JUDGMENT

"...13. The admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of false social status certificate necessarily have the effect of depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined in the Constitution of the benefits conferred on them by the constitution. The genuine candidates are also denied admission to educational institutions or appointments to office or posts under a State for want of social status certificate. The ineligible or spurious persons who falsely gained entry resort to dilatory tactics and create hurdles in completion of the inquires by the Scrutiny Committee...." (Id. at p. 254)

"13......(14). In case, the certificate obtained or social status claimed is found to be false, the parent/guardian/the candidate should be prosecuted for making false claim. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude, disqualification for elective posts or offices under the State or the Union or elections to any local body, legislature or Parliament;

(15). As soon as the finding is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the certificate obtained was false, on its cancellation and confiscation simultaneously, it should be communicated to the educational institution concerned or the appointing authority by registered post with acknowledgement due with a request to cancel the admission or the appointment. The Principal etc. of the educational institution responsible for making the admission or the appointing authority, should cancel the admission/appointment without any further notice to the candidate and debar the candidate from further study or continue in office in a post." (Id. at p. 256-257)

"Halba, Halbi"

"36...(1). It is not at all permissible to hold any inquiry or let in any 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 entry concerned in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.

(2). The Scheduled Tribes Order must be read as it is. It is not even permissible to say that a tribe, sub-tribe, part of or group of any tribe or tribal community is synonymous to the one mentioned in the Scheduled Tribes Order if they are not so specifically mentioned in it.

(3). A notification issued under clause (1) of Article 342, specifying Scheduled Tribes, can be amended only by law to be made by Parliament. In other words, any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe can be included or excluded from the list of Scheduled Tribes issued under clause (1) of Article 342 only by Parliament by law and by no other authority.

(4). It is not open to State Governments or courts or tribunals or any other authority to modify, amend or alter the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in the notification issued under clause (1) of Article 342." (Id at p. 30-31)

"35....The Presidential Orders are issued under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution recognising and identifying the needy and deserving people belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes mentioned therein for the constitutional purpose of availing benefits of reservation in the matters of admissions and employment. If these benefits are taken away by those for whom they are not meant, the people for whom they are really meant or intended will be deprived of the same and their sufferings will continue. Allowing the candidates not belonging to Scheduled tribes to have the benefits or advantage of reservation either in admissions or appointments leads to making mockery of the very reservation against the mandate and the scheme of the Constitution." (id. at p. 30)

"38. Respondent 1 joined the medical course for the year 1985-86. Almost 15 years have passed by now. We are told he has already completed the course and may be he is practicing as a doctor. In this view and at this length of time it is for no body's benefit to annul his admission. Huge amount is spent on each candidate for completion of medical course. No doubt, one Scheduled Tribe candidate was deprived of joining medical course by the admission given to Respondent 1. If any action is taken against Respondent 1, it may lead to depriving the service of a doctor to the society on whom public money has already been spent. In these circumstances, this judgment shall not affect the degree obtained by him and his practicing as a doctor. But we make it clear that he cannot claim to belong to the Scheduled Tribe covered by the Scheduled Tribes Order. In other words, he cannot take advantage of the Scheduled Tribes Order any further or for any other constitutional purpose. Having regard to the passage of time, in the given circumstances, including interim orders passed by this Court in SLP (C) No. 16372 of 1985 and other related matters, we make it clear that the admissions and appointments that have become final, shall remain unaffected by this judgment." (Id. at p. 31)

"6. (1) The Government shall constitute by notification in the official Gazette, one or more Scrutiny Committee(s) for verification of Caste Certificates issued by the Competent Authorities under sub-section (1) of section 4 specifying in the said notification the functions and the area of jurisdiction of each of such Scrutiny Committee or Committees.

(2) After obtaining the Caste Certificate from the Competent Authority, any person desirous of availing of the benefits or concessions provided to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribe (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special Backward Category for the purposes mentioned in section 3 may make an application, well in time, in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, to the concerned Scrutiny Committee for the verification of such Caste Certificate and issue of a validity certificate.

(3) The appointing authority of the Central or State Government, local authority, public sector undertakings, educational institutions, Co-operative Societies or any other Government aided institutions shall, make an application in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Scrutiny Committees for the verification of the Caste Certificate and issue of a validity certificate, in case a person selected for an appointment with the Government, local authority, public sector undertakings, educational institutions, Co-operative societies or any other Government aided institutions who has not obtain such certificate.

(4) The Scrutiny Committee shall follow such procedure for verification of the Caste Certificate and adhere to the time limit for verification and grant of validity certificate, as prescribed."

"7. (1) Where, before or after the commencement of this Act, a person not belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special Backward Category has obtained a false Caste Certificate to the effect that either himself or his children belong to such Castes, Tribes or Classes, the Scrutiny Committee may, suo motu, or otherwise call for the record and enquire into the correctness of such certificate and if it is of the opinion that the certificate was obtained fraudulently, it shall, by an order cancel and confiscate the certificate by following such procedure as prescribed, after giving the person concerned an opportunity of being heard, and communicate the same to the concerned person and the concerned authority, if any

(2) The order passed by the Scrutiny Committee under this Act shall be final and shall not be challenged before any authority or court except the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

"10. (1) Whoever not being a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other backward Classes or Special Backward Category secures admission in any educational institution against a seat reserved for such Castes, Tribes or Classes, or secures any appointment in the Government, local authority or in any other Company or Corporation, owned or controlled by the Government or in any Government aided institution or Co-operative Society against a post reserved for such Castes, Tribes or Classes by producing a false Caste Certificate shall, on cancellation of the Caste Certificate by the Scrutiny Committee, be liable to be debarred from the concerned educational institution, or as the case may be, discharged from the said employment forthwith and any other benefits enjoyed or derived by virtue of such admission or appointment by such person as aforesaid shall be withdrawn forthwith.

(2) Any amount paid to such person by the Government or any other agency by way of scholarship, grant, allowance or other financial benefit shall be recovered from such person as an arrears of land revenue.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any Act for the time being in force, any Degree, Diploma or any other educational qualification acquired by such person after securing admission in any educational institution on the basis of a Caste Certificate which is subsequently proved to be false shall also stand cancelled, on cancellation of such Caste Certificate, by the Scrutiny Committee.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, a person shall be disqualified for being a member of any statutory body if he has contested the election for local authority, co-operative society or any statutory body on the seat reserved for any of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special Backward Category by procuring a false Caste Certificate as belonging to such Caste, Tribe or Class on such false Caste Certificate being cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee, and any benefits obtained by such person shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue and the election of such person shall be deemed to have been terminated retrospectively."

"11.(1) Whoever,

(a) obtains a false Caste Certificate by furnishing false information or filing false statement or documents or by any other fraudulent means; or

(b) not being a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special Backward Category secures any benefits or appointments exclusively reserved for such Castes, Tribes, or Classes in the Government, local authority or any other company or corporation owned or controlled by the Government or in any Government aided institution, or secures admission in any educational institution against a seat exclusively reserved for such Castes, Tribes or Classes or is elected to any of the elective offices of any local authority or Co-operative Society against the office, reserved for such Castes Tribes or Classes by producing a false Caste Certificate;

Shall, on conviction, be punished, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend upto two years or with fine which shall not be less than two thousand rupees or both.

(2) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this section except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the Scrutiny Committee or by any other officer duly authorised by the Scrutiny Committee for this purpose."

