Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DR. B.S. CHAUHAN & JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.
AYAAUBKHAN NOORKHAN PATHAN - Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7728 of 2012
Decided on : 08-11-2012.
AIR 1952 SC 12; AIR 1954 SC 728; AIR 1962 SC 1044; AIR 1996 SC 2736; (2009) 2 SCC 784; AIR 2008 SC 1289; AIR 2011 SC 3031; AIR 1951 SC 41; AIR 1980 SC 1579; AIR 1987 SC 2021; AIR 1993 SC 280; AIR 1993 SC 284; JT (2012) 10 SC 393 - Relied upon
(b) Words and Phrases - Legal right - May be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. (Para 8)
AIR 1974 SC 1719; AIR 1977 SC 1361 - Relied upon
(c) Constitution of India - Article 226/32 - PIL - Courts must examine if there is a public interest - PIL is not permitted in service matters. (Paras 12 to 14)
AIR 1980 SC 856; (2010) 2 SCC 114; (2010) 3 SCC 402; (2011) 7 SCC 69; AIR 1999 SC 114; AIR 2005 SC 540; AIR 2007 SC 758; (2002) 1 SCC 33 - Relied upon
(d) Constitution of India - Article 226 / 32 - Locus standi - A third person, having no concern with the case at hand, cannot claim to have any locus-standi to raise any grievance whatsoever. (Para 22)
(2012) 4 SCC 407; (2008) 3 SCC 512; (2008) 12 SCC 1; (2008) 9 SCC 54; (2012) 3 SCC 619; AIR 2001 SC 1739 - Relied upon
(e) Administration of Justice - Judicial Review - Natural Justice - Reasonable opportunity - Right of cross-examination is an integral part of the principles of natural justice - The cross-examination must be effective one. (Para 30)
AIR 1961 SC 1623; AIR 1957 SC 882; AIR 1963 SC 1719; AIR 1964 SC 708; AIR 2008 SC 876; AIR 2009 SC 2448; AIR 2010 SC 142; AIR 2010 SC 3131; (2005) 10 SCC 634; AIR 2008 SC 876; AIR 1984 SC 273; AIR 1968 SC 850; AIR 1972 SC 32; AIR 2006 SC 1445; AIR 2009 SC 1100 - Relied upon
(f) Evidence Act, 1882 - Section 3 r/w Order XIX, rules 1&2, CPC - Filing of an affidavit of ones own statement, in ones own favour, cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence. (Para 31)
AIR 1988 SC 1381; AIR 2002 SC 1147; AIR 1972 SC 330; AIR 1981 SC 1298; AIR 1992 SC 700; (2006) 6 SCC 94 - Relied upon
(g) Service Law - Caste certificate - Role of Scrutiny Committee - Procedural directions given in (1994) 6 SCC 241 and (2012) 1 SCC 333 restated and reiterated. (Paras 37 to 39)
(1994) 6 SCC 241; (2012) 1 SCC 333 - Relied upon
(h) Administration of Justice - Judicial Review - Omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta - Applies to Scrutiny Committee - Very strong material evidence is required to rebut the presumption u/s 114, Evidence Act. (Para 45)
(1994) 6 SCC 241; (2012) 1 SCC 333; AIR 1964 SC 370; AIR 1977 SC 183; AIR 2002 SC 504; (2004) 6 SCC 36; (2010) 4 SCC 653; (2010) 7 SCC 569; AIR 2011 SC 146; (2011) 4 SCC 395 - Relied upon
Facts of the case:
This case involves questions relating to issue of caste certificate.
Finding of the Court:
Presumption ion favour of Scrutiny Committees findings, if arrived at following guidelines of the Supreme Court, cannot be rebutted easily.
Result : Appeal disposed off.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
Locus Standi and Standing to Sue: Only a person who has suffered a legal injury or is directly affected by an act, action, or order has the standing to challenge it in a court of law. A stranger or third party without a direct interest or legal injury cannot meddle in proceedings or challenge the act (!) .
Legal Right and Aggrieved Person: A "legal right" is an entitlement conferred by law, and only a person whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardized can be considered "aggrieved" and thus have the locus standi to challenge a decision or act (!) (!) .
Public Interest Litigation (PIL): PIL is not generally permitted in service matters unless there is a genuine public interest involved. Courts must carefully examine whether public interest justifies interference, and a third party with no personal concern or legal injury has no standing to file such petitions (!) (!) .
Natural Justice and Cross-Examination: The right to cross-examine witnesses is an essential component of natural justice. Failure to provide an effective opportunity for cross-examination violates principles of natural justice and can invalidate proceedings (!) (!) .
Evidence and Affidavits: Affidavits are not considered evidence unless they are tested through cross-examination or ordered by the court. Relying solely on affidavits without cross-examination can lead to violations of natural justice principles (!) (!) .
