Gujarat High Court
Mayankkumar Ramanlal Dave vs State Of Gujarat on 30 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12053/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12053 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
MAYANKKUMAR RAMANLAL DAVE
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS VARNIKA SINGH FOR MR SAURABH M PATEL(5019) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS SURBHI BHATI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 2,5
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3,4
SERVED BY RPAD (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 30/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed for the following prayers:
"9(A) Admit and allow this petition;
(B) call for record and proceedings in respect of the
report/resolution dated 30.6.2008 passed by the Scrutiny
Committee on the basis of which the impugned order has
been passed;
(C) issue writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside order
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12053/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
dated 30.08.2008 passed by the respondent no.1-Commissioner
and further may be pleased to declare that the caste
certificate issued to the petitioner is genuine and in
accordance with law and the petitioner is eligible for all the
benefits granted as per the said caste certificate;
(D) pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this
petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the
execution, implementation and operation of the order dated
30.08.2008 passed by the respondent no.1-Commissioner and
further may be pleased to direct the respondent no.3-
Committee not to withdraw the benefits granted to the
petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 3.08.2008; and
further may be pleased to direct the respondents herein not
to take any coercive steps against the petitioner in respect
of the impugned order;
(E) grant ex-parte interim relief in terms of aforesaid
paragraph no.9(D);
(F) xxxx"
2. The brief facts as stated in the petition are such
that the petitioner possesses the qualification of Diploma in
Pharmacy and at present working as Pharmacist with
Employees State Insurance Scheme at Godhra for the last
more than two years on adhoc post on the basis of his
qualification; that the mother of the petitioner namely
Elisabeth Semual Patel (Damor) is a Bhil Khristi (belonged
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12053/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
to Schedule Tribe) prior to her marriage; thereafter she got
married with Ramanlal Drujibhai Dave, father of the
petitioner, who belonged to general category and out of the
said wedlock, the petitioner was born; therefore, the petitioner
is eligible to the benefits of the caste of his mother in
pursuance of the Government Resolution dated 31.08.1987
bearing No.SCW-1087-947-B passed by the respondent-Social
Welfare Department of the Government of Gujarat; therefore,
the petitioner was issued the caste certificate on 13.7.1992;
even the Central Government has also taken into
consideration the said aspect vide its circular dated 2.5.1975.
3. It is further stated that on the basis of the said
caste certificate, the petitioner applied for Diploma in
Pharmacy through the respondent no.3-committee; the
respondent no.3 asked to verify about the genuineness of the
caste certificate of the petitioner vide its letter dated
13.10.1999 and also asked as to whether the petitioner can
be granted the benefits in view of the aforesaid caste
certificate or not and also addressed a letter dated 28.9.1999
to the Vigilance Officer of the respondent no.2; the
respondent no.6 submitted its report with regard to the
genuineness of the caste certificate to the respondent no.5 in
pursuance of the meeting of the District Level Scrutiny
Committee, whereby he has verified almost all the documents
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12053/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
and ascertained the caste certificate of the petitioner as a
genuine one and that it is issued in accordance; that
thereafter, on 30.8.2008, the impugned order is passed by the
respondent no.1-Commissioner by cancelling the caste
certificate of the petitioner and also directed the respondent
no.3-Committee to withdraw the benefits granted to the
petitioner on the basis of the said caste certificate i.e. the
certificate of Diploma of Pharmacy. Hence, this petition is
filed.
4. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
4.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted
that the respondent no.3 had asked for verification of
certificate in the year 1999 and the impugned order in that
respect is passed in the year 2008 i.e. after a period of ten
years; that the father of the petitioner used to stay at the
residence of his father-in-law, which is stated by the
Panchkyas which is not considered by the respondent no.1
and that as the petitioner is a citizen of democratic
country, he is entitled to follow and practice the customs
and norms of any religion even if he may of any caste or
community and no one force him to follow particular
customs of any religion, which fact has been enunciated in
the resolution of the state government of the year 1987,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12053/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
especially clause no.3; that the impugned order is passed
after a period of ten years with retrospective effect and the
entire career of the petitioner will be ruined as the petitioner
has completed Diploma in Pharmacy on the basis of the said
caste certificate and obtained job on the basis of the said
qualification. She, therefore, submitted that setting the clock
back after a period of ten years by cancelling the caste of
the petitioner is absolutely, unjust, improper and arbitrary.
