The Government Resolutions dated 23-1-1985, 8-3-1985, and 24-4-1985 are not illegal or invalid.

Headnote:
SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES ORDER (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1976 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ARTICLES 14, 15(4), 341, 342 - GOVERNMENT RESOLUTIONS DATED 23-1-1985, 8-3-1985, 24-4-1985 - SCRUTINY COMMITTEE - APPELLATE AUTHORITY - THAKURS - SCHEDULED TRIBE - CASTE - CERTIFICATE - VALIDITY - SCRUTINY - PROCEDURE - GUIDELINES - AREA RESTRICTIONS - REMOVAL - INEQUALITIES - COMPENSATORY DISCRIMINATION - SOCIAL JUSTICE - ASSIMILATION - TRIBAL CHARACTERISTICS - EVIDENCE - NATURAL JUSTICE - REVIEW - INCONSISTENT STAND - INSTRUCTIONS - GOVERNMENT RESOLUTIONS - INTERPRETATION - ABUSE OF POWER - QUASI JUDICIAL BODY - SPEAKING ORDER - REASONS - UNBRIDLED POWER - ARBITRARY POWER - ATTITUDE - PROCEDURE - INQUIRY - SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE - MANIPULATION - FABRICATION - REVIEW BY STATE GOVERNMENT - WRIT JURISDICTION - CASTE KNOWN AS "THAKURE" - NOTIFICATION - OTHER BACKWARD CLASS - INDIRECT METHOD - OBLIQUELY - CASTE NOT INCLUDED IN SCHEDULE - NOT EQUATED WITH SCHEDULED TRIBE - ENQUIRY IN EACH CASE - SCRUTINY COMMITTEE - PREJUDGMENT - NOTIONS - DIVISION BENCH OF HIGH COURT - QUESTIONNAIRE - ANSWERS - HISTORIC INFORMATION - ASSIMILATION - TRIBAL DIALECTS - LINGUISTIC BOUNDARY - TRIBAL ORIGIN - JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE - TIME SCHEDULE - GRANT OF CERTIFICATE - APPEAL - SCRUTINY - TIME LIMIT - CHAIRMAN OF SCRUTINY COMMITTEE - RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE - EXPERT ADVICE - CONFIDENCE - SUGGESTION - INDIVIDUAL CASES - RELIEF - REVOCATION OF ORDER - REMISSION OF MATTER - HEARING - OPPORTUNITY - SPEAKING ORDER - REASONS - GROUNDS - STATEMENT - EVIDENCE - CANCELLATION OF CERTIFICATE - SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES - QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS - RECORD - MATERIAL - DATA - FINDINGS - SETTING ASIDE OF ORDER - REMISSION OF MATTER TO COMPETENT AUTHORITY - FRESH DECISION - NO ORDERS AS TO COSTS.
Fact of the Case:

Two writ petitions were filed in a representative capacity on behalf of Thakurs-the Scheduled Tribes, in view of difficulties which were being faced by them in getting the necessary Certificates. According to the petitioners, the Competent Authorities, who are authorised to issue the necessary Scheduled Tribes Certificates, refused to issue the certificates under the instructions of the State Government in respect of the students who are members of the Thakur Community but who were not residents of 4 districts on the slope of Sahyadri i.e. Nashik, Ratnagiri, Kolaba (Raigad) and Thane. According to the petitioners this is wholly in breach of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976. The petitioners have also challenged the Government Resolution dated 8th March, 1985 and its accompaniments on the ground that what has been prohibited directly is being sought to be imported indirectly, meaning thereby that though by the Amending Act the area restrictions have been removed by this Government Resolution, it is indirectly imported and acting on that basis, the Competent Authorities are refusing to grant the certificates. It is their case that a Scrutiny Committee has taken an approach that a person who is a Hindu Thakur can in no case be a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe i.e. Thakur Tribe. It is the case of the petitioners that this very approach is wholly illegal. A complaint is also made by the petitioners that the entire attitude of the machinery i.e. the Scrutiny Committee and the Appellate Authority is to create more obstacles in the path of Scheduled Tribe students and to deny them their legitimate benefits rather than to help them out. The whole machinery therefore, has been created with factual and legal bias so that the legitimate claims of Thakur in general are wholly denied.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Government Resolutions dated 23-1-1985, 8-3-1985, and 24-4-1985 are not illegal or invalid. The Scrutiny Committee is expected to carry out the following work: 1. Verify the caste certificates of Scheduled Tribes students seeking admissions in different educational institutions at different levels. 2. Certify caste certificates of scheduled tribes recommended by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission and different Selection Boards appointed by the Government for the seats reserved for Scheduled Tribes. 3. Verify the Caste Certificates of the Government Servants according to the requests or complaints made by the concerned Department/Offices. 4. Any work entrusted by Government in respect of scrutiny of caste certificates of Scheduled Tribes. The Appellate Authority is directed to consider the appeal-applications immediately and finalise them within a period of two months under intimation to the concerned authorities. The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee should be a person who is not below the rank of a retired District Judge so that the people will have confidence in the Committee. The Chairman will obviously be assisted by two other members who are experts in the field. Thus expert advice will be available to the Committee, while deciding the question. This might allay all the apprehensions about the decisions of the Scrutiny Committee and the procedure followed by it. The Court also held that the orders passed by the Executive Magistrate and the Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik dated 29th November, 1985, refusing to issue certificate in favour of Chhaya Bhaskar Thakur are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the competent authority for deciding it afresh in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to put forward her case.
Issues: 1. Whether the Government Resolutions dated 23-1-1985, 8-3-1985, and 24-4-1985 are illegal or invalid? 2. What is the scope of the Scrutiny Committee and the Appellate Authority? 3. What is the procedure to be followed by the Scrutiny Committee and the Appellate Authority? 4. Whether the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee should be a person who is not below the rank of a retired District Judge? 5. Whether the orders passed by the Executive Magistrate and the Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik dated 29th November, 1985, refusing to issue certificate in favour of Chhaya Bhaskar Thakur are valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Government Resolutions dated 23-1-1985, 8-3-1985, and 24-4-1985 are not illegal or invalid. 2. The Scrutiny Committee is expected to carry out the following work: 1. Verify the caste certificates of Scheduled Tribes students seeking admissions in different educational institutions at different levels. 2. Certify caste certificates of scheduled tribes recommended by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission and different Selection Boards appointed by the Government for the seats reserved for Scheduled Tribes. 3. Verify the Caste Certificates of the Government Servants according to the requests or complaints made by the concerned Department/Offices. 4. Any work entrusted by Government in respect of scrutiny of caste certificates of Scheduled Tribes. The Appellate Authority is directed to consider the appeal-applications immediately and finalise them within a period of two months under intimation to the concerned authorities. 3. The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee should be a person who is not below the rank of a retired District Judge so that the people will have confidence in the Committee. The Chairman will obviously be assisted by two other members who are experts in the field. Thus expert advice will be available to the Committee, while deciding the question. This might allay all the apprehensions about the decisions of the Scrutiny Committee and the procedure followed by it. 4. The orders passed by the Executive Magistrate and the Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik dated 29th November, 1985, refusing to issue certificate in favour of Chhaya Bhaskar Thakur are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the competent authority for deciding it afresh in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to put forward her case.
Final Decision: Rule made partly absolute in Writ Petition No. 917 of 1986 and the orders passed by the Executive Magistrate and the Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik dated 29th November, 1985, refusing to issue certificate in favour of Chhaya Bhaskar Thakur are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the competent authority for deciding it afresh in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to put forward her case. No further orders are necessary so far as the petitioner No. 2 Vijaya U. Thakur is concerned, as the said order is already revoked and the matter is remitted back to the competent authority. In view of our observations no further orders are necessary in Writ Petition No. 2088 of 1986. Hence Rule in Writ Petition No. 2088 of 1986 stands discharged. However, in the circumstances of the case there will be no orders as to costs in both the petitions.

