Back
2006(2) Supreme 59
Supreme Court of India
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
H.K. Sema and Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, JJ.
Anjan Kumar —Appellant
versus
Union of India & Ors. —Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6445 of 2000
Decided on 14-2-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : M.N. Krishnamani, Sr. Advocate, Rana Ranjit Singh and Samyajit Pani, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Vikas Singh, ASG, Ashish Kumar, V.K. Verma and P. Parmeswaran, Advocates.
For the State of Chhattisgarh : Atul Jha, Nirmal Mittal, D.K. Sinha, Rajesh Srivastava and B.S. Banthia, Advocates.
Held : Undisputedly, the marriage of the appellant’s mother (tribal woman) to one Lakshmi Kant Sahay (Kayastha) was a court marriage performed outside the village. Ordinarily, the court marriage is performed when either of the parents of bride or bridegroom or the community of the village objects to such marriage. In such a situation, the bride or the bridegroom suffers the wrath of the community of the village and runs the risk of being ostracised or ex-communicated from the village community. Therefore, there is no question of such marriage being accepted by the village community. The situation will, however, stand on different footing in a case where a tribal man marries a non-tribal woman (Forward Class) then the offshoots of such wedlock would obviously attain the tribal status. However, the woman (if she belongs to forward class) cannot automatically attain the status of tribal unless she has been accepted by the community as one of them, observed all rituals, customs and traditions which have been practiced by the tribals from time immemorial and accepted by the community of the village as a member of tribal society for the purpose of social relations with the village community. Such acceptance must be by the village community by a resolution and such resolution must be entered in the Village Register kept for the purpose. Often than not, such acceptance is preceded by feast/rituals performed by the parties where the elders of the village community participated. However, acceptance of the marriage by the community itself would not entitle the woman (Forward Class) to claim the appointment to the post reserved for the reserved category. It would be incongruous to suggest that the tribal woman, who suffered disabilities, would be able to compete with the woman (Forward class) who does not suffer disabilities wherefrom she belongs but by reason of marriage to tribal husband and such marriage is accepted by the community would entitle her for appointment to the post reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It would be a negation of Constitutional goal. (Para 6)
The object of Articles 34, 342, 15(4), 16(4) and 16(4A) is to provide preferential treatment for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes having regard to the economic and educational backwardness and other disabilities wherefrom they suffer. So also considering the typical characteristic of the tribal including a common name, a contiguous Territory, a relatively uniform culture, simplistic way of life and a tradition of common descent, the transplantation of the outsiders as members of the tribe or community may dilute their way of life apart from such persons do not suffer any disabilities. Therefore, the condition precedent for a person to be brought within the purview of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, one must belong to a tribe and suffer disabilities wherefrom they belong. (Para 8)
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 by 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 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Certificate is not a bounty to be distributed. To sustain the claim, one must show that he/she suffered disabilities - socially, economically and 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. (Paras 13 & 14)
Key Points: - The offshoot of a tribal woman married to a non-tribal husband cannot claim Scheduled Tribe status unless the marriage is accepted by the village community and the offspring are socially integrated as Tribes, with acceptance evidenced by community resolution and village records. (!) (!) (!) - The essential object of Articles 34, 342, 15(4), 16(4) and 16(4A) is to provide preferential treatment to Scheduled Castes and Tribes based on suffered disabilities and to prevent dilution of tribal identity by outsiders. The condition precedent requires belonging to a tribe and suffering disabilities from that belonging. (!) (!) - Procuring a bogus caste certificate to gain admission or appointment under reserved quotas is fraud on the Constitution, deprives genuine candidates, and is impermissible under Articles 14 and 21. The certificate is not a bounty and must be supported by proven social, economic, and educational disabilities. (!) (!) (!) - The tribunal findings and subsequent judicial review found that the appellant did not suffer the disabilities required to be treated as Scheduled Tribe and quashed the tribal certificate procured by misrepresentation. (!) (!) - Court emphasizes that mere court marriages or casual acceptance by a village without formal community acceptance and record does not confer tribal status or reservation benefits. (!) (!) - The Court reiterates that the tribal definition includes common dialect, territory, culture, and descent, and that outsiders or transplanted individuals who do not suffer disabilities cannot be treated as Tribes merely by marriage or relocation. (!) (!)
Judgment
H.K. Sema, J.—The appellant Shri Anjan Kumar is the offshoot of the wedlock between Shri Lakshmi Kant Sahay, District Gaya in the State of Bihar and Smt. Angela Tigga who belongs to Scheduled Tribe community of Oraon Tribe, village Pondi Potkona, Distt./Division Raigarh, State of Madhya Pradesh. By an order dated 7th August, 1992 Scheduled Tribe certificate was issued to the appellant by S.D.M., Gaya on the ground that the mother of the appellant Smt. Angela Tigga belongs to Oraon tribe which is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The appellant appeared before the Civil Service Examination in 1991 conducted by the Union Public Service Commission claiming himself to be the Scheduled Tribe candidate. In the said examination he had passed the written test but could not qualify in the interview. He again appeared in the Civil Service Examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission in the year 1992 and passed the written examination. In 1993 he was called for interview. The result of the successful candidates was published and he stood at 759th rank in order of merit. He was also allotted Indian Information Service Grade A. However, the appellant did not receive any final posting order, which had resulted in filing many representations to the Union of India. In one of representations dated 14th September, 1994 the appellant also stated that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe category and his sub-caste is Oraon.
2. Having failed to receive any positive response from the respondents, he filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi being O.A. No. 2291 of 1994, inter alia, seeking direction to the Union of India to allow the appellant to join training. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the Union of India, by its letter dated 9th November, 1994, conveyed to the Tribunal that the appellant has not been brought up in tribal environment and that his father is a non-tribal and, therefore, he cannot be treated as a Scheduled Tribe. Further, the Union of India, as directed by the Tribunal, conducted the enquiry into the question whether the appellant belongs to Scheduled Tribe community and the enquiry was conducted by the Additional District Collector, Jaispurnagar, District Raigarh, Madhya Pradesh and the report was submitted on 26th June, 1995. The enquiry report obviously was against the appellant. After examining the enquiry report submitted as aforestated, the Tribunal ultimately dismissed the Original Application No. 2291 of 1994 by order dated 12th December, 1995. Aggrieved thereby the appellant filed a Writ Petition being C.W.P. No. 647 of 1997 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, inter alia, challenging the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer on the allegation of violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no opportunity of hearing had been accorded to the appellant. The learned single Judge of the High Court after perusing the records and the enquiry report, submitted by the enquiry officer, dismissed the Writ Petition by order dated 22nd January, 1999. The appellant thereafter carried an unsuccessful appeal before the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 138 of 1999, which was dismissed by the L.P.A. bench on 3rd December, 1999. Hence, the present appeal by special leave.
3. We have heard the parties at length.
4. The sole question calls for determination in this appeal is, as to whether the offshoot of the tribal woman married to non-tribal husband could claim status of Scheduled Tribe and on the basis of which the Scheduled Tribe certificate could be given.
5. It is contended by Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel that the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry behind the back of the appellant and therefore, the learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench erred in law dismissing the petition/appeal by placing reliance on the enquiry report and the material collected dur
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
