| Caste certificates |
|
2000 SCCL.COM 662(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 2294 of 1986)
State of Maharashtra Appellant Vs. Milind & others Respondents, decided on 11/28/2000.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Rajendra Babu, Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Mohapatra, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil.
Subject Index: Reservation — to candidates belonging to Schedules Castes and Tribes — Constitution of India — Articles 341 and 342 — Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 — whether at all, it is permissible to hold enquiry and let in evidence to decide or declare that any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community is included in the general name even though it is not specifically mentioned in the concerned Entry in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950? — whether ‘Halba Koshti’ caste is a sub-tribe within the meaning of Entry 19 (Halba/Halbi) of the said Scheduled Tribes Order relating to State of Maharashtra, even though it is not specifically mentioned as such? — held no.
|
|
2003 SCCL.COM 632(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 659 of 2003)
Punit Rai Appellant Vs. Dinesh Chaudhary Respondent, decided on 8/19/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice V.N. Khare, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: Constitution of India — Article 341(1) — Constitution (Scheduled Castes) order, 1950 — election — the tribe ‘Pasi’ admittedly finds place in the said notification whereas ‘Kurmi’ does not — respondent ‘kurmi’ — could not prove to be ‘Pasi’ — the onus of proof that the respondent was Pasi by Caste due to alleged marriage of Bhagwan Singh with Deo Kumari Devi is some other place was wholly within the special knowledge of the respondent — the respondent was supposed to prove the facts within his special knowledge by adducing best evidence namely, Bhagwan Singh and Deo Kumari Devi, which he failed to do. In these circumstances, the High Court erred in observing that the appellant should have examined Bhagwan Singh — the Caste certificate of the Respondent was found to be forged by the Returning Officer and a criminal case is pending — if a special case is to be made out, the same has to be done in accordance with law. It must meet the legal requirement. Unfortunately, this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the High Court. The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained.
|
|
2004 SCCL.COM 21(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 89 of 2004 (with C.A. No. 90 of 2004))
R. Vishwanatha Pillai Appellant with Vimal Ghosh V. Appellant Vs. State of Kerala and others Respondents, decided on 1/7/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan and Hon’ble Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan.
Subject Index: A) Appointment – Caste certificate – appeal against the order of High Court challenging the order of the High Court wherein the High Court has set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in which a direction was issued to the State not to remove the appellant from service without complying with the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution and the rules framed thereunder. High Court held that the appellant was not entitled to the protection provided under Article 311 of the Constitution and the Rules framed thereunder as the appellant had obtained appointment on the basis of false Caste certificate and would be deemed not to have been appointed to the service validly ever — held a person who entered the service by producing a false Caste certificate and obtained appointment for the post meant for Scheduled Caste thus depriving the genuine Scheduled Caste of appointment to that post does not deserve any sympathy or indulgence of this Court. A person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. He, who comes to the Court with false claims, cannot plead equity nor the Court would be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour. A person who seeks equity must act in a fair and equitable manner. Equity jurisdiction cannot be exercised in the case of a person who got the appointment on the basis of false Caste certificate by playing a fraud — equity or compassion cannot be allowed to bend the arms of law in a case where an individual acquired a status by practising fraud. B) Admission – Caste certificate – false — the appellant had joined the Regional Engineering College in the year 1992. He completed the course of his studies in the year 1996 under the interim orders of this Court which were subject to the final orders to be passed in the writ petition. No purpose would be served in withholding the declaration of the result on the basis of the examination already taken by him or depriving him of the degree in case he passes the examination. In terms of the orders passed by the Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Milind & Ors. (supra) we direct that his result be declared and he be allowed to take his degree with the condition he will not be treated as a Scheduled Caste candidate in future either in obtaining service or for any other benefits flowing from the Caste certificate obtained by him. His Caste certificate has been ordered to be cancelled. Henceforth, he will be treated as a person belonging to the general category for all purposes.
|
|
2005 SCCL.COM 556(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 347 of 2004)
Bank of India and another Appellants Vs. Avinash D. Mandivikar and others Respondents, decided on 9/14/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.K. Sema.
Subject Index: Service Laws — Termination of service as Caste certificate invalid — order set aside as reference made after 11 years of appointment — held mere delayed reference when the foundation for the same is alleged fraud does not in any way affect legality of the reference — a person obtaining appointment by illegitimate means cannot be allowed to enjoy the same — termination upheld — appeal allowed.
|
|
2005 SCCL.COM 823(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.7306 of 2005)
Meera Kanwaria Appellant Vs. Sunita and Others Respondents, decided on 12/8/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan.