Procedure in Verification of Caste Certificates: The verification process for caste certificates involves investigations and inquiries by designated bodies, which are not adjudicatory authorities. Proper procedures, including prior enquiry and proper investigation, are necessary to avoid the need for further verification (!) (!) .
Reopening or Recalling Certificates: The authority to recall or review caste certificates is limited, and procedural safeguards, including giving the affected party an opportunity to be heard and cross-examine witnesses, are essential. Failure to do so can render proceedings invalid (!) (!) .
Presumption of Regularity: Acts and decisions taken by competent authorities or committees, when following due procedures, are presumed to be regular and correct. Such presumption can only be rebutted through strong and credible evidence (!) .
Role of the Scrutiny Committee: The scrutiny committee functions as an investigative body rather than an adjudicatory tribunal. Its purpose is to verify facts and investigate claims, especially regarding caste certificates, but it must adhere to principles of natural justice, including providing opportunities for cross-examination and fair hearing (!) (!) .
Implication of Non-Compliance: Any violation of natural justice, such as denying an opportunity for cross-examination or failing to decide on applications for calling witnesses, can invalidate the proceedings. Ensuring fairness and adherence to statutory procedures is critical (!) (!) .
Cost and Disqualification of Malafide Parties: Parties found to have acted in bad faith or with malicious intent, such as abusing court processes, can be penalized with costs and disqualified from further intervening in the matter (!) .
Final Directions: The proceedings must be conducted in accordance with law, with opportunities for fair hearing and cross-examination of witnesses. Any prior decision found to be in violation of natural justice can be set aside, and appropriate orders must be passed to ensure procedural fairness (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific advice regarding this case.
JUDGMENT
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.-This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.9.2009, passed by the High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) in Writ Petition No.3129 of 2009, filed by respondent no.5, challenging the caste certificate of the appellant.
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as follows:
A. The competent authority in the present case, issued a caste certificate dated 19.10.1989, after following due procedure, in favour of the appellant stating that he does in fact, belong to Bhil Tadvi (Scheduled Tribes). On the basis of the said certificate, the appellant was appointed as Senior Clerk in the Municipal Corporation of Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as the, ‘Corporation’) on 6.2.1990, against the vacancy reserved for persons under the Scheduled Tribes category. The Corporation referred the caste certificate of the appellant for the purpose of verification, to the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee (hereinafter referred to as the, “Scrutiny Committee”). The Vigilance Cell attached to the Scrutiny Committee, upon conducting vigilance enquiry, vide order dated 29.12.1998, found that the appellant did, in fact, belong to Bhil Tadvi (Scheduled Tribes) and thus, the said certificate was verified. The Scrutiny Committee, on the basis of the said report and also other documents filed by the appellant in support of his case, issued a validity certificate, dated 23.5.2000 to the appellant belonging to Bhil Tadvi (Scheduled Tribes). After the lapse of a period of 9 years, respondent no.5 filed complaint dated 9.1.2009, through an advocate before the Scrutiny Committee, for the purpose of recalling the said validity certificate, on the ground that the appellant had obtained employment by way of misrepresentation, and that he does not actually belong to the Scheduled Tribes category. In fact, the appellant professed the religion of Islam and therefore, could not be a Scheduled Tribe.
B. The Scrutiny Committee rejected the said application vide order dated 13.3.2009, observing that it had no power to recall or to review a caste validity certificate, as there is no statutory provision that provides for the same.
C. Aggrieved, respondent no.5 challenged the order dated 13.3.2009, by filing Writ Petition No.3129 of 2009 before the High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench), praying for quashing of the order dated 13.3.2009, and directing the Scrutiny Committee to hold de novo enquiry, with respect to the appellant’s caste certificate. The appellant contested the said petition, denying all the allegations made by respondent no.5. Vide its impugned judgment and order dated 22.9.2009, the High Court disposed of the said writ petition without going into the merits of the case. However, while doing so, the High Court set aside the order dated 13.3.2009, and remitted the matter to the Scrutiny Committee, directing it to hear all the parties concerned in accordance with law, as regards the allegations made by respondent no.5 in the complaint. It further directed the Committee to decide the said matter within a period of 6 months. Hence, this present appeal.
3. Before proceeding further, it may also be pertinent to refer to certain subsequent developments. During the pendency of this appeal, this Court vide order dated 20.11.2009, granted a stay with respect to the operation of the aforementioned impugned judgment. Vide order dated 6.1.2012, the said interim order was modified, to the extent that the Scrutiny Committee would re-examine the case on merit, without being influenced by earlier proceedings before it, and by giving adequate opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective cases after which, the Scrutiny Committee would submit its report to this Court within a period of 3 months.
4. Shri A.V. Savant, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the appellant has submitted that respondent no.5 does not belong to any reserved category, infact, he belongs
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
