Sadhana Rajendra Karkud Alias ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ...
2003 Latest Caselaw 950 Bom

JUDGMENT

C.K. Thakker, C.J.

1. Rule. Mr. R.D. Rane, learned Additional Government Pleader, appears and waives services of notice of rule on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. K.S. Bapat, learned counsel, appears and waives services of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 3.

2. In the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

3. This petition is filed by the petitioner for a writ of certiorari quashing and setting aside an order dated September 30, 2002 passed by the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Pune Division, Pune, respondent No. 2 herein ('Committee', for short). A further relief is prayed restraining the Pune District Central Co-operative Bank, respondent No. 3 herein, from giving effect to or taking any action in pursuance of an order passed by respondent No. 2 herein.

4. The case of the petitioner is that she belongs to Mahadeo Koli Tribe, which is recognised as Scheduled Tribe under the Presidential Notification issued under Article 342 of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner, she had been granted Caste Certificate as belonging to Mahadeo Koli by the Executive Magistrate, Purandar, District Pune, on October 17, 1990. She graduated herself from Pune University. Thereafter, she got her name registered with the Integrated Tribal Development Project, Ghodegaon, District Pune, exclusively meant for Scheduled Tribe Candidates for offering employment in the Government and semi-Government organisations. The Employment Officer sponsored the name of the petitioner for appointment as a Clerk in respondent No. 3-Bank under the Reserved Category of Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner was interviewed, selected and offered appointment on the post of Clerk as Scheduled Tribe. There were certain technical breaks in her services, but finally, by an Order dated May 31, 1997, her services were confirmed in respondent No. 3-Bank.

5. In 1997, the Caste Certificate of the petitioner was referred to respondent No. 2-Committee for verification. The Committee issued notice to the petitioner, and in response to the said notice, she produced several documents. She was directed to appear in person and accordingly, she appeared before the Committee. Several contentions were raised by the petitioner. The Committee, however, by the order impugned in the present petition invalidated the certificate of the petitioner, observing that the petitioner did not belong to Mahadeo Koli, Scheduled Tribe, and the certificate granted by the Executive Magistrate, Purandar, was liable to be cancelled. The petitioner, therefore, was constrained to approach this Court, as, according to her, respondent No. 3 would take consequential action.

6. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by respondent No. 2-Committee is illegal, unlawful and contrary to law. It was submitted that the constitution of Committee was not legal, valid and in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001) ("the Act", for short), and hence, the action taken by the Committee cannot be said to be legal, lawful or in accordance with law. It was also submitted that the inquiry report submitted by the Vigilance Officer was vitiated because the Research Officer, having intimate knowledge in identifying tribal community, was not associated during the inquiry. Finally, it was submitted that the action of respondent No. 3 cannot be said to be in consonance with law, inasmuch as the Caste Certificate produced by the petitioner was verified and she was confirmed in May, 1997. After undue and unreasonable period, it is not open to respondent No. 3 to terminate the services of the petitioner, and hence, the action requires to be quashed.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the order passed and action taken by the respondents. It was submitted that after considering the relevant documentary and other evidence on record, the Committee invalidated the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner by the Executive Magistrate, Purandar, and the petitioner cannot make grievance against such an action. After the certificate was invalidated, consequential action had to be taken by respondent No. 3, as the petitioner was appointed on the basis that she belonged to Scheduled Tribe, Mahadeo Koli. Once it has been held that the certificate was not issued in consonance with law, and was liable to be cancelled and accordingly cancelled, the petitioner cannot claim any benefit on the basis of such certificate and appointment given by respondent No. 3. It was, therefore, submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. Now, so far as the order passed by respondent No. 2 is concerned, the Committee took into account "all relevant documentary evidence", as also other materials placed before it. Considering the decision of the Supreme Court in Kum. Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner Tribal Development and Ors., , the Committee observed that the entries in the school register preceding the Constitution furnished "great probative value of declaration of the status" of the person concerned. The caste of the person has to be determined on the basis of the caste of his parents basically for the reason that the caste is acquired by birth. When the school extract of the candidate's father and grandfather was recorded as Hindu Koli in the school record, the caste of the candidate (petitioner) could not be different from the caste of her father and grandfather. The documents purporting to show the petitioner as belonging to Mahadeo Koli, therefore, cannot be relied upon for holding that she belonged to Scheduled Tribe.

9. The Committee also noted that it considered and verified the tribe claim of the candidate with reference to traits, characteristics, customs, etc., of the petitioner and from those traits also, it could not be said that the petitioner belonged to Mahadeo Koli. The Committee, therefore, came to the conclusion that the petitioner did not belong to Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe, and accordingly, the order was passed.