"16. Whether appellants are entitled to their further continuance in the studies is the further question. Often the plea of equities or promissory estoppel would be put forth for continuance and completion of further course of studies and usually would be found favour with the courts. The courts have constitutional duty and responsibility, in exercise of the power of its judicial review, to see that constitutional goals set down in the Preamble, the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of the Constitution, are achieved. A party that seeks equity, must come with clean hands. He who comes to the court with false claim, cannot plead equity nor the court would be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour. There is no estoppel as no promise of the social status is made by the State when a false plea was put forth for the social status recognised and declared by the Presidential Order under the Constitution as amended by the SC & ST (Amendment) Act, 1976, which is later found to be false. Therefore, the plea of promissory estoppel or equity have no application. When it is found to be a case of fraud played by the concerned, no sympathy and equitable considerations can come to his rescue. Nor the plea of estoppel is germane to the beneficial constitutional concessions and opportunities given to the genuine tribes or castes. Courts would be circumspect and wary in considering such cases." (Id. at p. 257)

"15. This apart, the appellant obtained the appointment in the service on the basis that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste community. When it was found by the Scrutiny Committee that he did not belong to the Scheduled Caste community, then the very basis of his appointment was taken away. His appointment was no appointment in the eyes of law. He cannot claim a right to the post as he had usurped the post meant for a reserved candidate by playing a fraud and producing a false caste certificate. Unless the appellant can lay a claim to the post on the basis of his appointment he cannot claim the constitutional guarantee given under the Article 311 of the Constitution. As he had obtained the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate he cannot be considered to be a person who holds a post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, Finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee that the appellant got the appointment on the basis of false caste certificate has become final. The position, therefore, is that the appellant has usurped the post which should have gone to a member of the Scheduled Caste. In view of the finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee and upheld upto this Court he has disqualified himself to hold the post. Appointment was void from its inception. It cannot be said that the said void appointment would enable the appellant to claim that he was holding a civil post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, As appellant had obtained the appointment by playing a fraud he cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own fraud in entering the service and claim that he was holder of the post entitled to be dealt with in terms of Article 311 of the Constitution of India or the Rules framed thereunder. Where an appointment in a service has been acquired by practising fraud or deceit such an appointment is no appointment in law, in service and in such a situation Article 311 of the Constitution is not attracted at all." (Id. at p. 115) (emphasis supplied)

"19.....The rights to salary, pension and other service benefits are entirely statutory in nature in public service. Appellant obtained the appointment against a post meant for a reserved candidate by producing a false caste certificate and by playing a fraud. His appointment to the post was void and non est in the eyes of law. The right to salary or pension after retirement flow from a valid and legal appointment. The consequential right of pension and monetary benefits can be given only if the appointment was valid and legal. Such benefits cannot be given in a case where the appointment was found to have been obtained fraudulently and rested on false caste certificate. 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. No sympathy and equitable consideration can come to his rescue. We are of the view that equity or compassion cannot be allowed to bend the arms of law in a case where an individual acquired a status by practising fraud." (Id. at p. 116)

"10.The protection under the Milind's case (supra) cannot be extended to the respondent No. 1 - employee as the protection was given under the peculiar factual background of that case. The employee concerned was a doctor and had rendered long years of service. This Court noted that on a doctor public money has been spent and, therefore, it will not be desirable to deprive the society of a doctor's service. Respondent No. 1-employee in the present case is a bank employee and the factor which weighed with this Court cannot be applied to him." (Id. at p. 698)

"7. The High Court has granted relief to the respondent and has directed his reinstatement only on the basis of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind 2001(1) S.C.T. 383 : (2001) 1 SCC 4. In our opinion the said judgment does not lay down any such principle of law that where a person secures an appointment by producing a false caste certificate, his services can be protected and an order of reinstatement can be passed if he gives an undertaking that in future he and his family members shall not take any advantage of being member of a caste which is in reserved category. The questions which required consideration by the Constitution Bench, are noted in the very first paragraph of the judgment and they are being reproduced below:

1) 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?

2) 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?

8. After thorough discussion of the matter the conclusions of the Bench are recorded in paragraph 36 of the report. It was held that it is not at all permissible to hold any enquiry or let in any 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. It was further held that the notification issued under Clause (1) of Article 342, specifying Scheduled Tribes, can be amended only by law to be made by Parliament and it is not open to the State Governments or courts or any other authority to modify, amend or alter the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in the notification issued under Clause (1) of Article 342 and the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order 1950. The law declared by the Constitution Bench does not at all lay down that where a person secures an appointment by producing a false caste certificate, his services can be protected on his giving an undertaking that in future he will not take any advantage of being a member of the reserved category." (Id. at p. 340-341) (emphasis supplied)

"16. The 2000 Act being a legislative Act would prevail over any government resolution. A government resolution may be beneficent in nature but it is well settled that a benefit under a government resolution cannot be extended to a person who does not satisfy the conditions precedent thereof. In any event, the effect of the judgment of this Court as also the provisions of a statute in the light of the constitutional provisions contained in Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India cannot be diluted by reason of a government resolution or otherwise." (Id. at p. 487) (emphasis supplied)

"18. We may also notice that ordinarily a person, who has obtained appointment on the basis of a false certificate, cannot retain the said benefit. (See Bank of India v. Avinash D. Mandivikar 2005(4) S.C.T. 336 : [(2005) 7 SCC 690 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 1011], Ram Saran v. IG of Police, CRPF [(2006) 2 SCC 541 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 351 : (2006) 2 Scale 131] and Supdt. of Post Offices v. R. Valasina Babu 2007(2) S.C.T. 163 : [(2007) 2 SCC 335] .) In a situation of this nature, whether the Court will refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. This aspect of the matter has been considered recently by this Court in Sandeep Subhash Parate v. State of Maharashtra 2006(4) S.C.T. 125 : [(2006) 7 SCC 501 : (2006) 8 Scale 503] ." (Id. at p. 487)

"5...When a person secures employment by making a false claim regarding caste/tribe, he deprives a legitimate candidate belonging to scheduled caste/tribe, of employment. In such a situation, the proper course is to cancel the employment obtained on the basis of the false certificate so that the post may be filled up by a candidate who is entitled to the benefit of reservation." (Id at p. 614) (emphasis supplied)

"7. There may however be cases where it will not be proper to permit the student to retain the degree obtained by making a false claim. One example is where the candidates secure seats by producing forged or fake caste certificates. There may be cases, where knowing full well that they do not belong to a Scheduled Tribe/Caste, candidates may make a false claim that they belong to a Scheduled Tribe/Caste. There may also be cases where even before the date of admission, the caste certificates of the candidates might have been invalidated on verification by the Scrutiny Committee. There may be cases where the admissions may be in pursuance of interim orders granted by courts subject to final decision, making it clear that the candidate will not be entitled to claim any equities by reason of the admission. The benefit extended in Milind 2001(1) S.C.T. 383 : [(2001) 1 SCC 4 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 117] and Vishwanatha Pillai 2004(1) S.C.T 673 : [(2004) 2 SCC 105 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 350] cannot obviously be extended uniformly to all such cases. Each case may have to be considered on its own merits. Further what has precedential value is the ratio decidendi of the decision and not the direction issued while moulding the relief in exercise of power under Article 142 on the special facts and circumstances of a case. We are therefore of the view that Milind 2001(1) S.C.T. 383 : [(2001) 1 SCC 4 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 117] and Vishwanatha Pillai 2004(1) S.C.T 673 : [(2004) 2 SCC 105 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 350] cannot be considered as laying down a proposition that in every case where a candidate's caste claim is rejected by a Caste Verification Committee, the candidate should invariably be permitted to retain the benefit of the admission and the consequential degree, irrespective of the facts." (Id at p. 654)

(emphasis supplied)

(i) In Anjan Kumar v. Union of India & Ors, 2006(1) S.C.T. 685 : (2006) 3 SCC 257 this court held that:

"14...A person not belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes claiming himself to be a member of such caste by procuring a bogus caste certificate is a fraud under the Constitution of India. The impact of procuring fake/bogus caste certificate and obtaining appointment/admission from the reserved quota will have far-reaching grave consequences. The meritorious reserved candidate may be deprived of reserved category for whom the post is reserved. The reserved post will go into the hand of non-deserving candidate and in such cases it would be violative of the mandate of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India."

