SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(SC) 1127

Supreme Court of India
ALTAMAS KABIR, SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR & J. CHELAMESWAR
Dattu
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Others
SLP(CIVIL) No(s).3314 OF 2010 WITH SLP(C) NO.3370 of 2010 SLP(C) NO.3365 of 2010
Decided on: 07-12-2011

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners:Anandbhushan Kanade, Sr. Advocate, Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Anjani Kumar Jha, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Shankar Chillarge, Addl. Govt. Advocate, SOM, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Irshad Ahmad, Advocates.

Headnote:

Constitution of India–Article 342–Cancellation of caste certificate on basis of findings of Caste Scrutiny Committee–Reference was made to Caste Scrutiny Committee nine years after certificates had been issued and there is no proper explanation for such delay–Whatever advantage petitioners may have derived on the basis of their Caste Certificates, shall not be disturbed–However, petitioners will not be entitled to take any further advantage of reservation in future, either studies or for employment. (Paras 6, 7 and 9)

Judgment :

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

Special Leave Petition(C)Nos. 3314, 3365 and 3370, all of 2010, which are on board today, all arise out of the judgment and final order dated 14th December, 2009, passed by the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition Nos.7813 of 2009, 8048 of 2009 and 7289 of 2009.

2. The petitioner in SLP(C)No.3314 of 2010, is the father of the petitioners in the other two Special Leave Petitions, one being the son and the other being the daughter of the petitioner, Dattu Thakur, son of Namdev Thakur. In all these cases, the grievance is common since the 'Caste Certificates' granted to them on 7th June, 2001, by the competent authorities were invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee by its orders dated 4th September, 2009 and 24th September, 2009.

3. The Caste Certificates issued to the petitioners were invalidated mainly on the ground that they were unable to satisfy the Caste Scrutiny Committee that they belong to the 'Thakur' tribe, which is recorded as a Scheduled Tribe at Serial No.44 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes List. The Caste Scrutiny Committee also came to the finding that the School Leaving Certificate of the father of the petitioner in SLP(C)No.3314 of 2010, did not really support the case of the petitioners who, in any event, had also failed in the affinity test. It was submitted that the documents tendered by them did not conform to their claim. Furthermore, the petitioners were also unable to prove by way of affinity test that they belong to the Thakur Scheduled Tribe.

4. Cancellation of the 'Caste Certificates' issued to the petitioners on the basis of the report of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, was challenged by the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions, in which the High Court upheld the findings of the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

5. As indicated hereinabove, the Special Leave Petitions have been filed against the said order of the High Court.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s), as well as the State of Maharashtra, we are of the view that even if we are to accept the findings of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, as also that of the High Court, we cannot ignore the various circumstances that have intervened between the issuance of the 'Caste Certificates' and the cancellation thereof. In fact, reference was made to the Caste Scrutiny Committee in 2009, i.e. nine years after the certificates had been issued, and there is no proper explanation for such delay. On the other hand, the petitioner in the first writ petition has been allowed by the respondents to continue in service and also by virtue of orders passed by the High Court. Similarly, the petitioners in the other two writ petitions have continued their studies after having obtained certain benefits from their 'Caste Certificates'. We are now informed by Mr. Kanade, learned senior advocate, appearing for the petitioner(s), that the petitioner in the second Special Leave Petition, Amol, who is the son of Dattu Thakur, who is the petitioner in the main Special Leave Petition, has in the meantime, appeared for the B.Pharmacy examination but his results have not been declared. Similarly, Pratibha, daughter of Dattu Thakur, who is the petitioner in the other Special Leave Petition, has appeared for the B.Ed. examination and her result is also to be declared.

7. In support of the case of the petitioner(s), an order passed by another Bench of this Court in C.A.No.7411 of 2010 (Swati Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.), on 6th September, 2010, was brought to our notice, wherein in similar circumstances, the Court while dismissing the civil appeal, directed that the benefits that had already been enjoyed by the candidate, and the degree obtained by her in the BDS course, which she had completed, would continue. The Court further directed that she would not be entitled to any further benefits under the 'Caste Certificates' issued to her and that whatever advantage she may have obtained by way of payment of




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top