Subject Index: Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 — Municipal Elections — respondent contested election from seat reserved for a Scheduled Caste women Scheduled Caste certificate granted on basis that she was Scheduled Caste by birth — claim incorrect as she was a rajput by birth married to a member of Scheduled Caste — held a person who is a high caste Hindu and not subjected to any social or educational backwardness in his life cannot by reason of marriage become a member of Scheduled Caste — judgment upholding election set aside — appeal allowed.
|
|
2006 SCCL.COM 603(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 3633 of 2006)
Sandeep Subhash Parate Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra and others Respondents, decided on 8/24/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari.
Subject Index: Education — admission — appellant claiming himself to be of ‘Halba’ community — a Scheduled Tribe community – Caste certificate – invalidation — appellant got admission on the basis that he belonged to reserved category — might have been under a bona fide belief that he comes within the purview of notified category — should make compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to Maharashtra Govt. — in future, for all purposes he will be treated to be a person belonging to the general category.
|
|
2007 SCCL.COM 14(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 95 of 2007)
Neetu Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and others Respondents, decided on 1/8/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia.
Subject Index: Public Interest Litigation — in case of service matter — appellant had got appointment as Audit Inspector, Co-operative Societies Ferozepur on the basis of Schedule Caste certificate – appellant averred that she was married to member of the Scheduled Caste and on that basis certificate obtained — personal vendetta — writ filed — qua warranto issued — the official respondents have already initiated action as regards the Caste certificate. Though PIL is not to be entertained in service matters, that does not stand on the way of the officials from examining the question in the right perspective — the only issue which has been examined relates to the locus standi of the writ petitioner (respondent No.7) to file PIL.
|
|
2007 SCCL.COM 44(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 231 of 2007)
State of Maharashtra and others Appellants Vs. Sanjay K. Nimje Respondent, decided on 1/16/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju.
Subject Index: Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribles, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste certificate Act, 2000 — respondent was not the member of a tribe. If a person is not a member of a tribe, the question of the said tribe being a scheduled tribe would not arise — it is a clear case where the provisions of the 2000 Act would apply — no reason as to why the statutory provisions should not be directed to apply in the instant case.
|
|
2006 SCCL.COM 1120(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5868 of 2006)
Supdt. of Post Offices and others Appellants Vs. R. Valasina Babu Respondent, decided on 12/14/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju.
Subject Index: Appointment got on Caste certificate – cancelled during enquiry proceedings — whether the Disciplinary Authority and consequently the Appellate Authority could have taken into consideration the subsequent event in the Departmental proceedings.
|
|
2007 SCCL.COM 1240(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4676 of 2005)
Desh Raj Appellant Vs. Bodh Raj Respondent, decided on 11/30/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice CJI K. G. Balakrishnan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. V. Raveendran.
Subject Index: Representation of People Act, 1951 — section 116A — statutory appeal under — filed by an Election Petitioner against the judgment dated 7.6.2005 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissing his Election Petition No.1 of 2003 challenging the election of the respondent (Bodh Raj) as Member of Legislative Assembly from 35-Gangath (SC) Assembly Constituency — the case of the appellant in brief is that 35-Gangath Assembly Constituency is reserved for scheduled castes, that he and the respondent, among others were candidates for election from the said constituency. In the said election held on 26.2.2003, the respondent secured the highest number of votes namely 24499 and was declared as elected. The respondent had in his nomination paper declared that he belongs to a scheduled caste (Lohar) and in support of his claim, had produced a Caste certificate dated 16.12.1991 issued by the Executive Magistrate, Indora, District Kangra certifying that he belonged to scheduled caste of Lohar. Only a few days before the polling, the appellant learnt that respondent does not belong to Lohar caste but belongs to ‘Tarkhan’ caste which is not a scheduled caste in the State of Himachal Pradesh. According to Appellant, the respondent was disqualified to contest the election in the Assembly Constituency reserved for scheduled caste and therefore, the election of the respondent was void — the High Court committed an error in ignoring the entries in the admission and withdrawal registers of the government primary and middle schools, Mohtli — this court allows this appeal, sets aside the judgment of the High Court and declare the election of the returned candidate (Bodh Raj) from 35-Gangath Assembly Constituency in the 2003 Election, to be void.
|
|
2007 SCCL.COM 1240(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4676 of 2005)
Desh Raj Appellant Vs. Bodh Raj Respondent, decided on 11/30/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice CJI K. G. Balakrishnan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. V. Raveendran.