(ii) In State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar & Anr, 2006(4) S.C.T. 783 : (2007) 1 SCC 80, this court observed thus :

"23. The makers of the Constitution laid emphasis on equality amongst citizens. The Constitution of India provides for protective discrimination and reservation so as to enable the disadvantaged group to come on the same platform as that of the forward community. If and when a person takes an undue advantage of the said beneficent provision of the Constitution by obtaining the benefits of reservation and other benefits provided under the Presidential Order although he is not entitled thereto, he not only plays a fraud on the society but in effect and substance plays a fraud on the Constitution. When, therefore, a certificate is granted to a person who is not otherwise entitled thereto, it is entirely incorrect to contend that the State shall be helpless spectator in the matter."

(iii) Similar observations are contained in the judgment of this court in Regional Manager, Central Bank v. Madhulika Guru Prasad Dahir, 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 855 : 2008(3) S.C.T. 603 : AIR 2008 SC 3266:

"13...It would suffice to state that except in a few decisions, where the admission/appointment was not cancelled because of peculiar factual matrix obtaining therein, the consensus of judicial opinion is that equity, sympathy or generosity has no place where the original appointment rests on a false caste certificate. A person who enters the service by producing a false caste certificate and obtains appointment for the post meant for a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or OBC, as the case may be, deprives a genuine candidate falling in either of the said categories, of appointment to that post, does not deserve any sympathy or indulgence of this Court. He who comes to the Court with a claim based on falsity and deception cannot plead equity nor the Court would be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour....."

"15...We, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, are not inclined to go into the question as regards purported commission of fraud by the appellant, particularly, when the University admitted him without any demur whatsoever. We are doing so having regard to the doctrine of proportionality. The appellant has suffered a lot. He might not be entirely responsible therefor. He might have been under a bona fide belief that he comes within the purview of notified category. We, therefore, albeit with much reluctance accept the fervent and impassionate plan made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that he be allowed to obtain the degree. The same shall, however, be subject to payment of L 1 lakh in favour of the State of Maharashtra so as to recompense the State to some extent the amount spent on him for imparting education as a reserved category candidate." (Id at p. 507)

"22. Applying the above to the case at hand we do not see any reason to hold that the appellant had fabricated or falsified the particulars of being a Scheduled Tribe only with a view to obtain an undeserved benefit in the matter of appointment as a teacher. There is, therefore, no reason why the benefit of protection against ouster should not be extended to her subject to the usual condition that the appellant shall not be ousted from service and shall be reinstated if already ousted, but she would not be entitled to any further benefit on the basis of the certificate which she has obtained and which was 10 years after its issue cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee." (Id. at p. 440)

(emphasis supplied)

"7.1. If any person has fraudulently claimed to belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and has thereby obtained employment, he would be dis entitled from continuing in employment. The rigour of this conclusion has been diluted only in instances where the court is confronted with the case of students who have already completed their studies or are on the verge of doing so, towards whom sympathy is understandably extended.

7.2. Where there is some confusion concerning the eligibility to the benefits flowing from Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe status, such as issuance of relevant certificates to persons claiming to be "Koshtis" or "Halba-Koshtis" under the broadband of "Halbas", protection of employment will be available with the rider that these persons will thereafter be adjusted in the general category thereby rendering them ineligible to further benefits in the category of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe as the case may be.

7.3. This benefit accrues from the decision of this Court inter alia in Raju Ramsing Vasave v. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar [(2008) 9 SCC 54 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 802] which was rendered under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Realising the likely confusion in the minds of even honest persons the Resolutions/Legislation passed by the State Governments should spare some succour to this section of persons. This can be best illustrated by the fact that it was in Milind [State of Maharashtra v. Milind, 2001(1) S.C.T. 383 : (2001) 1 SCC 4 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 117] that the Constitution Bench clarified that "Koshtis" or "Halba-Koshtis" were not entitled to claim benefits as Scheduled Tribes and it was the "Halbas" alone who were so entitled. A perusal of the judgment in Vilas [Punjab National Bank v. Vilas, (2008) 14 SCC 545 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 143] by Sirpurkar, J., as well as Solunke [Kavita Solunke v. State of Maharashtra, 2012(4) S.C.T. 733 : (2012) 8 SCC 430 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 609] makes it clear that this protection is available by virtue of the decisions of this Court; it is not exclusively or necessarily predicated on any Resolution or Legislation of the State Legislature." (Id. at pgs. 533-534)

"8. A reading of the impugned judgment [Shalini v. New English High School Assn., LPA No. 527 of 2009, order dated 25-11-2009 (Bom)] requires us to clarify an important aspect of the doctrine of precedence. Dattatray [Union of India v. Dattatray, 2008(2) S.C.T. 177 : 2008(2) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 390 : (2008) 4 SCC 612 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 6] is the only three-Judge Bench decision, and therefore indisputably holds pre-eminence. However, by that time several decisions had already been rendered by two-Judge Benches some of which have already been discussed above. It was within the competence of Dattatray [Union of India v. Dattatray, 2008(2) S.C.T. 177 : 2008(2) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 390 : (2008) 4 SCC 612 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 6] Bench to overrule the other two-Judge Benches. Despite the fact that it has not done so the per incuriam principle would not apply to the decision because it was a larger Bench. However, no presumption can be drawn that the Dattatray [Union of India v. Dattatray, 2008(2) S.C.T. 177 : 2008(2) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 390 : (2008) 4 SCC 612 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 6] three-Judge Bench decision was of the opinion that the earlier two-Judge Bench decisions had articulated an incorrect interpretation of the law. That being so, the two-Judge Bench views may still be relied upon so long as the ratio of Dattatray [Union of India v. Dattatray, 2008(2) S.C.T. 177 : 2008(2) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 390 : (2008) 4 SCC 612 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 6] is not directly in conflict with their ratios. It is therefore imperative to distil the ratio of Dattatray [Union of India v. Dattatray, 2008(2) S.C.T. 177 : 2008(2) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 390 : (2008) 4 SCC 612 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 6], which we have already discussed in some detail. We need only reiterate therefore that the three-Judge Bench was perceptibly incensed with the falsity of the claim of the employee to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe status. That was not a case where a legitimate claim of consanguinity to a "Halba-Koshti", "Koshti" or "Gadwal Koshti", etc. had been made, which was at the inception point considered to be eligible to beneficial treatment admissible to Scheduled Tribes, later to be reversed by the Constitution Bench decision in Milind [State of Maharashtra v. Milind, 2001(1) S.C.T. 383 : (2001) 1 SCC 4 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 117] and declared to be the entitlement of Halbas only." (Id. at p. 534)

"11.....Whilst "Caste Certificate" has been defined in Section 2(a) of the 2000 Act, "False Caste Certificate" has not been dealt with in the Definitions clause. There is always an element of deceitfulness, in order to derive unfair or undeserved benefit whenever a false statement or representation or stand is adopted by the person concerned. An innocent statement which later transpires to be incorrect may be seen as false in general sense would normally not attract punitive or detrimental consequences on the person making it, as it is one made by error. An untruth coupled with a dishonest intent however requires legal retribution. It appears to us that Section 10 applies in Dattatray [Union of India v. Dattatray, 2008(2) S.C.T. 177 : 2008(2) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 390 : (2008) 4 SCC 612 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 6] mould only." (Id. at p. 536)

"41. In the instant case there is no evidence of lack of bona fides by the respondent. The protection available under the decision of Milind case [State of Maharashtra v. Milind, 2001(1) S.C.T. 383 : (2001) 1 SCC 4 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 117] could, therefore, be admissible even to the respondent. It follows that even if on a true and correct construction of the expression "Thandan" appearing in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 2007 did not include "Ezhuvas" and "Thiyyas" known as "Thandan" and assuming that the two were different at all relevant points of time, the fact that the position was not clear till the Amendment Act of 2007 made a clear distinction between the two, would entitle all those appointed to serve the State up to the date the amending Act came into force, to continue in service." (Id. at pgs. 453-453)

