IMPORTANT POINT
Caste Scrutiny Committee can go into the question as to whether a Caste Certificate has rightly been issued or not.

Headnote:Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 —Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted in terms of Supreme Court judgment in Kumar Madhuri Patil’s case—Jurisdiction of Caste Scrutiny Committee and/or extent thereof—Committee can go into the question as to whether a Caste Certificate had rightly been issued or not—Committee was a quasi-judicial body set up for a specific purpose and might not be bound by provisions of Evidence Act—It would not be correct for Superior Courts to issue directions as to how it should appreciate evidence—High Courts conclusion that no enquiry was permissible at all, once it is found that person concerned in whose favour a certificate had been granted to be notified as Scheduled Tribes could not be sustained—Merits of the matter needed to be considered afresh by High Court and matter remanded.
       Held : The Caste Scrutiny Committee is a quasi-judicial body. It has been set up for a specific purpose. It serves a social and constitutional purposes. It is constituted to prevent fraud on Constitution. It may not be bound by the provisions of Indian Evidence Act, but it would not be correct for the superior courts to issue directions as to how it should appreciate evidence. Evidence to be adduced in a matter before a quasi-judicial body cannot be restricted to admission of documentary evidence only. It may of necessity have to take oral evidence. (Para 11)
       The short question which arises for consideration is as to whether the Caste Scrutiny Committee could go into the validity or otherwise of the certificate granted by the authorities. The High Court relied upon a decision of this Court in Palghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya Samrakshna Samithi and Another v. State of Kerala and Another [(1994) 1 SCC 359] and some other decisions of this Court. We, with respect, do not agree with the conclusion of the High Court that no enquiry was permissible at all, once it is found that the person concerned in whose favour a certificate had been granted to be notified as a Scheduled Tribe. (Paras 15 and 16)
       When, therefore, a certificate is granted to a person who is not otherwise entitled thereto, it is entirely incorrect to contend that the State shall be helpless spectator in the matter. We, with respect, fail to appreciate the approach of the High Court as it proceeded on the premise that once the surname of Respondent tallied with the name of the tribe, which finds mention in one or the other entries of the schedule appended to the 1976 Order, the same must be treated to be sacrosanct and no enquiry in relation to the correctness of the said certificate can be gone into by any Committee. The observations and directions of the High Court, in our considered opinion, were not only contrary to the judgments of the Court but also fall short of the ground realities.(Paras 22 and 23)
       The said decision, therefore, is also an authority for the proposition that the Committee can go into the question as to whether a caste certificate has rightly been issued or not. The authorities concerned were also found to have some role to play in finding out the correctness or otherwise of the claim for issue of a caste certificate.(Para 32)
       While there are decisions and decisions in regard to the ultimate relief granted in each case, we see no authority laying down a law that under no circumstances an enquiry would be impermissible in law. (Para 34)
       The learned Senior Counsel made endeavours that we should go into the merit of the matter and set aside the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, as has been done by the High Court. We decline to do so. The High Court although allowed the writ petitions filed by Respondent herein, did not analyze the evidences relied upon by the Committee at all. It, as noticed hereinbefore, proceeded principally on the basis that no enquiry was permissible. (Para 36)
       We, therefore, are of the opinion that merit of the matter should be considered afresh by the High Court. We would, however, request the High Court to consider the desirability of disposing the matters as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We must observe that we have not gone into the merit of the matter and, thus, all contentions of the parties including the question of back-wages, shall remain open.The appeals are allowed.(Para 37)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—The jurisdiction of the Caste Scrutiny Committee and/or extent thereof falls for our consideration in these appeals which arise out of judgments and orders dated 28.07.2003, 04.10.2004 and 24.11.2004 passed by the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 2745 of 1988, 3153 of 1996 and 3737 of 2001 respectively.

2. We may, however, notice the factual matrix of the matter from Civil Appeal No. 789 of 2005.

3. Respondent is said to be a member of the Scheduled Tribe being belonging to Thakur community as envisaged under Entry 44 of the list of the Scheduled Tribes pertaining to the State of Maharashtra issued in terms of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976. A certificate showing that he belongs to the aforementioned tribe community was issued to him. Respondent obtained appointments and/or admissions in various institutions pursuant to or in furtherance of such certificate. However, the Scrutiny Committee constituted in terms of the decision of this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others [(1994) 6 SCC 241], opined that he did not belong to the said community and in fact belongs to Kshatriya Thakur caste, whereupon his Scheduled Tribe certificate was cancelled.

4. Appeal preferred thereagainst before the Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Nagpur, was also dismissed.

5. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said orders passed by the Appellate Authority as also the Caste Scrutiny Committee, writ petitions were filed before the Bombay High Court. Interim stay of the operation of the said orders having been granted, Respondent continued to remain in his service.

6. The learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court delivered separate judgments. Kharche, J. held :

“...We, therefore, hold that the Caste Scrutiny Committee as well as the Commissioner were not justified and, as a matter of law, had no competence to go into the question by holding an enquiry that the petitioner belongs to caste “Thakur” of Kshatriya category....”

Kochar, J., however, in his separate but concurring judgment opined :

“21. However, what are the parameters of such an enquiry is a crucial question before us. It cannot partake or cannot be a civil trial of a Civil Suit in a Civil Court of law. It has, however, to comply with the principles of law of Evidence and the natural justice in the matter of hearing and decision. The enquiry must accord greater emphasis and credence to the documentary evidence rather than oral evidence. If there is preponderance of documentary evidence, such as Caste Certificate, School Leaving Certificate of the pre-Presidential Orders, they must be accepted without any further probe or scrutiny. The document of the post-Presidential Orders, however, cannot be discarded only on the ground that it is of the post-Presidential period. That would be absurd and ridiculous. The Committee cannot proceed on the presumption that all such documents are fabricated and created for the purpose of getting reservation benefits. In such matters, there cannot be any other evidence to establish the caste claim. There is no blood group or DNA test to show any one’s caste which is claimed. We cannot presume that all the parents and all the wards speak lie for all the time to earn the benefits out of their caste. No doubt, some might create a false record to snatch such benefits but cannot lead us to inform universally for all the times that every document is a fabricated and bogus document. Ordinarily and predominantly no high caste person would claim to belong to a caste of reserved category. There is no instance heard of that a Brahmin or a Jain or Kshatriya has recorded falsely that he belonged to an S.C./S.T. class top get the benefits of those categories. Such litigation, however, is amongst those whose caste/tribes have close similarity inter se e.g. Halba and Halba Koshti, Thakur-Ka-Ma etc. Koli and Mahadev Koli,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 1020

IMPORTANT POINTCaste Scrutiny Committee can go into the question as to whether a Caste Certificate has rightly been issued or not.

Cases Referred (10)

IMPORTANT POINT
Caste Scrutiny Committee can go into the question as to whether a Caste Certificate has rightly been issued or not.