Subject Index: Representation of People Act, 1951 — section 116A — statutory appeal under — filed by an Election Petitioner against the judgment dated 7.6.2005 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissing his Election Petition No.1 of 2003 challenging the election of the respondent (Bodh Raj) as Member of Legislative Assembly from 35-Gangath (SC) Assembly Constituency — the case of the appellant in brief is that 35-Gangath Assembly Constituency is reserved for scheduled castes, that he and the respondent, among others were candidates for election from the said constituency. In the said election held on 26.2.2003, the respondent secured the highest number of votes namely 24499 and was declared as elected. The respondent had in his nomination paper declared that he belongs to a scheduled caste (Lohar) and in support of his claim, had produced a Caste certificate dated 16.12.1991 issued by the Executive Magistrate, Indora, District Kangra certifying that he belonged to scheduled caste of Lohar. Only a few days before the polling, the appellant learnt that respondent does not belong to Lohar caste but belongs to ‘Tarkhan’ caste which is not a scheduled caste in the State of Himachal Pradesh. According to Appellant, the respondent was disqualified to contest the election in the Assembly Constituency reserved for scheduled caste and therefore, the election of the respondent was void — the High Court committed an error in ignoring the entries in the admission and withdrawal registers of the government primary and middle schools, Mohtli — this court allows this appeal, sets aside the judgment of the High Court and declare the election of the returned candidate (Bodh Raj) from 35-Gangath Assembly Constituency in the 2003 Election, to be void.
|
|
2008 SCCL.COM 754(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.1639 of 2008)
Union of India Appellant Vs. Dattatray S/O Namdeo Mendhekar & others Respondents, decided on 2/15/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, C. K. Thakker and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. V. Raveendran.
Subject Index: Scheduled tribe — appointment — one of the conditions subject to which the respondent was offered appointment was that if any declaration given or information furnished by him was proved to be false, he will be liable for removal from service and other action which the government may deem appropriate — feeling aggrieved by the direction of the High Court to continue the first respondent in service, the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave — this Court further held that even in cases of admission to educational institutions, the protection extended by Milind case will be applicable only where the candidate had successfully completed the course and secured the degree, and not to cases where the falsehood of the Caste certificate is detected within a short period from the date of admission — the High Court failed to appreciate the ratio of Milind. Having held that the first respondent had falsely claimed that he belonged to a Schedule Tribe, it wrongly extended him the benefit of continuing in employment.
|
|
2008 SCCL.COM 844(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 2079 of 2008)
Yogesh Ramchandra Naikwadi Appellant Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents, decided on 3/7/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble The Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. V. Raveendran.
Subject Index: Reservation benefit of Admission sought alleging that the appellant belonged to — Mahadeo Koli’ - a scheduled tribe. The Scrutiny Committee which verified the validity of his Caste certificate, made an order dated 29.3.1995 rejecting his claim that he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe. The appellant challenged the order of the scrutiny committee in W.P. No.2667/1995. In the said petition, the Bombay High Court issued an interim order directing the third respondent (Director of Technical Education, State of Maharashtra) to accept the application of Appellant for admission to BE course and process the same and give admission by treating him as a candidate belonging to a scheduled tribe, with a condition that the admission, if granted, will be provisional and subject to the final decision. In pursuance of it, the appellant was admitted to the BE course by extending the benefit of reservation under the quota for Scheduled Tribes. Eventually he completed the Engineering course and was conferred a degree by the University of Pune on 31.3.2004 — the writ petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed by order dated 28.3.2006, upholding the order of the Scrutiny Committee, with a direction to the third Respondent to take appropriate steps for recall of the degree granted to the appellant. The said order of the High Court is challenged in this appeal by special leave — the appeal is accordingly allowed in part, deleting the direction of the High Court to the third respondent to take steps to recall the degree awarded to the appellant.
|
|
2008 SCCL.COM 864(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4330 of 2008)
State of Maharashtra and others Appellants Vs. Reshma Ramesh Meher and another Respondents, decided on 7/11/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain.
