Dattu S/O Namdev Thakur vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SLP(CIVIL) No(s).3314 OF 2010

DATTU S/O NAMDEV THAKUR Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. Respondent(s)

WITH

SLP(C) NO. 3370 of 2010

SLP(C) NO. 3365 of 2010

J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

Special Leave Petition(C)Nos. 3314, 3365 and

3370, all of 2010, which are on board today, all

arise out of the judgment and final order dated

14th December, 2009, passed by the Aurangabad Bench

of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition Nos.7813

of 2009, 8048 of 2009 and 7289 of 2009.

2. The petitioner in SLP(C)No.3314 of 2010, is

the father of the petitioners in the other two

Special Leave Petitions, one being the son and the

other being the daughter of the petitioner, Dattu

Thakur, son of Namdev Thakur. In all these cases,

SLP(C)3314/10 +2

2

the grievance is common since the 'Caste

Certificates' granted to them on 7th June, 2001, by

the competent authorities were invalidated by the

Caste Scrutiny Committee by its orders dated 4th

September, 2009 and 24th September, 2009.

3. The Caste Certificates issued to the

petitioners were invalidated mainly on the ground

that they were unable to satisfy the Caste

Scrutiny Committee that they belong to the 'Thakur'

tribe, which is recorded as a Scheduled Tribe at

Serial No.44 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes

List. The Caste Scrutiny Committee also came to

the finding that the School Leaving Certificate of

the father of the petitioner in SLP(C)No.3314 of

2010, did not really support the case of the

petitioners who, in any event, had also failed in

the affinity test. It was submitted that the

documents tendered by them did not conform to their

claim. Furthermore, the petitioners were also

unable to prove by way of affinity test that they

belong to the Thakur Scheduled Tribe.

4. Cancellation of the 'Caste Certificates'

issued to the petitioners on the basis of the

SLP(C)3314/10 +2

3

report of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, was

challenged by the petitioners in the aforesaid writ

petitions, in which the High Court upheld the

findings of the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

5. As indicated hereinabove, the Special Leave

Petitions have been filed against the said order

of the High Court.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the

petitioner(s), as well as the State of Maharashtra,

we are of the view that even if we are to accept

the findings of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, as

also that of the High Court, we cannot ignore the

various circumstances that have intervened between

the issuance of the 'Caste Certificates' and the

cancellation thereof. In fact, reference was made

to the Caste Scrutiny Committee in 2009, i.e.

nine years after the certificates had been issued,

and there is no proper explanation for such delay.

On the other hand, the petitioner in the first writ

petition has been allowed by the respondents to

continue in service and also by virtue of orders

passed by the High Court. Similarly, the

petitioners in the other two writ petitions have

SLP(C)3314/10 +2

4

continued their studies after having obtained

certain benefits from their 'Caste Certificates'.

We are now informed by Mr. Kanade, learned senior

advocate, appearing for the petitioner(s), that the

petitioner in the second Special Leave Petition,

Amol, who is the son of Dattu Thakur, who is the

petitioner in the main Special Leave Petition, has

in the meantime, appeared for the B.Pharmacy

examination but his results have not been declared.

Similarly, Pratibha, daughter of Dattu Thakur, who

is the petitioner in the other Special Leave

Petition, has appeared for the B.Ed.examination and

her result is also to be declared.

7. In support of the case of the petitioner(s),

an order passed by another Bench of this Court in

C.A.No.7411 of 2010 (Swati Vs. State of Maharashtra

& Ors.), on 6th September, 2010, was brought to

our notice, wherein in similar circumstances, the

Court while dismissing the civil appeal, directed

that the benefits that had already been enjoyed by

the candidate, and the degree obtained by her in

the BDS course, which she had completed, would

continue. The Court further directed that she

SLP(C)3314/10 +2

5

would not be entitled to any further benefits under

the 'Caste Certificates' issued to her and that

whatever advantage she may have obtained by way of

payment of fees at a reduced rate, were to be made

up by her by paying the difference.

8. We are of the view that this being a case of a

similar nature, the decision of the said Bench may

also be applied to the facts of this case.

9. Accordingly, while dismissing all the three

Special Leave Petitions, we direct that whatever

advantage the three petitioners in the three

Special Leave Petitions, 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, we also make it clear that none of the

three petitioners in the three respective Special

Leave Petitions, will be entitled to take any

further advantage of reservation in future, either

for studies or for employment. Following the

judgment in Swati's case, we also direct that if

the petitioners in the 2nd and 3rd Special Leave

SLP(C)3314/10 +2

6

Petition, have obtained any concession by way of

reduction in fees, as a reserved candidate, they

will have to make good the same by paying the

difference in fees that is being paid by general

candidates. Such payment has to be made within a

period of six months and in default of such

payment, this order will cease to have any effect.

10. The results of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners

shall, therefore, be published in view of this

judgment.

11. There will be no orders as to costs.

........................J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)

.........................J. (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)

.........................J. (J.CHELAMESWAR)

NEW DELHI;

December 07, 2011.