Sayanna vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors

of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny

Committee, Aurangabad Division, (`the Scrutiny 2 Committee' for short) to cancel and confiscate the

caste certificated dated May 17, 1972, issued to

the appellant by Tehsildar, Biloli, Distt. Nanded,

indicating that he belongs to Mannervarlu

Scheduled Tribe, is affirmed.

3. The facts emerging from the record of the case are

as under: -

The appellant was born on January 1, 1951.

A copy of page No. 9 of the register of admission of

students of Zilla Parishad High School, Kundalwadi,

Taluka Biloli, Distt. Nanded, produced by the appellant,

shows that he was admitted to primary school, Zilla

Parishad Kundalwadi, Taluka Biloli on September 14,

1962 and his caste was shown to be "Mannerawarlu".

He had applied to the Tehsildar, Biloli to issue

certificate indicating that he belongs to sub-caste

Mannerawarlu. On the basis of the certificate issued by

the President of Kundalwadi Municipality, the Tehsildar

issued certificate dated May 17, 1972 mentioning that

the appellant belongs to Mannerawarlu sub-caste. 3

4. Mr. Anup, son of the appellant, had completed his

primary and secondary education from Milind

Primary School, Kundalwadi and in school records,

his caste was recorded as Mannerwarlu. The son

of the appellant had also applied to Tehsildar to

issue certificate to him mentioning that he belongs

to "Mannerwarlu" caste. The Tehsildar, Biloli had

issued certificate dated October 5, 1989

mentioning that Anup was belonging to

Mannerwarlu caste. Pursuant to an advertisement

issued by the Maharashtra Public Service

Commission, Anup had applied for one of the posts

notified and claimed benefit as a candidate

belonging to Scheduled Tribes, by producing above

mentioned certificate. The said certificate was

forwarded to the Vigilence Cell, Office of the

Deputy Director, Scheduled Tribes Scrutiny

Committee, Aurugabad for verification. The officer

of the said committee had recorded statements of

the appellant and his father and after making due

enquiry, reported on May 17, 2001 to the Deputy 4 Director, Scheduled Tribes Scrutiny Committee,

that Anup, son of the appellant, belongs to

Mannerwarlu caste. After considering the

documents and associated facts, the Committee for

Scrutiny and verification of Tribe Claims,

Aurangabad had issued certificate of validity dated

October 10, 2001 stating that Anup belongs to the

Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe by birth.

5. In the year 2002, the appellant wanted to contest

the election for the post of the President of

Kundalwadi Municipal Council which was reserved

for candidate belonging to the Scheduled Tribes

upto the year 2002. The appellant contested the

said election and got elected as President of the

said Municipal Council on January 1, 2002. On

January 30, 2003, the Scheduled Tribes Certificate

Scrutiny Committee asked the Collector, Distt.

Nanded to forward the caste claims of the elected

candidates of Kundalwadi Municipal Council for

verification. Accordingly the appellant was called

upon by the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council 5 to submit the caste certificate with necessary

evidence, for verification. On March 28, 2003, the

appellant submitted documents in support of his

claim that he belongs to Mannerwarlu Scheduled

Tribe. The Police Inspector, Vigilence Cell,

Scheduled Tribes Verification Committee,

Aurangabad, conducted enquiry. He submitted a

report dated December 1, 2003 stating that in the

column of caste mentioned in the school records,

the word "lu" was subsequently added. In view of

the above mentioned report, the Scrutiny

Committee sought explanation from the appellant

which was given asserting inter alia that the said

document was in the custody of the school

authorities and there was no possibility of

interpolation having been made in the said

certificate by him.

6. The Scrutiny Committee by order dated August 19,

2005 cancelled and confiscated certificate dated

May 17, 1972, issued to the appellant indicating

that he belongs to "Mannerwarlu" Scheduled Tribe. 6 Feeling aggrieved, the appellant invoked

extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court of

Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad

under Article 226 of the Constitution by filing writ

petition No. 6583 of 2005. The Division Bench of

the High Court has dismissed the petition, giving

rise to the instant appeal.

7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the

parties and considered the documents forming

part of the appeal.

8. As is evident from the record of the case, the

certificate dated May 17, 1972 issued to the

appellant mentioning that he belongs to

Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe, was forwarded to

the Scrutiny Committee for verification. The

Scheduled Tribes Verification Committee,

Aurangabad had asked the Police Inspector,

Vigilence Cell, Scheduled Tribes Verification

Committee, Aurangabad to conduct enquiry as to 7 whether the claim of the appellant that he belongs

to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe, was correct.

