caselaws
Supreme Court of India
Rajeshwar Baburao Bone vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 29 July, 2015Author: M Y Eqbal
Bench: M.Y. Eqbal, C. Nagappan
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No.5778 of 2015
[Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No. 10430 of 2014]
Rajeshwar Baburao Bone …..Appellant(s)
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Another …..Respondent(s)
ORDER
M. Y. EQBAL, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order dated
17.12.2013 passed by the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, whereby
the High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant
herein.
3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.
4. The appellant herein claims to be belonging to ‘Koli Mahadev’ a
scheduled tribe community. According to the appellant he separated from
his family as there was dispute in respect of the property with his father
and for quite some time, the appellant have no relationship or
communication with his father and other family members.
5. Since the appellant has secured employment with Zilla Parishad, Beed, on
the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe category, the tribe certificate
issued in his favour was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for
verification after 18 years from the date of appointment. The appellant
submitted several documents in support of his claim including the oldest
record of 1348 fasali pertaining to his grandfather namely Gundaji Narsingh
Bone wherein his caste is recorded as Mahadev Koli.
6. The claim of the appellant was referred to vigilance cell and vigilance
officer has conducted the home and school enquiry. On consideration of all
the documents furnished by the appellant including affidavits as well as
forms filled in by the appellant, the Scrutiny Committee proceeded to issue
validity certificate by reasoned order dated 19.06.2010.
7. It was later on revealed that tribe certificate issued in favour of
appellant’s brother by name Sharadkumar Baburao Bone has been invalidated
by the Committee by order dated 20.10.2004 and said order was communicated
to him on 27.10.2004. The writ petition challenging the order passed by
the Committee invalidating tribe claim of the brother of the appellant,
being Writ Petition No. 6934 of 2004, has been dismissed by the High Court.
The SLP filed against that order of the High Court has been dismissed by
this Court.
8. The Scrutiny Committee, as such, decided to reconsider the matter
concerning issuance of validity certificate in favour of the appellant.
The appellant was duly noticed by the Committee and after extending
opportunity of hearing to the appellant, the Scrutiny Committee by order
dated 24.2.2012 recalled its earlier order and directed invalidation of
tribe certificate of the appellant. In paragraph nos. 7,8,9, and 10, the
Scrutiny Committee has observed thus:-
“ Applicant has submitted in Form ‘E’ in which column No.17(a) it is
specifically asked that whether any family member from your family members
previously verified? Applicant answered that, ‘No’.
Applicant filed affidavit, notorised before notary on 13.1.2009 in format
‘F’ in which he specially made statement on oath, “No scheduled tribe
certificate of any of my relatives from paternal side is ever held invalid
by the Scrutiny Committee.
Applicant also submitted another affidavit dated 16.3.2009 in which he
again made fake statement that ‘Any of my sister and brother or blood
relatives bears surname as Bone whose claim never invalidated by the
Committee or no any petition pending before any Court.
The Police inspector of vigilance cell recorded statement on 9.4.2009 of
applicant’s father namely Shri Baburao Gundaji Bone. He also again made
statement that “in my family, in Bone surnames or in my relatives whose
claim never invalidated by the committee or no any petition pending before
any Court.”
9. The appellant challenged the aforesaid order dated 24.2.2012 passed
by the Scrutiny Committee by filing a writ petition being writ petition
No.5160 of 2012 in the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Bench. The High
Court after hearing the appellant dismissed the writ petition and observed
as under:-
“In our opinion, petitioner has willfully misled the Scrutiny Committee for
securing validity certificate wrongfully. The petitioner is guilty of
making false statements on oath before the Scrutiny Committee. As a result
of misrepresentation made by the petitioner earlier, the Scrutiny Committee
had issued validity certificate in his favour. However, after realizing
fraudulent act of the petitioner, the Committee proceeded to recall its
earlier order. Since the petitioner has played fraud by filing false
affidavits on record before the Committee, the Committee was justified in
recalling its earlier order of granting validity certificate in favour of
the petitioner. It is well established that in the event of occurrence of
fraud, Scrutiny Committee can recall its earlier order even in the absence
of specific provision enabling the Committee to exercise powers of review.”
10. Hence the present Appeal by Special Leave.
11. We have heard Mrs. Meenakshi Arora learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellant and Mr. Arun R. Pedneker, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent-State.
12. Mrs. Meenakshi Arora, put heavy reliance on the decision of this
Court in the case of Dattu s/o Namdev Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra &
Others (2012) 1 SCC 549 and Shalini vs. New English High School Association
& Ors. (2013) 16 SCC 526. We have carefully examined the ratio decided by
this Court in the decisions referred to hereinabove.
13. In the instant case, the appellant claimed to be a member of
scheduled tribe on the basis of false statements and false affidavits
submitted by him. At the same time indisputably in the year 1991, the
appellant got employment on the basis of his claim to be a member of
scheduled tribe. After 18 years of his employment, the matter was referred
to a Scrutiny Committee for verification. On consideration of all the
documents, the enquiry conducted by vigilance cell, a validity certificate
was issued by the Scrutiny Committee on 19.06.2010. However the matter was
reconsidered by the Scrutiny Committee for the reason that the tribe
certificate issued in favour of his brother was invalidated by the
Committee in 2004 and the order attained finality up to this Court. The
Scrutiny Committee after giving opportunity recalled its earlier order
dated 19.6.2010, whereby validity certificate was issued in favour of the
appellant.
14. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion
that the impugned order passed by the High Court needs no interference and
this appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, we hold that because of
inordinate delay in considering the certificate of the appellant, the
benefit of the certificate already availed by the appellant shall not be
disturbed making it clear that the appellant shall not be entitled to take
any further benefit of reservation in future including the benefit of
continuing in service.
15. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with the observation made
hereinabove.
…………………………….J.
(M.Y. Eqbal)
…………………………….J.
(C. Nagappan)
New Delhi
July 29, 2015
Comments