"14. In none of the cases pressed into service by the appellant, the appointment, as in this case, was on provisional basis and subject to verification of caste certificate through proper channel. It necessarily follows that the principle expounded in the three decisions referred to above, can have no application to the case on hand. Indubitably, if the argument of the appellant was accepted, it would inevitably mean that all appointments made before 28-11-2000 must be protected even though it had not become final. That would also mean that all caste certificates issued to persons belonging to Koshti community, as being Halba Scheduled Tribe in Maharashtra, prior to 28-11-2000 (the day on which Milind case [State of Maharashtra v. Milind, 2001(1) S.C.T. 383 : (2001) 1 SCC 4 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 117] was decided by the Constitution Bench), have been validated irrespective of the opinion of the Scrutiny Committee qua those certificates. That cannot be countenanced. For caste Koshti is neither a synonym nor part of a notified Scheduled Tribe Halba in Maharashtra." (Id. at p. 721)

"24....The inquiry under section 7(1) of Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001 by the Caste Scrutiny Committee is focused on the correctness of the Caste Certificate obtained by such person from the Competent Authority. The, Caste Certificate is issued by the Competent Authority on the application made by the concerned person disclosing certain information. If the Caste Certificate is cancelled by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, it obviously means that the Caste Certificate has been obtained by that person from the Competent Authority on incorrect facts or erroneous representation. It is not necessary that such claim or declaration must involve turpitude of mind. There may not be any deliberateness in it. The failure on the part of the candidate to establish his caste claim before the Scrutiny Committee and the declaration that the Certificate obtained from the Competent Authority is invalid and thereby cancelled leads to necessary inference that such person made a false claim of his caste belonging to the reserved category to which he did not belong and, thus, incurring disqualification under section 16(1C)(a)." (Id at p. 438)

(emphasis supplied)

"26. A candidate who sets up a claim as belonging to a particular caste by making an application to the Competent Authority and obtains the Caste Certificate based on such claim and information and contests the election of the Councillor from the reserved seat and gets elected and if, ultimately, the Scrutiny Committee upon inquiring into the correctness of such certificate declares such certificate invalid and cancels the same, it is obvious that such Caste Certificate has been obtained by that person on the basis of the declaration or information or claim which was not correct or true and upon invalidation and cancellation of the Caste Certificate by the Scrutiny Committee, such person incurs disqualification automatically. There is no escape from it." (Id. at p. 438)

"3....The balance between the equitable consideration of protecting the interest of a student who has pursued his education and the public interest in protecting the reserved categories against the usurpation of their constitutional entitlements by importers has now been made by the State Legislature. ... The Legislature has expressly stipulated that a degree or diploma obtained on the basis of a caste claim which is invalidated shall stand cancelled. In the face of an express legislative provision, this Court shall not be justified in exercising its equitable jurisdiction. Considerations of equity that guide the Court in constitutional adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution must be in accordance with the law enacted by the Legislature. ... Stringent provisions have been made to protect the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other reserved categories. To dilute those provisions by importing equitable considerations for a candidate who has usurped benefits would be to defeat the law. The legislation was in this case conceived in the interests of protecting the constitutional scheme of reservations from usurpation by those who are not entitled." (Id. at p. 848)

"1. Whether the relief of protection of service after invalidation of the caste claim can be granted by the High Court on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kavita Solunke v. State of Maharashtra and other, 2012(5) MhLJ (S.C) 921 = 2012 (8) SCC 430 ?...

2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, can such relief of protection of service be granted by the High Court in a case where the same relief has been earlier refused by the High Court?" (Id at p. 465)"

"27....The consequences of discharge from employment or withdrawal of benefits secured or obtained by producing a false caste certificate shall not operate in respect of benefits or appointments obtained or secured prior to coming into force of the said Act." (Id. at p. 475)

"From the decision of the Apex Court in Kavita Solunke's case, it can be gathered that the protection granted in Milind's case would not be available where any fraud or any fabrication or any misrepresentation is made with a view to obtain an undeserved benefit in the matter of appointment. If there is no accusation that the certificate was false, fabricated or manipulated by concealment or otherwise, the refusal of benefit flowing from the decision in Milind's case may not be justified."

(i) The issue with regard to caste certificates granted prior to 28 November 2000 is not res integra in view of the dictum laid down in paragraph 38 of the judgment of this Court in Milind. The decision in Milind gave a positive direction to the effect that appointments that had become final on or before 28 November 2000 (the date when the judgment was delivered) shall remain unaffected. The Constitution Bench dealt with appointments as well as admissions to educational institutions. Following the decision in Milind this Court disposed of several cases relating to Halba-Koshti and did not disturb appointments which had been made prior to 28 November 2000. The directions in Milind are based on the doctrine of prospective overruling;

(ii) No issue was joined before the High Court to the effect that the provisions of Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 are retrospective and would interdict admissions or appointments made prior to the enforcement of the Act. In any case such a stand would be contrary to the binding circulars issued by the State Government; and

(iii) Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 is not retrospective in operation. The statute being of a penal nature, it cannot be construed to be retrospective since that would render it violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution. The Act was notified on 17 October 2001 with effect from 18 October 2001 which is the relevant date under Section 1 (2).

(iv) While Section 7 empowers the Scrutiny Committee to cancel any certificate which has been obtained before or after the commencement of the Act, the expression "before or after the commencement of this Act" is absent in Sections 10 and 11. Consequently, though Section 7 may be retroactive in operation, Sections 10 and 11 which relate to the withdrawal of benefits are in regard to penal offences are prospective.

(i) Though in Entry 19 of the Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950 only "Halba-Halbi" has been recognised as a Scheduled Tribe, until the decision of the Constitution Bench in Milind, Halba - Koshtis were "socially and officially" recognised and accepted as a sub-tribe of Halba-Halbi. This may have been as a result of the judicial pronouncement made by the High Court from 1956 or the circulars issued by the State Government;

(ii) It was on 28 November 2000 that the Constitution Bench in Milind held that Halba-Koshtis do not fall within the purview of Entry 19 of the Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950. Hence, it cannot be said that a caste certificate issued at any time prior to 28 November 2000 in favour of a citizen who was a Halba-Koshti was false or a fraud and it can only be held that such a person ceased to be recognised as Halba-Halbi Scheduled Tribe;

(iii) Section 11 of Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 which is in the nature of a penal provision will not be applicable to caste certificates which were issued prior to 18 October 2001;

(iv) On 15 January 1995, a government resolution was issued by the Government of Maharashtra that appointments made prior to that date against reserved posts would remain protected even if the caste/tribe claim of the appointee was invalidated or found to be false;

(v) Where an appointment in service has been acquired by practicing fraud or deceit such an appointment is no appointment in law and in such a situation Article 311 of the Constitution is not attracted. This position will not be applicable to claimants of the Halba-Koshtis caste to whom caste certificates were issued and appointments were made prior to 28 November 2000; and

(vi) On 10 August 2010, the Union Government in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training issued an office memorandum to the effect that persons belonging to the Halba, Halbi-Koshti castes who got appointment against a vacancy reserved for the Scheduled Tribes on the basis of certificates issued by the competent authority and whose appointments have been rendered final prior to 28 November 2000 shall not be affected.

(vii) On 21 October 2015, the State of Maharashtra issued a circular directing that employees who have been appointed against posts reserved for Scheduled Tribes in government services between 15 January 1995 and 17 October 2001, whose claims have been invalidated, shall not be disbanded/terminated until further orders. In view of this circular, the State Government is estopped from challenging the Full Bench decision of the High Court in Arun Sonone.