JUDGMENT - C.S. DHARMADHIKARI, J.:---These two writ petitions have been filed in a representative capacity on behalf of Thakurs-the Scheduled Tribes, in view of difficulties which were being faced by them in getting the necessary Certificates.

2. According to the petitioners, the Competent Authorities, who are authorised to issue the necessary Scheduled Tribes Certificates, refused to issue the certificates under the instructions of the State Government in respect of the students who are members of the Thakur Community but who were not residents of 4 districts on the slope of Sahyadri i.e. Nashik, Ratnagiri, Kolaba (Raigad) and Thane. According to the petitioners this is wholly in breach of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976. The petitioners have also challenged the Government Resolution dated 8th March, 1985 and its accompaniments on the ground that what has been prohibited directly is being sought to be imported indirectly, meaning thereby that though by the Amending Act the area restrictions have been removed by this Government Resolution, it is indirectly imported and acting on that basis, the Competent Authorities are refusing to grant the certificates. It is their case that a Scrutiny Committee has taken an approach that a person who is a Hindu Thakur can in no case be a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe i.e. Thakur Tribe. It is the case of the petitioners that this very approach is wholly illegal. A complaint is also made by the petitioners that the entire attitude of the machinery i.e. the Scrutiny Committee and the Appellate Authority is to create more obstacles in the path of Scheduled Tribe students and to deny them their legitimate benefits rather than to help them out. The whole machinery therefore, has been created with factual and legal bias so that the legitimate claims of Thakur in general are wholly denied. In support of this contention the petitioners are relying upon the various orders passed by the Scrutiny Committee or the Appellate Authority. According to the petitioners 'Thakurs' in Maharashtra belong to the Scheduled Tribe which is included in the Schedule at Entry No. 44. It is also contended that the Scrutiny Committee acts in such a way that instead of furthering the intention and object of the Presidential Order, it practically frustrates it. Further the procedure followed by the Scrutiny Committee is wholly arbitrary and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also the case of the petitioners that an artificial division is created by the Scrutiny Committee by dividing the tribe into Hindu Thakur Caste and 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioners that the procedure followed and the orders passed are discriminatory and differ from person to person and result in discrimination between the person similarly situated.

3. In Writ Petition No. 917 of 1986 apart from the general contentions, the petitioner have also claimed a relief of quashing the order passed by the Tahsildar, Chalisgaon, dated 15th/24th June, 1985 as well as the order dated 29th November, 1985 passed by the Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik refusing to grant the necessary certificates in favour of petitioner No. 2 Vijaya Uttamrao Thakur and petitioner No. 3 Chhaya Bhaskar Thakur. In support of their various contentions the petitioners have placed strong reliance upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in (Milind v. State of Maharashtra)1, 1986(1) Bombay Cases Reporter, page 403, as well as various research papers.

4. On the other hand it is contended by the respondents that the State Government was anxious to see that the benefits and concessions which are meant for those who genuinely belong to the Scheduled Tribes are availed of only by such persons and these benefits and concessions are not availed of by those who may have similarity of the names or some other factors but who do not in fact belong to a particular Scheduled Tri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1986 Supreme(Bom) 271

The Government Resolutions dated 23-1-1985, 8-3-1985, and 24-4-1985 are not illegal or invalid.

Cases Referred (1)