10. An affidavit is also filed by the Research Officer, Tribal Research and Training Institute, Pune, stating therein that respondent No. 3-Bank referred the case of the petitioner to the Committee vide its letter dated February 17, 2001. The petitioner was appointed in the Bank against the post reserved for Mahadeo Koli, Scheduled Tribe. It was then stated that the Scrutiny Committee followed the procedure laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court. The Inspector of Vigilance Cell, after conducting detailed home and school inquiry, submitted the report, alongwith the necessary documentary evidence obtained by him during the course of the inquiry. A copy of the inquiry report had also been sent to the petitioner by the Scrutiny Committee to enable the petitioner as to what she had to say on that report. The petitioner, in her explanation, submitted additional documentary evidence, which was also considered by the Committee. Thus, after complying with the principles of natural justice and fair play, and after affording a personal hearing, an order was passed by the Committee. The deponent has also stated in the counter as to the inquiry conducted by the Police Inspector of the Vigilance Cell and the information collected from the relatives of the petitioner, extracts from the School Admission Register and school record pertaining to blood relatives, as well as in-laws of the petitioner. On the basis of the entire record, it was proved that the claim of the petitioner being Mahadeo Koli, Scheduled Tribe did not tally with that of her caste recorded in case of her nearest blood relatives, viz., father, grandfather and aunt, as also in case of her in-laws. This record shows the caste as 'Koli' only. The Scrutiny Committee, therefore, considered the entire record, and held that claim of the petitioner that she belonged to Mahadeo Koli could not be upheld.

11. The deponent also relied upon an order of the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil, wherein it has been observed by the Apex Court that "the entries in the school register preceding the Constitution do furnish great probative value to the declaration of the status of the caste, hierarchical caste stratification of Hindu Social order has its reflection in all entries in the public record". In the light of all the facts, the action could not be said to be invalid or improper.

12. Regarding the constitution of the Committee in accordance with the provisions of Act XXIII of 2001, it was submitted that the jurisdiction of the Scrutiny Committee is within the provisions of the Act. It was also stated that as the Rules and Bye laws in respect of the Act are pending for finalisation before the Government of Maharashtra, the Government in Tribal Development Department had issued an order on June 29, 2002 clarifying that the function of the Scrutiny Committee would remain the same till finalisation of of the Rules. It was, therefore, submitted that the function, constitution and jurisdiction of the Scrutiny Committee could not be said to be illegal. Relying upon observations of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3524, Ramatai Madhukarrao Tapre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. decided by this Court at Nagpur Bench on July 2, 2002, it was submitted that the report could not be said to be vitiated.

13. In our opinion, the procedure followed by the respondents, and the finding recorded by the Committee, cannot be said to be unlawful unwarranted or vitiated by extraneous consideration. Relying on relevant and germane materials and documents, after affording opportunity of hearing, and complying with the principles of natural justice, respondent No. 2-Committee invalidated the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. Such an action cannot be termed as improper or otherwise objectionable.

14. The petitioner also cannot rely upon the fact that no action could be taken by respondent No. 3 on the basis of and in pursuance of the order issued by the Committee. The learned counsel for the petitioner, no doubt, relied upon decision of this Court in Chandrabhan Nandanwar v. Deputy Director of Health Sciences, (1999) 1 MhLJ 536, reiterated in Anil Vasantrao Shirpurkar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., Writ Petition No. 3701 of 2002, decided on July 12, 2002, and also other cases.

15. In our opinion, however, in view of the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee, and also keeping in mind the provisions of Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001, the contention cannot be upheld. We had an occasion to consider the provisions of the Act. In Mohan Parasnath Goswami v. Committee for Scrutiny of Caste Certificates and Ors., , we have held that on the basis of report of the Scrutiny Committee and the orders passed, appropriate action can be taken by the authorities. Reading the provisions of the Act, it is clear that when a certificate is false or fake, it would be an offence, and penalty can be imposed.

16. We may, however, make it clear that obviously, such action can be taken only after following the provisions of the Act. But keeping in mind the relevant statutory provisions, it cannot be contended that no action of termination of service of the petitioner can be taken. In the light of the statutory provisions, when appointment of the petitioner was made on a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe, keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil and subsequent decisions, in our opinion, the prayer of the petitioner to consider her case on the basis of Resolution dated June 15, 1995 cannot be accepted, and is rejected.

17. For the foregoing reasons, in our view, the petition deserves to be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. Ad-interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. In the facts and circumstances, however, there shall be no order as to costs.

18. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that ad-interim relief granted earlier, which continues till today, may be continued for some more time so as to enable the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court. In our opinion, prayer is reasonable. Ad-interim relief will be continued for four weeks from today.

19. Parties be given copies of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar/Private Secretary.