(i) the Caste Scrutiny Committee should pass an order cancelling and confiscating the certificate;

(ii) the cancellation of the certificate should be communicated to the educational institution where the candidate has been admitted or to the appointing authority where the candidate is employed;

(iii) upon this, the head of the institution or the appointing authority should cancel the admission or appointment without further notice and debar the candidate from further study or continuance in office; and

(iv) a prosecution should be launched against the candidate or, as the case may be, the parents or guardians responsible for making the false claim. The regime postulated in the judgment of this Court in Madhuri Patil (supra) took effect from 2 September 1994, which was the date of the judgment. Eventually in the State of Maharashtra these directions received legislative recognition upon the enactment of the Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 which came into force in the State on 18 October 2001. However, it is important to notice that even before the State Legislature stepped in to confer a statutory form to the directions which were issued by this Court in Madhuri Patil (supra) the regime, as it then obtained prior to the enactment of the law, also envisaged consequences upon a caste or tribe claim being found to be false upon a verification by the Scrutiny Committee. The cancellation of a certificate would, as a necessary consequence, involve the invalidation of the appointment to a post or admission to an educational institution. Where a candidate had been appointed to a reserved post on the basis of the claim that he or she was a member of the group for which the reservation is intended, the invalidation of the claim to belong to that group would, as a necessary consequence, render the appointment void ab initio. The rationale for this is that a candidate who would otherwise have to compete for a post in the general pool of unreserved seats had secured appointment in a more restricted competition confined to the reserved category and usurped a benefit meant for a designated caste, tribe or class. Once it was found that the candidate had obtained admission upon a false representation to belong to the reserved category, the appointment would be vitiated by fraud and would be void ab initio. The falsity of the claim lies in a representation that the candidate belongs to a category of persons for whom the reservation is intended whereas in fact the candidate does not so belong. The reason for depriving the candidate of the benefit which she or he has obtained on the strength of such a claim, is that a person cannot retain the fruits of a false claim on the basis of which a scarce public resource is obtained. The same principle would apply where a candidate secures admission to an educational institution on the basis of a false claim to belong to a reserved category. A candidate who does so causes detriment to a genuine candidate who actually belongs to the reserved category who is deprived of the seat. For that matter a detriment is caused to the entire class of persons for whom reservations are intended, the members of which are excluded as a result of an admission granted to an importer who does not belong to the class. The withdrawal of benefits, either in terms of the revocation of employment or the termination of an admission was hence a necessary corollary of the invalidation of the claim on the basis of which the appointment or admission was obtained. The withdrawal of the benefit was not based on mensrea or the intent underlying the assertion of a false claim. In the case of a criminal prosecution, intent would be necessary. On the other hand, the withdrawal of civil benefits flowed as a logical result of the invalidation of a claim to belong to a group or category for whom the reservation is intended. This was the position under the regime which prevailed following the decision in Madhuri Patil.

(i) Bank of India v. Avinash D.Mandivikar, 2005(4) S.C.T. 336 : (2005) 7 SCC 690 at para 10;

(ii) Additional General Manager- Human Resource, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Suresh Ramkrishna Burde, 2007(3) S.C.T. 202 : (2007) 5 SCC 336 at paras 7-9 and 13;

(iii) Union of India v. Dattatray, S/o. Namdeo Mendhekar, 2008(2) S.C.T. 177 : 2008(2) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 390 : (2008) 4 SCC 612 at paras 5-7; and

(iv) Yogesh Ramchandra Naikwadi v. State of Maharashtra, 2008(2) S.C.T. 654 : (2008) 5 SCC 652 at paras 5 & 6.

"9. It is not the intent of law to punish an innocent person and subject him to extremely harsh treatment. That is why this Court has devised and consistently followed that taxation statutes, which almost always work to the pecuniary detriment of the assessee, must be interpreted in favour of the assessee. Therefore, as we see it, on one bank of the Rubicon are the cases of dishonest and mendacious persons who have deliberately claimed consanguinity with the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, etc. whereas on the other bank are those marooned persons who honestly and correctly claimed to belong to a particular Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe but were later on found by the relevant authority not to fall within the particular group envisaged for protected treatment. In the former group, persons would justifiably deserve the immediate cessation of all benefits, including termination of services. In the latter, after the removal of the nebulousness and uncertainty, while the services or benefits already enjoyed would not be negated, they would be dis entitled to claim any further or continuing benefit on the predication of belonging to the said Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe." (Id. at pgs. 534-535)

[3] 8th Ed. Vol. 2 pages 1355-1358.

"An officer de jure is one who, possessing the legal qualifications, has been lawfully chosen to the office in question, and has fulfilled any conditions precedent to the performance of its duties. By being thus chosen and observing the precedent conditions, such a person becomes of right entitled to the possession and enjoyment of the office, and the public, in whose interest the office is created, is entitled of right to have him perform its duties. If he is excluded from it, the exclusion is both a public offence and a private injury."

"16......Discretion assumes the freedom to choose among several lawful alternatives. Therefore, discretion does not exist when there is but one lawful option. In this situation, the Judge is required to select that option and has no freedom of choice. No discretion is involved in the choice between a lawful act and an unlawful act. The Judge must choose the lawful act, and he is precluded from choosing the unlawful act. Discretion, on the other hand, assumes the lack of an obligation to choose one particular possibility among several." (Id at p. 430)

(i) mere invalidation of the caste claim by the Scrutiny Committee would not entail the consequences of withdrawal of benefits or discharge from employment or cancellation of appointments that have become final prior to the decision in Milind (supra) on 28 November 2000;

(ii) the benefit of protection in service upon invalidation of the caste claim is available not only to persons belonging to Koshti and Halba Koshti but is also available to persons belonging to the special backward category on the same terms. The High Court has even gone to the extent of holding that the decision in Milind (supra) was in the nature of prospective overruling of the law which was laid down by the Bombay High Court. The above view of the Bombay High Court is clearly unsustainable. Neither the judgment in Milind (supra) nor any of the judgments of this Court which have construed it have held that Milind (supra) was an exercise in prospective overruling. The High Court was in error in holding so. The decision of the Full Bench in Arun Sonone (supra) is unsustainable. The Full Bench had evidently failed to notice that cases where the protection was granted by this Court following the invalidation of a caste claim was in exercise of the power conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The jurisdiction under Article 142 is clearly not available to the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226. The High Court erred in arrogating that jurisdiction to itself.

[4] G.P. Singh, On the Interpretation of Statutes -4 Edition pages 580, 583.

(i) Applications for the grant of caste certificates being made to a notified officer;

(ii) Submission of an affidavit together with relevant particulars in support of the application;

(iii) Submission of an application for verification of the caste certificate before a Scrutiny Committee well in advance of seeking admission to an educational institution or appointment to a post;

(iv) Grant of provisional admission or a provisional appointment where the verification by the Scrutiny Committee was likely to take time;

(v) Constitution of Scrutiny Committees for verification of caste certificates;

(vi) Constitution of Vigilance Cells for the purpose of investigating the social status of the candidate and affinity with the tribal group;

(vii) Modalities to be followed for revoking caste certificates when the claim for social status was found to be not genuine, doubtful, spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed;

(viii) Passing of an order of cancellation and confiscation of the caste certificate if the claim was found to be false;

(ix) Prosecution of the candidate or, as the case may be, the parent or the guardian who had made a false claim;

(x) Cancellation of the admission granted or the appointment made where the caste certificate is invalidated and debarment of the candidate from further studies or to continue in a post.

(i) Appointment;

(ii) Admission in an educational institution against a reserved seat; or

(iii) Election to a local authority or cooperative society against an office which is reserved for that category.

"92...We are of the considered view that conferring rights or benefits on the appellants, who had consciously participated in a well thought out, and meticulously orchestrated plan, to circumvent well laid down norms, for gaining admission to the MBBS course, would amount to espousing the cause of "the unfair". It would seem like allowing a thief to retain the stolen property. It would seem as if the Court was not supportive of the cause of those who had adopted and followed rightful means. Such a course would cause people to question the credibility of the justice-delivery system itself. The exercise of jurisdiction in the manner suggested on behalf of the appellants would surely depict the Court's support in favour of the sacrilegious. It would also compromise the integrity of the academic community. We are of the view that in the name of doing complete justice it is not possible for this Court to support the vitiated actions of the appellants through which they gained admission to the MBBS course."

"99.....Besides the consideration recorded by us in the foregoing paragraphs, we may confess, that we felt persuaded for taking the view that we have, for a very important reason national character. There is a saying-when wealth is lost, nothing is lost; when health is lost, something is lost; but when character is lost, everything is lost. .....

