners grandfather is shown as Rachappa Rama Himgire, however as per the report of the Tahsildar which is based on the entries made in the birth and death register, the name of Rachappas father was Eklara and not Rama. There are also discrepancies in the school record of the grandfather of the Petitioners which is referred to in para 3 of the order of the Committee. Apart from this it is also significant to note that Petitioner No. 1 Anita was born in the year 1978 and she was admitted to school on 21.6.1984 and the caste certificate purportedly issued by the Tahsildar is dated 15.4.1987. Similarly in case of the Petitioner No. 2 her date of birth is 9.6.1981 she entered school on 2.7.1986 and on 15.4.1987 which is the date of the caste certificate she was studying in first standard. The aforesaid fact begs the question as to why both the Petitioners should apply for the caste certificate at the said time when they were in the primary school and at which time the caste certificate has no relevance as such.
9. The Committee on perusal of the original of the caste certificates has come to a conclusion that there has been a tampering with the number "9" appearing in the said caste certificates. It is the finding of the Committee that the said caste certificates were issued in the year 1997 but the number "9" appearing in the year 1997 was struck out and overwritten with the number "8" so as to make it appear that the said caste certificates were issued in the year 1987. The Committee has also come to the said conclusion on the basis that one of the Petitioners had passed the 10th Standard examination in the year 1996 and the other in the year 1997 and therefore it can reasonably be presumed that the caste certificate if at all issued were issued in the year 1997 and not 1987 as is sought to be claimed by the Petitioners. The aforesaid facts coupled with the fact that the Tahsildar Mukhed having informed the Page 3571 Committee that the said certificates have not been issued by him do not inspire confidence in the caste claim made by the Petitioners. It cannot be gainsaid that the caste claim is to be proved by unimpeachable material. Taking a overall view of the matter and as Caste Scrutiny Committee has recorded its finding of fact based on perusal of the original documents we are of the view that no case is made out by the Petitioners for us to interfere with the said findings in our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. In view of the fact that the Petitioners have completed their Graduation namely BHMS and MBBS in view of the operation of the interim orders passed in the above Petition the dismissal of the above Petition would therefore have no effect on the degrees obtained by them or the admission to post graduate courses obtained by them during the pendency of the above Petition, however we make it clear that the Petitioners would not be entitled to claim any benefits henceforth on the basis of they belonging to the scheduled caste. We also make it clear that the authorities would be free to investigate into the issuance of the Caste Certificates dated 15.4.1997 and take appropriate action in accordance with law against the concerned persons. We accordingly dismiss the Petition and discharge the Rule with no order as to costs.