IMPORTANT POINT
When appellant’s brother has been held not belonging to the scheduled tribe community, appellant cannot be held to belonging to the scheduled tribe community.

ORDER

M. Y. EQBAL, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order dated 17.12.2013 passed by the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, whereby the High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.

3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.

4. The appellant herein claims to be belonging to ‘Koli Mahadev’ a scheduled tribe community. According to the appellant he separated from his family as there was dispute in respect of the property with his father and for quite some time, the appellant have no relationship or communication with his father and other family members.

5. Since the appellant has secured employment with Zilla Parishad, Beed, on the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe category, the tribe certificate issued in his favour was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification after 18 years from the date of appointment. The appellant submitted several documents in support of his claim including the oldest record of 1348 fasali pertaining to his grandfather namely Gundaji Narsingh Bone wherein his caste is recorded as Mahadev Koli.

6. The claim of the appellant was referred to vigilance cell and vigilance officer has conducted the home and school enquiry.

On consideration of all the documents furnished by the appellant including affidavits as well as forms filled in by the appellant, the Scrutiny Committee proceeded to issue validity certificate by reasoned order dated 19.06.2010.

7. It was later on revealed that tribe certificate issued in favour of appellant’s brother by name Sharadkumar Baburao Bone has been invalidated by the Committee by order dated 20.10.2004 and said order was communicated to him on 27.10.2004. The writ petition challenging the order passed by the Committee invalidating tribe claim of the brother of the appellant, being Writ Petition No. 6934 of 2004, has been dismissed by the High Court. The SLP filed against that order of the High Court has been dismissed by this Court.

8. The Scrutiny Committee, as such, decided to reconsider the matter concerning issuance of validity certificate in favour of the appellant. The appellant was duly noticed by the Committee and after extending opportunity of hearing to the appellant, the Scrutiny Committee by order dated 24.2.2012 recalled its earlier order and directed invalidation of tribe certificate of the appellant. In paragraph nos. 7,8,9, and 10, the Scrutiny Committee has observed thus:-

“ Applicant has submitted in Form ‘E’ in which column No.17(a) it is specifically asked that whether any family member from your family members previously verified? Applicant answered that, ‘No’.

Applicant filed affidavit, notorised before notary on 13.1.2009 in format ‘F’ in which he specially made statement on oath, “No scheduled tribe certificate of any of my relatives from paternal side is ever held invalid by the Scrutiny Committee.

Applicant also submitted another affidavit dated 16.3.2009 in which he again made fake statement that ‘Any of my sister and brother or blood relatives bears surname as Bone whose claim never invalidated by the Committee or no any petition pending before any Court.

The Police inspector of vigilance cell recorded statement on 9.4.2009 of applicant’s father namely Shri Baburao Gundaji Bone. He also again made statement that “in my family, in Bone surnames or in my relatives whose claim never invalidated by the committee or no any petition pending before any Court.”

9. The appellant challenged the aforesaid order dated 24.2.2012 passed by the Scrutiny Committee by filing a writ petition being writ petition No.5160 of 2012 in the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Bench. The High Court after hearing the appellant dismissed the writ petition and observed as under:-

“In our opinion, petitioner has willfully misled the Scrutiny Committee for securing validity certificate wrongfully. The petitioner is guilty of making false statements on oath before the Scrutiny Committee. As a re