The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding nature of final judgments, the conclusive proof of social status based on paternal relations, and the principle of consanguinity.

JUDGMENT

S.B.SHUKRE, J. - Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of parties.

3. Although there are several validities existing in the Petitioner's paternal family, she submitted two validity certificates to the Scrutiny Committee. They were the validities issued to Nilappa Mandleshwar Umbarje on 7/1/2010 and Rutvik Ramchandra Umbarje issued on 10/3/2014 by Committee at Pune.

4. The Scrutiny Committee, however, found that those validities issued earlier were based upon unreliable and untrustworthy school entries of some of the paternal relatives of those holders of the validity. The Scrutiny Committee did acknowledge the fact that the school record containing those entries, which had formed the foundation of the validity certificates issued to Nilappa and Rutvik was of the period prior to 1950, but, as there was a report dtd. 11/9/2019 of Education Officer of Zilla Parishad Primary School, which holds that the record of the school containing those entries was of doubtful nature, the Scrutiny Committee rejected the said validity certificates. With such reasoning, the Scrutiny Committee concluded that the earlier validities issued to Nilappa and Rutvik were the result of suppression of facts and mis-representation by them.

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has invited our attention to the judgment of another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Nilappa Mangleshwar Umbarje vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,Writ Petition No.6561 of 2008, decided on 5/8/2009.. in order to support the argument that validity certificate granted to Nilappa could not have been doubted in any manner and could not have been subjected to reconsideration subsequently by the Scrutiny Committee in view of the directions issued in the judgment to the Scrutiny Committee to validitate the tribe certificate of the Petitioner showing her as belonging to Mahadev Koli Scheduled Tribe.

6. On going through this judgment, we find that direction had indeed been given by the Division Bench to issue thereby validity certificate to Nilappa. But, this validity certificate has now been doubted by the Scrutiny Committee. The doubt so expressed is on the backdrop of the fact that there is no dispute that the judgment dtd. 5/8/2009, rendered in the case of Nilappa Mangleshwar Umbarje, has attained its finality. A judgment of this Court, which has attained finality is binding on all subordinate authorities subject to control and superintendence of this Court, and, Respondent No.2 is one such authority. It, therefore, follows that Respondent No.2 had no authority to express any doubt about the correctness of said validity certificate and reject it. But, Respondent No.2 did it and illegally.

7. The law on the question of re-consideration and cancellation of validity certificates already issued is very clear. A useful reference in this regard may be made to the case of Jyoti Sheshrao Mupde vs. State of Maharashtra,Writ Petition No.1954 of 2009, decided on 22/8/2012. There is one more case, the case of Ms. Pratibha Gorakhnath Nikumbh vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,Writ Petition No.7569 of 2008, decided on 12/4/2013. which needs to be referred to. In that case, Coordinate Bench of this Court has observed that when the High Court, on considering the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee, itself arrives at a conclusion about the caste of the Petitioner and directs the Committee to issue validity certificate to the Petitioner, then the order holds the field and entitles the Petitioner to the same benefit as his blood relative.

8. In this case, the facts disclosed that there was a direction issued to the Scrutiny Committee for issuing tribe validity certificate to Nilappa, the paternal relative of the Petitioner, and following that direction, the Scrutiny Committee issued a validity certificate to Nilappa. This validity certificate also attained finality. In such a case, the Scrutiny Committee could not have expressed doubt about the correctness of t