She, therefore, prayed to allow this petition.
5. Per contra, learned AGP has submitted that the
Scheduled Tribe Caste certificate of the petitioner was issued
by the District Social Welfare Officer, District Panchayat,
Godhra, District Panchmahal on 13.7.1992; that in the School
Leaving Certificate of the petitioner issued on 30.4.1999, the
caste of the petitioner is shown as `Hindu Nagar Brahmin';
that the petitioner remained present before the Scrutiny
Committee on 9.10.2007 and after scrutinizing all the
documents, it came to the conclusion to cancel the caste
certificate of the present petitioner by the impugned order.
She submitted that the when the school leaving certificate
shows that he belonged to Hindu Nagar Brahmin and there
is nothing to show that he had suffered humilities or
deprivations or indignities of any nature, which is often found
to be suffered by a member of the Scheduled Tribe and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12053/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
further looking to the report dated 11.6.2008 of the TRTI,
Ahmedabad, it is found that he got married with a Brahmin
girl and is nowhere connected with the ST community; that
when the parents of the petitioner got married, they stayed
with his maternal grandfather for sometime due to the job
they were doing in a small village and thereafter the
petitioner was born at Dahod and his brought up was also
done at Dahod and not at the place of the mother of the
petitioner and therefore he does not belong to Adivasi (ST)
community and therefore the impugned order cannot be said
to be improper and arbitrary. She, therefore, prayed to
dismiss this petition.
5.1 In support of her submissions, learned AGP has
relied on the following citations:
(1) Kumari Madhuri Patil V/s Addl.Commissioner reported in
1994 SCC (6) 241 of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
(2) Anjan Kumar V/s Union of India & Ors., reported in AIR
2006 SC 1177 of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
(3) Bhupendrasinh Vechatbhai Khant V/s Commissioner,
Tribal Development Department decided on 5.7.2018 passed in
Special Civil Application No.3239 of 2018 by this Court.
6. I have heard the learned advocates for the parties
and perused the material on record.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12053/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
6.1 It transpires from the record that the petitioner's
father belonged to a Brahmin community and the mother
belonged to Tribal Chrisitian and out of the said wedlock,
the petitioner is born; that the parents of the petitioner were
serving in a small place where the petitioner's maternal
grandfather was residing; thereafter, they shifted to Dahod
where the petitioner was born on 6.10.1980; the caste
certificate was issued on 13.7.1992. In the school leaving
certificate of the year 1999, the caste of the petitioner is
mentioned as Hindu Nagar Brahmin. The petitioner obtained
the admission in Diploma of Pharmacy based on the caste
certificate of the year 1992.
6.2 Though the caste certificate is issued in the year
1992 which was under scrutiny till the impugned order was
passed in the year 2008, the school leaving certificate was
issued in the year 1999 which shows that the petitioner
belongs to Hindu Nagar Brahmin, which was subsequent to
the caste certificate, which means that the petitioner was
residing with his father and enjoyed the facilities of a upper
community. It is nowhere the case of the petitioner that he
had ever undergone sufferings of scheduled tribes like
humiliations or indignities etc.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12053/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
6.3 Further, from the report dated 11.6.2008 issued by
the TRTI, Ahmedabad on the basis of which the impugned
order is passed (translated to English) reads as under:
"Dave Mayankkumar Ramanlal's mother Elizabeth
Samuelbhai Damor belongs to the Bhil Christian caste of
village-gamdi, Ta. Jalod, Dist. Dahod. Mrs. Elizabeth's father
Late Samuelbhai Damor is himself a Bhil Christian Damor.
Majkur Mayankkumar's mother Mrs. Elizabeth was working
as a health worker and nurse in the government health
service in the primary health center in the year 1972.
