Raiwad Manojkumar Nivruttirao vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr

Raiwad Manojkumar Nivruttirao ... Appellant

Versus

State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents

J U D G M E N T

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

This is an appeal against the order dated 05.082003 of

the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.2146 of 2003.

2. The facts very briefly are that on 07.06.1990 the

Tehsildar and Executive Magistrate issued a caste

certificate to the appellant certifying that he belongs

to `Koli Mahadeo', which was recognized as a

Scheduled Tribe in the State of Maharashtra. On

28.02.1992, the appellant was selected and

appointed to a vacancy of Clerk Grade-II in the

National Bank of Agricultural and Rural

2

Development (NABARD) in a vacancy reserved for

Scheduled Tribe. The General Manager of NABARD

referred the claim of the appellant as Scheduled

Tribe for verification and scrutiny. The Vigilance

Cell submitted its report on 19.09.2000. The

Scrutiny Committee then called the appellant for

interview and when the appellant did not appear on

several dates fixed for the interview, it finally

submitted its order on 27.01.2003 that the

appellant did not belong to `Koli Mahadeo',

Scheduled Tribe.

3. Aggrieved by the findings of the Caste Scrutiny

Committee, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.2146

of 2003 in the High Court challenging the order of

the Caste Scrutiny Committee. By the impugned

order dated 05.08.2003, the High Court dismissed

the Writ Petition. In the impugned order, the High

Court held that the Caste Scrutiny Committee had

found from the documents on record that the father

of the appellant belonged to caste `Koli' and `Koli'

and `Koli Mahadeo' are different tribes as has been

3

decided by this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil &

Anr. v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development

& Ors. [AIR 1995 SC 94]. The High Court also

found that despite several notices issued to the

appellant, he did not appear before the Caste

Scrutiny Committee to attend the hearing and that

the appellant had failed to discharge the burden to

prove by producing cogent and reliable evidence that

he belonged to the `Koli Mahadeo' tribe and not to

`Koli' tribe.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant made efforts to

persuade us to set aside the findings of the High

Court and the Caste Scrutiny Committee, but on

perusal of the order of the Caste Scrutiny

Committee and the High Court, we are not inclined

to do so as we find that there is no infirmity in the

order of either the Caste Scrutiny Committee or the

High Court.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted

that the appellant had been in service since 1992,

4

almost for nineteen years and if the appellant is

removed from service on the basis of the order of the

Caste Scrutiny Committee, he will suffer immense

hardship. He cited the decision in Raju Ramsing

Vasave v. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar & Ors.

[(2008) 9 SCC 54] in which this Court invoking its

jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution,

directed that the appointment of the respondent

no.1 in that case, who had put in a long years of

service, should not be disturbed even though he was

found not to be belong to the Scheduled Tribe. He

submitted that a similar relief may be granted to the

appellant under Article 142 of the Constitution.

6. We find on reading of the judgment of this Court in

Raju Ramsing Vasave v. Mahesh Deorao

Bhivapurkar & Ors. (supra) that the respondent no.1

in that case claimed to be a member of the

Scheduled Tribe, namely, the `Halba' tribe. The

caste of his father in school record was shown as

`Koshti', whereas the caste of his Uncle and his

Cousins were shown as `Halba'. After his MBBS

5

course, he was appointed as a Field Officer in the

Maharashtra Pollution Control Board against a

vacancy meant for Scheduled Tribe subject to

validity certificate. He filed a writ petition in the

Bombay High Court and the Bombay High Court

allowed the writ petition in 1988. The Division

Bench of the Bombay High Court in its judgment

dated 11.08.1988 held that the respondent no.1

should be declared as belonging to `Halba' tribe as

his other relatives have been declared as such.

Thereafter, a co-employee of respondent no.1

questioned the caste certificate granted in favour of

the respondent no.1 and this Court held that the

respondent no.1 did not belong to `Halba' tribe and

was not a Scheduled Tribe. In Para 49 of the

judgment, however, this Court held invoking the

jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution

that it would not be proper to disturb the very

appointment of the respondent no.1 in that case,

but observed that he shall not be eligible for grant of

any benefit as a member of Scheduled Tribe.

6 7. In the facts of the present case, we find that the

appellant belongs to `Koli' tribe and it was in Kumari

Madhuri Patil & Anr. v. Additional Commissioner,

Tribal Development & Ors. (supra) that it was held

that `Mahadeo Koli' and `Koli' were not one or the

same tribe and that `Koli' tribe is not a Scheduled

Tribe and the decision of this Court in Kumari

Madhuri Patil & Anr. v. Additional Commissioner,

Tribal Development & Ors. (supra) has been relied

upon by the High Court in the impugned judgment

in this case to hold that the appellant did not belong

to `Mahadeo Koli' tribe. Before the decision of this

Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. v. Additional

Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors. (supra),

the appellant had been appointed in the service of

NABARD on 28.02.1992 and since 1992 for long

nineteen years, he has been in service. Invoking our

jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution,

we order that the initial appointment of the

appellant in the service of NABARD will not be

disturbed, but the appellant will not be granted any

7

benefit as a member of the Scheduled Tribe

including any promotional benefit and promotional

benefit, if any, granted to the appellant as a member

of the Scheduled Tribe shall be cancelled. We make

it clear that the relief extended is not intended to be

precedent and shall not be relied upon to grant

similar relief.

8. The appeal is partly allowed with no order as to

costs.

The application for impleadment is dismissed.

.............................J.

(R. V. Raveendran)

.............................J.

(A. K. Patnaik)

New Delhi,

October 13, 2011.