IMPORTANT POINT
Ordinarily a person, who obtained appointment on basis of a false certificate, could not retain said benefit.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW—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and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000—Section 10—Benefit secured on basis of false Caste Certificate to be withdrawn—Respondent was appointed in service of State Government on 29.6.1995 as Scheduled Tribe belonging to Halba Community—Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee after inquiry found that respondent belonged to “koshti” caste which was the Special Backward Class and not a scheduled tribe—His Caste Certificate was invalidated—Respondent accepted findings of Caste Scrutiny Committee but claimed protection of service on basis of Government resolution dated 15.6.1995—High Court found respondent entitled to protection of Government resolution—Appeal—Respondent was appointed on 29.6.1995 and though he might have been selected on 15.6.1995 ex-facie Government Resolution dated 15.6.1995 would not apply—Benefit under Government Resolution could not be extended to a person who did not satisfy condition precedent thereof—Though Supreme Court Judgment in Milind case that “Koshti Halba” was not a scheduled tribe, came for first time in 2003, it was not a case where respondent pleaded and proved bona fide—Benefit granted to respondent was liable to be withdrawn under the Act 2000—Impugned judgment was liable to be set aside.
       Held : The Caste Scrutiny Committee was initially constituted in terms of the decision of this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors. [(1994) 6 SCC 241]. The Committee which was now constituted in terms of the 2000 Act issued a notice upon the respondent. He was given an opportunity of hearing. The principles of natural justice had, thus, been complied with. The Caste Scrutiny Committee opined that the respondent failed to prove that his socio-cultural traits, characteristics, festivals and customs match with those of Halba, Scheduled Tribe community. It was found that the father of the respondent himself had given details of his family tree as also socio-cultural traits which categorically showed that the respondent was not a member of the Scheduled Tribe community. Even the primary school leaving certificate of the respondent’s father clearly showed that they belonged to ‘Koshti’.(Para 11)
       Respondent admittedly was appointed on 29.06.1995. Although he might have been selected on 15.06.1995, ex facie, the said Government Resolution dated 15.06.1995 would have no application in his case.(Para 14)
       Once the respondent became disentitled to obtain the benefit of the said Government Resolution dated 15.06.1995, the 2000 Act will apply in his case.(Para 15)
       The 2000 Act being a legislative Act would prevail over any Government Resolution. A Government Resolution may be beneficient in nature but it is well-settled that a benefit under a Government Resolution cannot be extended to a person who does not satisfy the conditions precedent thereof.(Para 16)
       From the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee itself, it is evident that the father of the respondent was shown in the primary school register as belonging to ‘Koshti’ caste. They were not members of Scheduled Tribe. They were not even ‘Koshti-Halbas’. It may be true that an authoritative pronouncement in this behalf came for the first time in Milind (supra), but it is not a case where the respondent pleaded and proved bona fide.(Para 21)
       Respondent was not the member of a tribe. If a person is not a member of a tribe, the question of the said tribe being a scheduled tribe would not arise.(Para 22)
       Thus, it is a clear case where the provisions of the 2000 Act would apply. We see no reason as to why the statutory provisions should not be directed to apply in the instant case. It may be that at one point of time, keeping in view of the stand taken in particular case, some indulgence had been shown. Indulgence might have been shown to the students or who were found to have acted bona fide but the same would not mean that this Court would pass an order contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of a legislative act.(Para 23)
       For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly. (Para 25)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 19.08.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 4158 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the respondent herein was allowed.

3. Respondent was appointed in the services of the Government of Maharashtra on 29.06.1995. Respondent claimed to be belonging to Halba community, a scheduled tribe. The caste certificate procured by the respondent from the competent officer having been doubted, the matter was referred to the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur on 27.08.1999 for verification. The respondent was found to be belonging to ‘Koshti’ caste which comes within the category of ‘special backward class’ and not within the scheduled tribe category.

4. The question as to whether ‘Koshti- Halbas’ are members of the Scheduled Tribe or not came up for consideration before this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind and Others [(2001) 1 SCC 4], wherein it was held that they were not.

5. In view of the finding of fact that the respondent herein was not a member of the scheduled tribe but was a ‘Koshti’, his caste certificate was invalidated by an order dated 24.06.2004.

6. A writ petition thereafter was filed by the respondent before the High Court praying inter alia for the following reliefs:

“A)That by passing a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, a quash and set aside the order .... dated 24.6.2004 passed by the Respondent No. 2 Committee invalidating the tribe claim of Petitioner that he belongs to Halba, Scheduled Tribe.

B)It be held and declared that in view of Government Resolutions dated 15.6.1995 and 30.6.2004 the services of Petitioner’s are liable to be protected thereby issuing such order to the Respondent No. 2 and 3.

C)During the pendency of present petition by passing an order ad interim in nature stay the effect, operation and implementation of the order..... dated 24.6.2004 invalidating tribe claim of Petitioner and/ or in the alternative restrain the Respondents No. 1 and 3 from passing any adverse order consequent upon invalidation of tribe claim of petitioner by Respondent No. 2 Committee.”

7. It appears that the respondent accepted the findings of the Caste Scrutiny Committee. However, relying on or on the basis of a purported government resolution dated 15.06.1995 whereby and whereunder the services of persons who were appointed prior thereto were sought to be protected, the Division Bench of the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment directed that although the respondent was appointed on 29.06.1995, having regard to the fact that he had been selected on 15.06.1995, he was entitled to protection in terms of the said resolution stating:

“5. In the present case the Petitioner was selected on 15th June, 1995 and got the appointment order on 29th June, 1995. Since Maruti Sandipan Jadhav the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 422 of 1997, is entitled to get the benefit under the Government Resolution dated 15th June, 1995 the same principle should be applied to the Petitioner in the present petition.

6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of dismissal dated 27th May 2005 is quashed and set aside. The Respondents are directed to reinstate the Petitioner with continuity of service but without back wages and to regularize his service in the light of the Government Resolution dated 15th June, 1995....."

8. Mr. S.S. Shinde, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, would submit that having regard to the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained particularly in view of the fact that he was appointed on 29.06.1995.

9. Mr. Manish Pitale, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would submit that in a case of this nature and particularly in view of the f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 54

IMPORTANT POINTOrdinarily a person, who obtained appointment on basis of a false certificate, could not retain said benefit.

Cases Referred (6)

IMPORTANT POINT
Ordinarily a person, who obtained appointment on basis of a false certificate, could not retain said benefit.