The issue in hand has an infinitely vast dimension. If we were to keep in mind immediate social or societal gains, the perspective of consideration would be different. The submission canvassed needs to be considered in the proper perspective. We shall venture to drive home the point by an illustration. We may well not have won our freedom, if freedom fighters had not languished in jails ... and if valuable lives had not been sacrificed. Depending on the situation, even civil liberty or life itself, may be too trivial a sacrifice, when national interest is involved. It all depends on the desired goal. The Preamble of the Indian Constitution rests on the foundation of governance on the touchstone of justice. The basic fundamental right of equality before law and equal protection of the laws is extended to citizens and non-citizens alike through Article 14 of the Constitution on the fountainhead of fairness. The actions of the appellants are founded on unacceptable behaviour, and in complete breach of the Rule of Law. Their actions constitute acts of deceit invading into a righteous social order. National character, in our considered view, cannot be sacrificed for benefits individual or societal. If we desire to build a nation on the touchstone of ethics and character and if our determined goal is to build a nation where only the Rule of Law prevails, then we cannot accept the claim of the appellants for the suggested societal gains. Viewed in the aforesaid perspective, we have no difficulty whatsoever in concluding in favour of the Rule of Law. Such being the position, it is not possible for us to extend to the appellants any benefit under Article 142 of the Constitution."

(i) The directions which were issued by the Constitution Bench of this Court in paragraph 38 of the decision in Milind were in pursuance of the powers vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution;

(ii) Since the decision of this Court in Madhuri Patil which was rendered on 2 September 1994, the regime which held the field in pursuance of those directions envisaged a detailed procedure for (a) the issuance of caste certificates; (b) scrutiny and verification of caste and tribe claims by Scrutiny Committees to be constituted by the State Government; (c) the procedure for the conduct of investigation into the authenticity of the claim; (d) Cancellation and confiscation of the caste certificate where the claim is found to be false or not genuine; (e) Withdrawal of benefits in terms of the termination of an appointment, cancellation of an admission to an educational institution or disqualification from an electoral office obtained on the basis that the candidate belongs to a reserved category; and (f) Prosecution for a criminal offence;

(iii) The decisions of this Court in R. Vishwanatha Pillai and in Dattatray which were rendered by benches of three Judges laid down the principle of law that where a benefit is secured by an individual such as an appointment to a post or admission to an educational institution - on the basis that the candidate belongs to a reserved category for which the benefit is reserved, the invalidation of the caste or tribe claim upon verification would result in the appointment or, as the case may be, the admission being rendered void or non est.

(iv) The exception to the above doctrine was in those cases where this Court exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to render complete justice;

(v) By Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 there is a legislative codification of the broad principles enunciated in Madhuri Patil. The legislation provides a statutory framework for regulating the issuance of caste certificates (Section 4); constitution of Scrutiny Committees for verification of claims (Section 6); submission of applications for verification of caste certificates (Section 6(2) and 6(3); cancellation of caste certificates (Section 7); burden of proof (Section 8); withdrawal of benefits obtained upon the invalidation of the claim (Section 10); and initiation of prosecution (Section 11), amongst other things;

(vi) The power conferred by Section 7 upon the Scrutiny Committee to verify a claim is both in respect of caste certificates issued prior to and subsequent to the enforcement of the Act on 18 October 2001. Finality does not attach to a caste certificate (or to the claim to receive benefits) where the claim of the individual to belong to a reserved caste, tribe or class is yet to be verified by the Scrutiny Committee;

(vii) Withdrawal of benefits secured on the basis of a caste claim which has been found to be false and is invalidated is a necessary consequence which flows from the invalidation of the caste claim and no issue of retrospectivity would arise;

(viii) The decisions in Kavita Solunke and Shalini of two learned Judges are overruled. Shalini in so far as it stipulates a requirement of a dishonest intent for the application of the provision of Section 10 is, with respect, erroneous and does not reflect the correct position in law;

(ix) Mens rea is an ingredient of the penal provisions contained in Section 11. Section 11 is prospective and would apply in those situations where the act constituting the offence has taken place after the date of its enforcement;

(x) The judgment of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Arun Sonone is manifestly erroneous and is overruled; and

(xi) Though the power of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution is a constitutional power vested in the court for rendering complete justice and is a power which is couched in wide terms, the exercise of the jurisdiction must have due regard to legislative mandate, where a law such as Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 holds the field.

1. Chairman and Managing Director FCI v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira, C.A. No. 8928 of 2015 :

On 6 December 1984, Food Corporation of India offered appointment to the respondent on the post of Messenger-Depot which was reserved for the Scheduled Tribes on the basis of a caste certificate dated 28 August 1978 issued by the Executive Magistrate, Panvel, stating that the applicant was a Hindu Mahadev Kohli and hence belonged to a Scheduled Tribe. Upon a declaration submitted by the respondent he was appointed to the post on 8 January 1985 in the Scheduled Tribe quota. The respondent received promotional benefits in the post of Dusting Operator (13 August 1990), Senior Dusting Operator (30 December 2000), Picker (1 December 2003) and Senior Picker (20 December 2005). The caste certificate submitted by the respondent was invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Division, Thane. The claim of the respondent to belong to the Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe was found not to be established and the certificate was accordingly invalidated and cancelled. Following this his services were terminated on 4 October 2013.

The respondent instituted writ proceedings before the Bombay High Court to challenge the order of the Scrutiny Committee and his termination from service. By a judgment dated 4 April 2014 the High Court noted that the respondent was seeking only protection of his services and was willing to give up the claim of belonging to a Scheduled Tribe. By its judgment, the High Court accepted the contention of the respondent and held that he was entitled to protection of services with continuity while the management would be at liberty to withdraw such benefits as were granted after 28 September 2000. The employer moved a Special Leave Petition and in pursuance of an interim order dated 11 August 2014, the respondent was reinstated in service and was granted further promotions. Eventually upon his superannuation on 31 August 2015 the respondent was granted his terminal benefits including gratuity, arrears of wage revision, medical reimbursement, leave encashment, contributory provident fund and productivity linked incentive.

During the pendency of the litigation, the respondent is retired from service and has even been paid his terminal dues. Hence, at this stage, all that can be observed is that no claim by a member of Mahdeo Koli, Scheduled Caste shall be made or entertained on behalf of the respondent or any member of his family on the strength of the caste certificate which has been invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee. No further benefits of any nature whatsoever would be admissible to the respondent on the basis of his claim which has been invalidated. However, in the peculiar facts, we are not inclined to order recovery has to be made from the respondent. The Civil Appeal is disposed of.

2. Shri Shivaji Shikshan Sanstha & Anr. v. Raju Laxman Gadekar & Ors., (Civil Appeal No. 9155 of 2015) and

3. State of Maharashtra v. Raju Laxman Gadekar & Ors, (Civil Appeal No. 9157 of 2015) :

In September 1981, Raju Laxman Gadekar obtained a caste certificate that he belonged to the Halba Scheduled Tribe in Maharashtra. On the strength of the caste certificate, he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a post reserved for a Scheduled Tribe in Shri Shivaji High-School, Dongaon on 24 June 1989. On 2 March 2005, he filled up an application in Form E and submitted an affidavit in Form F through his employer to the Scrutiny Committee, which was invalidated on 20 February 2008. Since the claim that he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe was invalidated, his services were terminated by the employer on 26 February 2008. The challenge to the order of termination failed before the School Tribunal. The writ petition challenging the order of the Scrutiny Committee was dismissed on 7 August 2009. The order of the School Tribunal was challenged in a separate Writ Petition which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on 16 October 2009 and the employee was directed to be reinstated. In an appeal by the employer, the Division Bench set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge on 17 April 2010 and dismissed the writ petition. A Special Leave Petition filed by the employee under Article 136 of the Constitution was dismissed by this Court as not pressed on 1 October 2010. Thereafter the respondent filed a writ petition praying for his reinstatement and protection of his service. By the judgment dated 5/8/9/10 July 2013 the High Court held that the employee was entitled to the protection of his services.