Subject Index: Caste certificates — issued to respondents — declaring them to be belonging to “Mahadeo Koli”, a Scheduled Tribe. On the strength of the Caste certificates, the respondents appeared in the competitive examination held by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission, for recruitment to the post of Clerk under the reserved category of Scheduled Tribes. Being successful in the examination, they were appointed to the said posts with effect from 21st May, 1982 — vide letter dated 26th August, 1986, the General Administrative Department of appellant No.1 asked the respondents to get their Caste certificates verified. They were required to appear before appellant No.4 on 9th November, 1987 for the purpose of reverification of their Caste certificates. By order dated 12th July, 1992, appellant No.4 cancelled the Caste certificates issued to the respondents. In furtherance of the said order, on 5th January, 1993, memorandums were issued to the respondents, informing them that their services will stand terminated on completion of one month from the date of issue of the memorandums.
|
|
2008 SCCL.COM 868(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4636 of 2008)
Regional Manager, Central Bank of India Appellant Vs. Madhulika Guru Prasad Dahir and others Respondents, decided on 7/25/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain.
Subject Index: Services — termination on account of false, “scheduled tribe certificate — the employee having accepted the finding of the Scrutiny Committee, holding that the Caste certificate furnished by the employee was false, the very foundation of her appointment vanished and her appointment was rendered illegal. Her conduct renders her unfit to be continued in service and must necessarily entail termination of her service — there is absolutely no justification for her claim in respect of the post merely on the ground that she had worked on the post for over twenty years. The post was meant for a reserved candidate but she usurped the same by misrepresentation and deception — the fact that Caste certificate was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification after ten years of her joining the service and a long time was taken by the Scrutiny Committee to verify the same is of no consequence inasmuch as delay on both the counts does not validate the Caste certificate and the consequent illegal appointment — the impugned judgment and order quashing the order of termination of service of the employee and directing her reinstatement cannot be sustained. The order of termination based on the report of the Scrutiny Committee does not suffer from any infirmity and the High Court should not have interfered with the same.
|
|
2008 SCCL.COM 1079(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5243 of 2008)
Shantidevi Kamaleshkumar Yadav Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra and others Respondents, decided on 8/26/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon’ble Mr. Harjit Singh Bedi.
Subject Index: Natural justice — principles — non-observance of — the appellant submitted that hearing of the case was closed for orders before the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 29.9.2003. Thereafter, without notice to the appellant, Caste certificate Register was called on 28.10.2003 and representatives from the Office of the Tehsildar were called on 7.11.2003. This approach of the Caste Scrutiny Committee is clearly violative of the basic principles of natural justice — according to the appellant, this grievance was clearly articulated before the Division Bench of the High Court, but it did not deal with this aspect of the matter, therefore, in the interest of justice the matter should be remanded to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for deciding the matter afresh — matter remitted to the Caste Scrutiny Committee to decide the case afresh after hearing the learned counsel for the parties. The Caste Scrutiny Committee must ensure that no hearing or deliberation takes place after the conclusion of hearing without notice to the appellant — the matter has been pending for several years, therefore, the Court requests the Caste Scrutiny Committee to dispose of this case as expeditiously as possible.
|
|
2008 SCCL.COM 1114(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5308 of 2008)
Raju Ramsing Vasave Appellant Vs. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar and others Respondents, decided on 8/29/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam.
Subject Index: Schedule Tribe Caste certificate scrutiny committee order — whether a co-employee of the respondent No. 1 who was working as a Field Officer with the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board can maintain an independent special leave questioning the judgment of a High Court setting aside an order of the Schedule Tribe Caste certificate Scrutiny Committee is the question involved herein.
|
|
2009 SCCL.COM 401(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1716 of 2009)
Canara Bank by its M.D. Appellant Vs. Damodhar Govind Idoorkar and others Respondents, decided on 3/18/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu.
Subject Index: Back Wages — payment — false Caste certificate, termination of service — challenged — respondent no. 1 belonged to backward class — payment of full back wages — whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in directing the full back wages to be paid to the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
|
|
2009 SCCL.COM 568(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 2627 of 2006 with Civil Appeal No. 2632 of 2006)
U.P. Public Service Commission Appellant Vs. Satya Narayan Sheohare and others Respondent(s), decided on 2/26/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu.
