2011 Supreme(SC) 977

Supreme Court of India
R.V. RAVEENDRAN, P. SATHASIVAM & A.K. PATNAIK
Dayaram
Versus
Sudhir Batham & Others
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3467 of 2005 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.3468 of 2005
Decided on: 11-10-2011

IMPORTANT POINT
Ousting of jurisdiction of civil court in case of order of scrutiny committee is not illegal,
On the other hand excluding jurisdiction of Division Bench is not legally proper.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 142 and 32 – Supreme Court is duty bound to issue directions for protecting rights of the citizens where law is silent – Directions issued in Madhuri Patil were towards furtherance of the constitutional rights of scheduled castes/scheduled tribes – In giving such directions, this court neither re-wrote the Constitution nor resorted to `judicial legislation’ – Directions 1 to 15 were issued to fill the vacuum in the absence of any legislation, to ensure that only genuine scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates secured the benefits of reservation and the bogus candidates were kept out – Are valid and laudable. (Para 14)

       (1981) Supp. SCC 87; (1984) 3 SCC 161; (1997) 6 SCC 241; (1998) 1 SCC 226; (2005) 3 SCC 284; (1984) 2 SCC 244; (1996) 1 SCC 753; (1996) 6 SCC 756; (1998) 4 SCC 409; (2008) 1 SCC 683; (2008) 5 SCC 511 – Relied upon

       (1994) 6 SCC 241 – Referred

       (b) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 9 – Jurisdiction of civil court to entertain any suit of a civil nature arising under a statute can be excluded only when cognizance is expressly or impliedly barred by the statute which gives rise to such suits – Judgment in Madhuri Patil framing a scheme and providing for creation of scrutiny committee for issuing caste certificate – The Judgment also providing procedure for verification; and passing of appropriate orders by the scrutiny committee – The scheme thus is the `statute’ – This ‘statute’ expressly barring jurisdiction of civil court – Nothing irregular or improper in the direction that orders of the scrutiny committee should be challenged only in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution and not by way of any suit or other proceedings. (Para 19)

       (1997) 5 SCC 460; (2009) 4 SCC 299; (1968) 3 SCR 662 – Relied upon

       (c) Administration of Justice – Scrutiny committee – Is an administrative body – Issues caste certificate after enquiry by its vigilance cell – Persons seeking the certificate are given opportunity of hearing in case of doubt – Remedy of Article 226 of the Constitution provided as against any administrative order – No infirmity in absence of any legislation governing the field. (Para 20 to 23)

       (d) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Right of appeal to a division bench against order/judgment of single Judge – Available to a party either under a statute or Letters Patent – Cannot be taken away by a judicial order – Clause 13 of Madhuri Patil excluding remedy of appeal to Division Bench and making the order/judgment of single Judge appealable only to Supreme Court under Article 136 – Not legally proper. (Para 28, 29)

       1953 SCR 987; (1957) SCR 488 – Relied upon

       (1994) 6 SCC 241 – Referred

       Facts of the case:

       Respondents 1 to 3 claiming to be `Dhobi’ by caste which is a scheduled caste in Bhopal district of Madhya Pradesh, secured appointment to posts reserved for Schedule Castes.

       The President of the Schedule Caste Employees Association made a complaint to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that respondents 1 to 3 did not belong to any scheduled caste and had produced false caste certificates. The Collector enquired into the matter and gave a report holding that the caste certificates produced by respondents 1 to 3 were false.

       Consequently, the appointments of respondents 1 to 3 were cancelled.

       Respondents 1 to 3 challenged the report of the Collector and their consequential termination and the Madhya Pradesh High Court directed that the caste certificates of respondents 1 to 3 be verified by the State Level Screening Committee in accordance with the decision in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development (1994) 6 SCC 241.

       The State Level Screening Committee held an enquiry and made an order holding that respondents 1 to 3 did not belong to `Dhobi’ caste and directed cancellation of the caste certificates issued to them.

       Aggrieved, the respondents 1 to 3 again approached the High Court.

       A single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of the scrutiny committee and declared that the respondents 1 to 3 belonged to a scheduled caste and gave direction to reinstate respondents 1 to 3 with all consequential benefits.

       LPA thereagainst was dismissed as not maintainable in view of direction (13) of the caste verification procedure in Madhuri Patil.

       The said order of the division bench holding the appeal as not maintainable is challenged in Civil Appeal No.3467/2005. The appellant has also challenged the order of the learned Single Judge by filing a separate appeal in CA No.3468/2005, to avoid difficulties in the event of being unsuccessful in CA No.3467/2005.

       These two appeals have been referred by a two Judge bench, to a larger bench by order of reference dated 31.3.2010 doubting the legality and validity of the directions issued in Madhuri Patil.

       Finding of the Court:

       The writ appeal (earlier Letters Patent Appeal) will stand restored to the file of the High Court.

       Result: Civil Appeal No.3467/2005 allowed. Civil Appeal No.3468/2005 dismissed.