From the narration of the facts it is clear that the Writ Petition filed by the employee challenging the order of the Scrutiny Committee was dismissed on 7 August 2009 and it has been held that he does not belong to the Halba Scheduled Tribe. The caste certificate which was obtained by the respondent has been demonstrated to be a false caste certificate. The challenge to the order of termination also attained finality since the Special Leave Petition against the judgment of the High Court was dismissed as not pressed. In the circumstances, the High Court has clearly erred in allowing protection of service to the employee. Such a direction is also contrary to the provisions of Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001. The appointment secured by the respondent on the basis of a false caste claim was required to be withdrawn in terms of provisions of Section 10. There has been a complete misuse of the process by the Respondent.

We, therefore, allow the Civil Appeals and set aside the judgments and orders of the High Court dated 10 April 2013 and 5/8/9/10 July 2013.

In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

4. State of Maharashtra v. Ku. Chhaya D/o.Hemraj Nimje & Ors., (Civil Appeal No.9160 of 2015) :

Chhaya Nimje obtained a caste certificate on 20 July 1991 from the Executive Magistrate, Narkhed to the effect that she belongs to the Halba Scheduled Tribe. On the basis of the caste certificate she obtained appointment as an Assistant Teacher on 24 December 1996 in Bhimrao Bapu Deshmukh Adarsh Vidyalaya. On 9 March she filled up an application in Form E together with an affidavit in Form F under Rule 11 of the Maharashtra ST (Regulation of Issuance & Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2003. The Vigilance Cell submitted a report showing that her records were of the Koshti community. Before the Scrutiny Committee could decide her claim she approached the High Court in a writ petition seeking protection of service. The High Court disposed of the writ petition on 30 January 2013, on the statement of the employer that her services will not be terminated unless the caste certificate is invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee. She again filed a Writ Petition before the High Court seeking protection of her services.

The respondent has no right to claim protection of her services. The respondent has misused the process of law by filing successive writ petitions to preempt an adjudication by the Scrutiny Committee and then confining the claim only to the protection of her services.

For the reasons which are indicated in the body of the judgment and for the above reasons, the Civil Appeal is allowed and impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside. No other submission is urged.

In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

5. State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Mrs.Arundhati Suresh Ninawe & Anr., (Civil Appeal Nos. 9203-04 of 2015) :

The respondent was appointed as a Lecturer on a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribes on 20 March 1997 on the basis of a caste certificate dated 18 May 1995 stating that she belongs to the Halba Scheduled Tribe. The Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the caste certificate and directed it to be confiscated. The High Court by its order dated 26 November 2012 has confirmed the order of invalidation but has granted protection of service. By a subsequent order the High Court has ordered the State to consider revision/refixation of pay scales.

For the reasons indicated by this court while disposing of Civil Appeal Nos.9155 and 9157 of 2015 and for those contained in the body of the judgment, the Civil Appeals are allowed. The impugned judgments and orders of the High Court are set aside. No other submission is urged.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

6. Mahatma Fule Krishi Vidyapeeth v. Nagnath Baburao Mangrule & Ors., (Civil Appeal No.8926 of 2015) :

The respondent was appointed as an Agricultural Assistant on a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribes on 22 July 1996 on the basis of a caste certificate dated 3 February 1991 stating that he belongs to the Mahadeo Koli tribe. On 26 August 2011 the respondent submitted his caste certificate and other documents for verification of the caste claim, which were forwarded to the Scrutiny Committee. In the meantime the appellant initiated a departmental enquiry against the respondent and terminated the services of the respondent by its order dated 18 December 2012. Subsequently the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim of the respondent by its order dated 3 October 2013. The High Court by its order dated 4 April 2014 has confirmed the order of invalidation but has granted protection of service.

For the reasons indicated in the body of the judgment and those indicated while allowing Civil Appeal Nos.9155 and 9157 of 2015, the Civil Appeal shall stand allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside insofar as it protects the services of the respondent.

There shall be no order as to costs.

7. Suresh S/o.Dewaji Vairagade v. The Controller General, Indian Bureau of Mines, Indira Bhavan, Civil Lines, Nagpur & Anr., (Civil Appeal No.1918 of 2010) :

The appellant was appointed as an Assistant Store Keeper on a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribes on 14 November 1988 on the strength of a caste certificate dated 14 January 1985 stating that he belongs to the Halba Schedule Tribe. The Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 30 August 2005 invalidated the caste claim of the appellant. Subsequently the respondent terminated the services of the appellant in pursuance of the proviso to Sub Rule 1 of Rule 5 of the Central Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition which was dismissed by the High Court by its order dated 3 August 2009.

Having due regard for the reasons contained in the body of this judgment, we find no error in the judgment of the High Court. The Civil Appeal shall stand dismissed. No other submission is urged.

There shall be no order as to costs.

8. Rajendra S/o. Ramaji Mahisbadwe v. The Joint Commissioner and Vice-Chairman Scheduled Tribe, Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.9154 of 2015):

The appellant was appointed as a trainee technician in Air India on a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribes on 6 August 1997 on the basis of a caste certificate dated 9 August 1988 stating that he belongs to the Halba Schedule Tribe. Thereafter the appointment of the appellant was confirmed on 1 March 1999. The second respondent sought a clarification from Tehsildar, Nagpur to ascertain whether the caste certificate is genuine or not. The Tehsildar by a letter dated 17 October 2008 stated that the name of the appellant is not borne in the records. Accordingly the second respondent terminated the services of the appellant by an order dated 3 November 2009. The Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 5 October 2012 invalidated the caste claim of the appellant.

The High Court by its judgment dated 11 March 2013 has declined to grant protection to the services of the appellant upon the invalidation of his claim to belong to the Halba Scheduled Tribe by the Scrutiny Committee on 5 October 2012. There is a clear and patent misuse of process by the Appellant. In the absence of the caste validity certificate, the appointment of the Appellant cannot be held to have attained finality. Having due regard to the reasons contained in the body of this judgment, we find no error in the judgment of the High Court. The Civil Appeal shall stand dismissed. No other submission is urged.

There shall be no order as to costs.

9. Chhaya d/o.Yadaorao Barapatre @ Chhaya W/o. Rajeev Dhakate v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., (Civil Appeal Nos. 9158-59 of 2015) :

The appellant was appointed as a Junior Lecturer in the fourth respondent High School on a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribes on 2 July 1991 on the basis of a caste certificate dated 23 July 1984 stating that she belongs to the Halba Schedule Tribe. On 14 March 1997 the appellant's appointment as a Junior Lecturer was confirmed by the fourth respondent. The Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim of the appellant by its order dated 8 November 2012. The High Court by its impugned judgment and order dated 5 April 2013 has declined to grant protection of services. The appellant preferred a review which was dismissed by the High Court by its order dated 10 May 2013. For the reasons contained in the body of the judgment and having due regard to the invalidation of the claim of the respondent by the Scrutiny Committee, we find no error in the judgment of the High Court. The Civil Appeals are accordingly dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

10. Ravindra Govindrao Nagpurkar v. Secretary, Rajasthan Education Society Washim & Ors., (Civil Appeal Nos.8604-05/17 @ SLP (C) Nos. 33864-65 of 2015) :

The appellant was appointed as a Lecturer on a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribes on 14 August 1995 on the basis of a caste certificate dated 13 May 1982 stating that he belongs to the Halba Scheduled Tribe. The caste claim of the appellant was invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 18 January 2005. Thereafter the appellant was issued a show cause notice dated 3 January 2006 by the first respondent to explain why his services should not be terminated. On 16 January 2006 the appellant filed a writ petition and challenged the show cause notice. However, on the same day the first respondent had already issued an order of termination. Thereafter the High Court granted permission to withdraw the writ petition and liberty was granted to file proceedings before the appropriate forum. The appellant preferred an appeal before the University & College Tribunal, Nagpur which was dismissed by the tribunal by its order dated 30 December 2012. The High Court by its impugned judgment and order dated 18.3.2013 has declined to grant protection of services. The Review Petition was also dismissed on 29 November 2013.