Subject Index: U.P. Nyayik Sewa Niyamavali 1951 — advertisement inviting applications for filling 147 posts of civil Judge (Jr. Division) — the respective first respondent in each of these two appeals made applications claiming to be general category candidates. The written examination was held on 4th, 5th and 6th August 2000 and the two candidates participated in the said examination as general category candidates — in the meanwhile, by notification dated 7.7.2000, the state government added the castes of `kalal’, `kalwar’ and `kalar’, in the list of other backward classes by amending the First Schedule to the U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Schedule Castes, Schedule Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act 1994 — the first respondent in C.A. No.2627 of 2006 belongs to caste `kalar’ and the first respondent in C.A. No. 2632 of 2006 belongs to the caste `kalal’. They obtained Caste certificates dated 2.8.2000 and 24.8.2000. They made representations dated 29.8.2000 and 13.9.2000 respectively to the Commission to accept their Caste certificates and extend them the benefit of reservation as candidates belonging to other backward classes — there was a bona fide doubt as to whether the writ petitioners should be treated as OBC candidates or general category candidates having regard to the fact that they had applied as general category candidates — the appointment of writ petitioners, if found entitled for selection and appointment with reference to their rank, will be prospective in nature. The Commission is granted four months’ time for compliance.
|
|
2009 SCCL.COM 3058(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 6253 of 2009)
Suyanna Appellant(s) Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent(s), decided on 9/15/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal.
Subject Index: Cancellation of Caste certificate — Tehsildar issued certificate mentioning that the appellant belongs to Mannerawarla sub-caste — Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claims, Aurangabad issued the certificate of validity based on verified documents — appellant got elected as President of Kundalwadi Municipal Council — the Scheduled Tribes Certificate Scrutiny Committee cancelled & confiscated Caste certificate of the appellant — hence this appeal — the report forwarded by the Police Inspector, Vigilance Cell, nowhere mentioned that the certificate produced by the appellant is forged — Scrutiny Committee never attempted to get an expert’s opinion nor compared the disputed letters with admitted one of the appellant — finding recorded by the committee that the word ‘lu’ interpolated not based on credible evidence & suffers from the vice of non-consideration of relevant factors — decision of Scrutiny Committee as well as of the HC confirming the said decision set aside — appeal allowed with no costs.
|
|
2009 SCCL.COM 3173(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 3179 of 2007)
Shiv Pujan Prasad (Dead) by Lrs. Appellants Vs. State of U.P. and another Respondents, decided on 11/30/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan.
Subject Index: U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 — Rule 7 — fresh disciplinary enquiry against the appellant — found that appellant belonged to backward community and not to scheduled caste, thus, obtained appointment on the basis of forged Caste certificate— dismissal from service — earlier, District Collector enquired the caste status of the appellant and found that appellant belonged to scheduled caste which was accepted by the Department as a consequence of which he was taken back and continued in service and was even given further promotions — Division Bench also recorded that appellant not forged his Caste certificate — held that re-open of the entire issue by the respondents and dismissal of appellant from his service totally unjustified — set aside the order of dismissal — directed the respondents to disburse entire post-retiral benefits of the appellant — appeal allowed.
|
|
2011 SCCL.COM 606(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 7721 of 2011 With Civil Appeal No.7722 of 2011 With Civil Appeal No. 7723 of 2011)
Arshad Jamil Appellant(s) Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others Respondent(s), decided on 9/7/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave.
Subject Index: Termination of service — cancellation of Caste certificate issued to the appellant — was challenged — the appellant was selected for the post of Civil Judge [Junior Division], against a reserved category post meant for other backward classes. However, the Tehsildar cancelled the Caste certificate of the appellant and his service got terminated — writ petition filed — the High Court dismissed the petition but issued a direction for reinstatement of the appellant — hence, the appeals — the records clearly showed that the name of the appellant was included in the electoral roll of Muzaffarnagar in the year 1993. Despite the appellant’s claim that he was residing in Roorkee, there is no documentary evidence to prove the said fact except for a document which has been placed on record, being municipal record, but issued in the year 2003 — no contemporaneous document produced on record prior to the Caste certificate showing and justifying his claim that appellant was ordinarily a resident of Roorkee — termination order of the appellant confirmed — appeals disposed.
|
|
2011 SCCL.COM 681(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4069 of 2008 With Civil Appeal Nos. 4074, 4079 and 4082 of 2008)
Collector, Bilaspur Appellant Vs. Ajit P.K. Jogi and others Respondent(s), decided on 10/13/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu.