9. The report dated December 1, 2003, forwarded by

the Police Inspector, Vigilance Cell, nowhere

mentions that the certificate dated May 17, 1972,

produced by the appellant to establish that he

belongs to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe is forged

one. The contents of the certificate dated May 17,

1972 show that the said certificate was issued on

the basis of the certificate issued by the President

of Kundalwadi Municipality. The report dated

December 1, 2003 of Police Inspector does not

indicate whether the Police Inspector had recorded

the statement of the President of the Municipality

to find out whether the certificate issued by the

President was genuine or not. What is relevant to

notice is that in the report dated December 1, 2003

the Police Inspector has merely stated as a matter

of fact that the word "lu" was subsequently added

while recording the caste of the appellant as

Mannerwarlu in the school register. The Police 8 Inspector has not stated that the word "lu" was

interpolated by the appellant. There is every

possibility that the word "lu" was not mentioned at

the time of recording of the caste of the appellant

and on being pointed out the correct spelling of

caste, the word "lu" was added. Addition of word

"lu" subsequently would not lead to an irresistible

conclusion that the said word was added by the

appellant or at his behest. It is difficult for this

Court to understand as to on which basis the

Scrutiny Committee came to the conclusion that

the word "lu" was interpolated in the register of the

school more particularly when it was not so opined

by the Police Inspector who had conducted the

enquiry. Whether interpolation by addition has

taken place can be stated by a handwriting expert

or by comparison of admitted letters of a person

with this disputed one. It is an admitted position

that the Scrutiny Committee had never attempted

to get an expert's opinion nor itself had compared

the disputed letters with admitted one of the 9 appellant. Under the circumstances, the finding

recorded by the Scrutiny Committee that the word

"lu" was interpolated will have to be regarded as

not based on any credible evidence. The Police

Inspector had never taken care to find out whether

the word "lu" was subsequently added by the

school authorities or by the appellant. It was

necessary for the said officer to undertake such an

exercise in view of the specific defence of the

appellant that the school record was lying with the

school authorities and he had no opportunity

whatsoever to tamper with the same.

10. In support of his claim that he belongs to

Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribes, the appellant had

produced before the Scrutiny Committee four

Xerox copies of the Caste Certificate issued by

Talathi of the Village and (C) Certificate dated

November 25, 2002 issued by C.E.O., Nagar

Parishad. The perusal of the record shows that

these documents were arbitrarily and lightly

brushed aside by the Scrutiny Committee by 10 observing that the documents were issued in a

casual manner and that too on the personal

knowledge without verifying the facts. It is an

admitted position that none of the officers, who

had issued the certificate concerned, was either

summoned or examined by the Scrutiny

Committee. The affidavit filed by Dr. L.N. Datte,

nephew of the appellant, and the caste certificate

issued to the son of the appellant would indicate

that near relatives of the appellant have been

always treated by the authorities as belonging to

Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe. The claim of the

appellant that he belongs to Mannerwarlu

Scheduled Tribe could not have been negatived on

the ground that he had no basic knowledge of

traits, characteristics, customs and culture, etc. of

Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe or that he failed to

prove his affinity and ethnic linkage to

Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe. On the facts and

in the circumstances of the case this Court is of

the opinion that the decision of the Scrutiny 11 Committee to cancel and confiscate the caste

certificate issued to the appellant is based on

irrelevant considerations and suffers from the vice

of non-consideration of relevant factors. Therefore,

the said decision as well as the decision of the

High Court, confirming the said decision, are liable

to be set aside.

11. For the reasons stated in the judgment the appeal

succeeds. The decision dated August 19, 2005,

taken by the Scheduled Tribes Certificate Scrutiny

Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, to

cancel and confiscate the caste certificate dated

May 17, 1972, issued to the appellant by the

Tehsildar, Biloli, Distt. Nanded, stating that the

appellant belongs to Mannerwarlu Scheduled

Tribe, as confirmed by the Division Bench of the

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad

Bench in Writ Petition No. 6583 of 2005, decided

on December 5, 2006, is set aside. The appeal

accordingly stands allowed.

12

12. As the appeal is allowed, I.A. No. 3 of 2008 to recall

order dated July 9, 2008, refusing to grant time to

the appellant to file rejoinder affidavit and to allow

the appellant to file the rejoinder does not survive

and it is accordingly disposed of.

13. There shall be no order as to costs.

..............................J. [R.V. Raveendran]

..............................J. [J.M. Panchal]

New Delhi;

September 15, 2009.