During that time, she had an inter-caste marriage (court
marriage) with Dave Ramanlal, a doctor of the primary
health center. Both the couple were working in the primary
health center at Gamdi village and Gamdi village is the
village of Elizabeth's father, so after marriage they stayed at
the house of Elizabeth's father, late Samuelbhai Damor, i.e.
Majkur's younger brother in Gamdi village.
During the investigation, a panchayasa was conducted in the
presence of the sons and family members of petitioner's
mother's father, late Samuelbhai Damor, and the village
Sarpanch. The panchayasa stated in the panchayasa that
both the parents of Mayank Dave had an inter-caste
marriage (court marriage). Therefore, Elizabeth's father and
family members had kept petitioner's father Ramanlal Dave
as 'gharjamai' as per the customary practice in the tribal
society and settled both the couple in their family and given
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12053/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
a share in the house and land. Therefore, this couple has
been accepted by our society. They have also accepted the
customs and traditions of the tribal society.
In the panchayasa conducted by the panchayasa, it is stated
that petitioner's father has been accepted as 'gharjamai'.
But in tribal society, 'gharjamai' is generally kept only when
one does not have sons among his children, here Mayank
Dave's younger brother has sons. This couple has lived in
petitioner's younger brother's house only because he was
working, that is, it seems that they have attended the
customs and social events of the tribal society and have
been associated with the tribal society. While petitioner's
mother's other sisters and brothers have married in the
tribal Bhil Christian society. But petitioner Mayankkumar
Dave got married to the daughter of Shri Dilipbhai Vyas at
Govindnagar Dahod in the year 2006. Petitioner's sister
Hemangini Dave also got married in a Nagar Brahmin
family at Manjalpur Vadodara. Both these siblings did not
get married in a Bhil-Christian family. And they did not get
married in a temple as per the customs of the Bhil
Christian tribal society. There is no information about the
customs of the tribals. Therefore, looking at these social
relations at present, it can be known that he has social
relations in a non-tribal society (Brahmin family) rather than
a Bhil Christian Damor.
Looking at the above details, Mayankkumar Dave's current
social relations are not found in the tribal Bhil-Christian.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12053/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
But since both his parents were working in his grandfather's
village, he stayed at the house of his grandfather
Samuelbhai Damor and during that time he participated in
social relations and customs with the tribal society. But then
petitioner Mayankkumar Dave was born in Dahod. Thus,
petitioner was brought up not in his mother's village but in
Dahod and also got married in a Brahmin family in a non-
tribal society. Looking at this whole matter, a clear
conclusion can be drawn.
It can be concluded that Shri Mayankbhai Dave currently
has no relations with the tribal community, these relations
have been shown only for the caste certificate and thus he
does not have the status of a tribal.
Petitioner's sister Hemangini has also obtained a caste
certificate of a Scheduled Tribe which is also not correct. So
that in the future, taking her example, other people do not
try to obtain a caste certificate"
6.4 Thus, it is clear that the petitioner was never
brought up as a `tribal christian', on the contrary, he is
brought up as a `brahmin' which means he enjoyed the
societal status of a forward class. However, in the service, he
is enjoying the benefits which are conferred on a scheduled
caste only on the basis of the caste certificate. This means
that the petitioner is taking benefits of both the castes of his
parents, which cannot be approved. Further, the caste
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12053/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
system is ingrained in the minds of Indians and by way of
the same, in absence of any statutory law, the children
inherit their caste from their father and not from the
mother, in case of inter-caste marriages. The say of the
petitioner that his father used to stay at the place of his
maternal grandfather also cannot be believed in view of the
Indian set-up where a Brahmin boy staying at the house of
his wife after marriage, that too, before a period of about 45
years is not digestible. It may happen that for some time, for
the sake of convenience, the arrangement be made to stay
but that does not mean that the father of the petitioner has
adopted the customs of the mother of the petitioner, as
thereafter, the petitioner's parents continued to stay at a
different place. Further, from the report of the TRTI, it is
mentioned that the Adivasi set-up has a custom that the
son-in-law stays with the parents of the wife only when there
is no brother of the wife, in this case, it is coming on record
that the mother of the petitioner has brothers and therefore
also the say that his father was residing at the house of his
maternal grandfather is not believable.