Subject Index: Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 338 — genuineness of Caste certificate — in question — whether the Commission had the jurisdiction to entertain complaints about the genuineness of Caste certificate of a particular individual and pronounce upon the validity of theCaste certificate and the caste status of such person — whether the High Court was justified in holding that in view of two earlier decisions of the High Court, challenging the caste status of the first respondent, his caste status had attained some kind of finality — whether the High Court was justified in holding that the proceedings before the Commission at the instance of sixth respondent were politically motivated — no — the power under clause 5(b) of Article 338 did not entitle the Commission to hold an inquiry in regard to the caste status of any particular individual, summon documents, and record a finding that his Caste certificate is bogus or false — the Supreme Court held that even though the Commission was not entitled to hold an inquiry and record a finding that first respondent did not belong to a scheduled tribe, having regard to clause 5(b) and (f) of Article 338, it had the power and authority to require the State Government or the caste verification Committee constituted by the State Government, to examine the caste status claimed by the first respondent — no justification for the High Court to either term the application given by the sixth respondent to the Commission as politically motivated or direct the State Government and the Commission to calculate the actual expenses incurred in regard to the inquiry and recover the same from the sixth respondent — the order of the High Court to the extent it quashes the order of the Commission, is upheld — appeals partly allowed — direction issued.
|
|
2011 SCCL.COM 690(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.3467 of 2005 With Civil Appeal No.3468 of 2005)
Dayaram Appellant Vs. Sudhir Batham & others Respondents, decided on 11/10/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V Raveendran, Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik.
Subject Index: Caste certificates — issuance, scruitiny and approval of — procedure for — whether directions 1 to 15 in Madhuri Patil case are impermissible, being legislative in nature — whether directions 11 and 12 in Madhuri Patil, which exclude the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain suits challenging the decisions of the Caste Scrutiny Committees, violate section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure — whether direction 13 in Madhuri Patil barring intra-court appeals against decisions of Single Judges in writ petitions, when such appeals are specifically provided for in State enactments/Letters Patents, is valid and proper — no — the Supreme Court held that directions 1 to 15 issued in exercise of power under Articles 142 and 32 of the Constitution, are valid and laudable, as by issuing such directions, this court was not taking over the functions of the legislature but merely filling up the vacuum till legislature chose to make an appropriate law — the Supreme Court directed constitution of scrutiny committees, to provide an expeditious, effective and efficacious remedy, in the absence of any statute or a legal framework for proper verification of false claims regarding SCs/STs status and will continue till the concerned legislature makes appropriate legislation in regard to verification of claims for caste status — the right of appeal to a division bench, made available to a party to a writ petition, either under a statute or Letters Patent, cannot be taken away by a judicial order, thus, wherever the writ petitions against the orders of the scrutiny committee are heard by a single judge and the state law or Letters Patent permits an intra-court appeal, the same will be available — impugned judgment of the Division Bench holding the writ appeal as not maintainable set aside — appeal allowed.
|
|
2011 SCCL.COM 700(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.7857 of 2004)
Raiwad Manojkumar Nivruttirao Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra & another Respondent(s), decided on 10/13/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik.
Subject Index: Caste certificate — genuineness of — referred for verification and scrutiny — the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee submit that the appellant did not belong to `Koli Mahadeo’, Scheduled Tribe was challenged — the High Court dismissed the writ petition — hence, the appeal — the documents on record showed that the appellant belongs to `Koli’ tribe which it is not a scheduled Tribe — the appellant had been in service of NABARD for long 19 years — the Supreme Court ordered that the initial appointment of the appellant in the service of NABARD will not be disturbed, but the appellant will not be granted any benefit as a member of the Scheduled Tribe including any promotional benefit — appeal partly allowed — no costs.
|
|
2011 SCCL.COM 728(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6340 of 2004)
Anand Appellant Vs. Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claims & others Respondent(s), decided on 8/11/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 — Caste certificate — cancellation of — on the ground that the appellant had failed to establish his affinity towards `Halbi’ Scheduled Tribe — was challenged — the High Court upheld the order of Caste Scrutiny Committee and concluded that unless an applicant establishes his ethnic linkage with a Scheduled Tribe, his caste claim cannot be accepted merely on the strength of documentary evidence — hence, the appeal — what parameters are to be applied in determining whether an applicant belongs to a notified Scheduled Tribe — the genuineness of a caste claim has to be considered not only on a thorough examination of the documents submitted in support of the claim but also on the affinity test of the applicant — the documents produced by the appellant appears that his near paternal relatives had been regarded as belonging to the `Halbi’ Scheduled Tribe — the Vigilance Officer’s report does not indicate that the documents produced by the appellant in support of his claim are false — the Supreme Court opined that the documentary evidence produced by the appellant was not examined and appreciated in its proper perspective and the High Court laid undue stress on the affinity test, thus, the decisions of Caste Scrutiny Committee and the High Court set aside and the case remitted back to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration — appeal allowed.
|
|
2011 SCCL.COM 769(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.10465 of 2011)
M/s Bharati Balkrishna Dhongade Appellant(s) Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors Respondent(s), decided on 12/5/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar .
Subject Index: Caste certificate — validity of — in question — whether “Namdeo Shimpi” caste is a sub-caste within the meaning of Entry 153 (Shimpi) in the Government Notification notifying list of Other Backward Classes (OBC) relating to the State of Maharashtra, even though it is not specifically mentioned as such — held no —the Supreme Court held that when it is not so expressly or specifically included in the Government Resolution/order along with the main caste, it is not permissible to avail such benefit of reservation, thus, in view of the fact that there is no reference to ‘Namdeo Shimpi’ in Entry 153, the appellant who belongs to the same caste cannot claim the benefit meant for ‘Other Back-ward Classes’ of ‘Shimpi’ caste — appeal dismissed — no costs.
|
|
2011 SCCL.COM 786(Case/Appeal No: SLP (Civil) No.3314 of 2010 With SLP (C) No. 3370 & 3365 of 2010)
Dattu S/O Namdev Thakur Petitioner(s) Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondent(s), decided on 12/7/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar.
Subject Index: Caste certificates — cancellation of — on the ground that the petitioners were unable to satisfy that they belong to the Thakur Scheduled Tribe — the Supreme Court directed that whatever advantage the three petitioners may have derived on the basis of their ‘Caste certificates’, shall not be disturbed and the cancellation of their respective ‘Caste certificates’ will not deprive them of the benefits which they have already enjoyed. However, none of the three petitioners will be entitled to take any further advantage of reservation in future, either for studies or for employment — petitions disposed — no costs.
|
|
2011 SCCL.COM 788(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.4956 of 2010 With C.A. No. 4962 of 2010)
Ramesh Rout Appellant(s) Vs. Rabindra Nath Rout Respondent(s), decided on 12/9/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. M. Lodha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar.
Subject Index: Representation of the People Act, 1951 — section 116 A r/w section 116 C — appeals filed under — Election Symbols (Reservation & Allotment) Order, 1968 — election petitions filed challenging the election of the appellant to 89-Athagarh Assembly Constituency — on the ground of improper rejection of nomination papers of the proposed candidate — the High Court declared the election of the appellant null and void — hence, the appeals — whether it is mandatory for a candidate set up by a recognised political party to file original ink signed Forms A and B appended to para 13 of the 1968 Order — to consider — non-compliance of requirements of para 13 of the 1968 Order, is a defect of substantial character and the nomination paper of a candidate proposed by a single elector set up by a recognised political party having such defect is liable to be rejected as it tantamounts to non-compliance of the provisions of Section 33, namely, the nomination paper having not been completed in the prescribed form thus, it was necessary for the proposed candidate that Forms A and B referable to clauses (b), (c) and (d) of para 13, 1968 Order were submitted to the Returning Officer duly signed in ink by the authorised person of BJD — the Supreme Court held that the Returning Officer ought to have afforded an opportunity to the election petitioner until next day to rebut the objection and show to the Returning Officer that the proposed candidate had filed Forms A and B duly singed in ink by the authorised person of BJD, therefore, the election petitioners proved the improper rejection of the proposed candidate’s nomination paper and hence proved the ground for setting aside appellant’s election to 89-Athagarh Assembly Constituency under Section 100(1)(c) of the 1951 Act — appeals dismissed — no cost.
|
|
2011 SCCL.COM 794(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No(s). 10740 of 2011)
Omprakash S/o Chandranath Arya Appellant(s) Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors Respondent(s), decided on 12/9/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar.
Subject Index: Caste certificate — of the appellant claiming that he belongs to a community known as “Kathik” which is recognised as scheduled tribe in the State of Maharashtra — in issue — the Scrutiny Committee (fifth respondent) after an appropriate enquiry, passed an order invalidating the Caste certificate of the appellant — the evidence produced by the appellant was examined by the “Scrutiny Committee” — the conclusion reached by the ‘Scrutiny Committee’ and upheld by the High Court not interfered — appeal dismissed.
|