6.5 This issue is discussed and decided in a number
of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the High
Courts.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12053/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
6.6 In the case of Anjan Kumar (supra), it is held as
under:
"In view of the catena of decisions of this Court, the
questions raised before us are no more res integra. The
condition precedent for granting tribe certificate being that
one must suffer disabilities wherefrom one belongs. The
offshoots of the wedlock of a tribal woman married to a
non-tribal husband - Forward Class (Kayastha in the present
case) cannot claim Scheduled Tribe status. The reason being
such offshoot was brought up in the atmosphere of Forward
Class and he is not subjected to any disability. A person not
belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes
claiming himself to be a member of such caste procuring a
bogus caste certificate is a fraud under the Constitution of
India. The impact of procuring fake/bogus caste certificate
and obtaining appointment/admission from the reserved quota
will have far-reaching grave consequences. The meritorious
reserved candidate may be deprived of reserved category for
whom the post is reserved. The reserved post will go into
the hands of non-deserving candidate and in such cases it
would be violative of the mandate of Articles 12 and 21 of
the Constitution of India.
The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe is not a bounty to
be distributed. To sustain the claim, one must show that
he/she suffered disabilities-socially, economically and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12053/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
educationally cumulatively. The concerned authority, before
whom such claim is made, is duty bound to satisfy itself
that the applicant suffered disabilities socially, economically
and educationally before such certificate is issued. Any
concerned authority issuing such certificates in a routine
manner would be committing the dereliction of Constitutional
duty."
6.7 A Hon'ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court in
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan V/s Shanti Acharya Sisingi
reported in 176(2011) DLT 341, has held in paragraph 30 as
under:
"III The offshoot of wedlock between Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe male and a female belonging to
forward community can claim Scheduled Caste/Scheduled
Tribe status for Indian society is patriarchal society where
the child acquires the caste of his father.
IV The offshoot of wedlock between Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe female and a male belonging to
forward community cannot claim Scheduled Caste/Scheduled
Tribe status unless he demonstrates that she has suffered
the disabilities suffered by the members of he community of
his mother."
6.8 It is a sorry state of affairs that the respondents
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12053/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
authorities have taken around ten years to come to the
conclusion that the caste certificate of the petitioner is not
genuine. The petitioner approached this Court on the
impugned order being passed, by way of this petition,
wherein at the time of issuing notice, ad-interim relief is
granted, which is continued from time to time, by virtue of
which, the petitioner is continued in service. Had the
respondents authorities given the opinion immediately on
reference, the petitioner would not have continued till this
time. The said inaction of the respondents-authorities has led
to the position that genuine person from the reserved
category who would have got the job has been deprived of
the job for so many years and the action of the petitioner of
taking the benefit of ingenuine caste certificate led him to
continue on the post for so many years on which he did not
deserve. This means there is lapse on both the sides i.e. the
petitioner and the respondents authorities.
6.9 In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion
that the action of the respondents-authorities in passing the
impugned order cannot be held as unjust or arbitrary and no
interference is required by this Court. Consequently, the
petitioner has to lose his job which is obtained by him on
the basis of the certificate of Diploma in Pharmacy, which he
has obtained on the basis of the caste certificate which is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12053/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
held ingenuine. However, as there is a gross delay on the
part of the respondent authorities in coming to the conclusion
that the caste certificate is ingenuine, the recovery may not
be made from the petitioner for the period for which he has
served, as he has done his work during all these years. This
means that the petitioner is punished for his wrong action by
asking him to get out of the job and the respondents
authority are being punished for their delay by not ordering
for recovery of the amount which is already paid to the
petitioner, as in fact, the petitioner has worked for so many
years with the respondents-authorities.
7. With the above observations, this petition is
required to be dismissed. Accordingly dismissed. Notice/Rule is
discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
SRILATHA