For the reasons contained in the body of the judgment and having due regard to the invalidation of the claim of the respondent by the Scrutiny Committee, we find no error in the judgment of the High Court. The Civil Appeals are accordingly dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

11. Shri Shivaji Education Society & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (Civil Appeal No.8601/17 @ SLP (C) No. 289 of 2016) :

The third respondent was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribes on the basis of a caste certificate showing him as belonging to the Thakur Scheduled Tribe. By its order dated 23 April 2008 the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the tribe claim and confiscated his certificate. The services of the third respondent were terminated on 12 May 2008. While dismissing the writ petition challenging the order of the Scrutiny Committee the High Court by its order dated 15 December 2015 has none the less directed reinstatement of the third respondent subject to an undertaking that he would not claim the benefit of belonging to the Scheduled Tribe in future. Once the tribe claim of the respondent has been held to be false, the judgment of the High Court is unsustainable for the reasons indicated in the body of this judgment. The Civil Appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court dated 15 December 2015 is set aside. In consequence the Writ Petition filed by the third respondent shall stand dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

12. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited v. Murlidhar Arjun Neware and Anr., (C.A. Nos. 8602-03/17 @ SLP (C) Nos.529-30 of 2016):

The respondent was appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer (Grade-I) reserved for the Scheduled Tribes on 11 March 1992 on the strength of a caste certificate stating that he belongs to the Gondgowari tribe. The Scrutiny Committee initially by an order dated 23 June 2004 rejected the tribe claim. Subsequently in pursuance of order of remand passed by the High Court, the Scrutiny Committee investigated into the matter again and invalidated the tribe claim by its order dated 2 January 2006 and ordered the tribe certificate to be cancelled. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent on 10 November 2006 and the review petition was also dismissed for want of prosecution on 5 April 2006. However, subsequently the review petition, after restoration, was allowed on 30 January 2015 and while the cancellation of the caste certificate was upheld protection to the services of the respondent was granted.

For the reasons contained in the body of the judgment and having due regard to the fact that the claim of the respondent has been found to be false, we find merit in the appeals which have been filed by the appellant. The impugned judgments of the High Court dated 30 January 2015 are accordingly set aside. The writ proceedings filed by the respondent shall, in the circumstances, stand dismissed. The Civil Appeals are allowed in these terms. No other submission is urged.

There shall be no order as to costs.

13. India Trade Promotion Organisation v. Vivekkumar Lajjashankar Chaurasiya, (C.A.No.8607/17 @ SLP )No.14830 of 2015):

The Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 30 March 2013 has found that the respondent does not belong to the Nagawanshi tribe. The respondent was appointed on a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribes on the strength of a certificate that he belongs to the Nagawanshi tribe. The Division Bench of the High Court, placing reliance on the judgment of the Full Bench in Arun Sonone's case (supra), has by its judgment dated 16 February 2015 granted reinstatement to the respondent.

For the reasons contained in the body of the judgment, the appeal filed by the employer shall have to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court dated 16 February 2015 is set aside. No other submission is urged.

There shall be no order as to costs.

14. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority v. Rajendra Ramchandra Dhakate & Anr., (Civil Appeal 8609/17 @ SLP (C) No.13409 of 2015) :

The claim of the respondent to belong to the Halba Scheduled Tribe has been invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 30 July 1998. The Scrutiny Committee has found that the documents submitted by the first respondent were manipulated and fabricated. The respondent was appointed to a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribes on the basis of a caste certificate stating that he belongs to the Halba Scheduled Tribe. The termination of the services the respondent has followed upon the cancellation of the caste certificate.

In the circumstances and for the reasons contained in the body of the judgment, the High Court erred in allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent and directing the appellant to reinstate him. The Civil Appeal is accordingly allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 20 January 2015. The writ petition filed by the respondent shall, in the circumstances, stand dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

15. State of Maharashtra v. Vasant, s/o.Gyandeo Gonnade, (Civil Appeal 8606/17 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 19992 of 2015) :

The respondent was appointed on the post of Junior Engineer on 21 July 1982 on the basis of a claim of belonging to the "Halba Koshti" Scheduled Tribe. The Scrutiny Committee invalidated his claim on 19 August 1985. In the meantime, the Maharashtra Public Service Commission recommended the respondent for appointment in the cadre of Assistant Engineer in 1984 and 1986 but he was not granted placement. The respondent filed a writ petition to challenge the order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 19 August 1985 which was dismissed by the High Court on 4 July 1986. Thereafter the respondent filed an appeal (Caste Appeal) 11/1986-87 before the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur against the order of the Scrutiny Committee. The appeal was disposed of on 23 August 1985 by remanding the proceedings back to the Scrutiny Committee. On remand, the Scrutiny Committee, by its order dated 28 August 1989 found that the respondent does not belong to the Scheduled Tribe and cancelled his caste certificate. The respondent filed an appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur which was dismissed on 12 November 1990. The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the invalidation of his caste claim and to seek relief in respect of his service conditions. By an order dated 23 March 1995 the writ petition was allowed by holding that the respondent belongs to the Halba Koshti caste but that was made subject to the decision in Milind (supra).

The respondent was granted placement in the seniority of Assistant Engineer with effect from 29 July 1987, subject to the final outcome of the proceedings in Milind (supra). On 18 October 1995 the respondent was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer subject to the decision in Milind (supra) and he joined on 4 December 1995. On 4 October 1999 the respondent was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer subject to the final disposal of the proceedings before this Court in Milind (supra). It was directed that the seniority would be fixed after the final decision of this Court. On 15 September 2000 the respondent was given a deemed date of 29 May 1987. On 15 April 2005, considering the judgment of this Court in Milind (supra), the appointment of the respondent to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer was protected and he was regularised on the post considering it as an open category post. His seniority was directed to be fixed from the date of appointment and it was ordered that he shall not get the benefit of belonging to a Scheduled Tribe. On 6 August 2005 the earlier deemed date of 29 May 1987 was modified and his seniority on the post of Assistant Executive Engineer was fixed from 4 December 1995. On 5 June 2006 a G.R. was issued by which the deemed date was modified to 29 May 1987 on the post of Assistant Executive Engineer for the purpose of seniority. On 1 August 2009 a G.R. was issued by which the deemed date for the purpose of seniority on the post of Executive Engineer was set as 29 May 1991 subject to approval of the M.P.S.C. On 28 April 2014 the State Government published a seniority list from 1 January 2011 to 13 December 2013 for Executive Engineer.

The respondent who was aggrieved by the G.R. dated 28 April 2014 filed a writ petition before the High Court at its Nagpur Bench praying for an appropriate writ for the declaration of the date of his seniority. The High Court by its judgment dated 27 February 2015 has adverted to the decision in Arun Sonone and has come to the conclusion that the G.R. dated 6 August 2005 is not sustainable and the state government has been directed to give effect to its G.R.s dated 15 September 2000 and 15 April 2005 by placing the respondent in the cadre of Assistant Engineer with effect from 29 May 1987.

We accordingly allow the Civil Appeal and set aside the impugned judgment dated 27 February 2015.

There shall be no order as to costs.

16. State of Maharashtra v. Ku.Vijaya Deorao Nandanwar & Anr., (C. A. No.9107 of 2015):

The claim of the respondent of belonging to the Halba Scheduled Tribe has been invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 7 November 2009. The respondent was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribes. Following the invalidation of the claim, the services of the respondent were terminated. The High Court by its impugned order dated 5 July 2013 set aside the order of termination and granted protection to the service of the respondent.

For the reasons contained in the body of the judgment, the impugned order of the High Court is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondent shall, in the circumstances, stand dismissed. The Civil Appeal is allowed in these terms. No other submission has been urged. There shall be no order as to costs.

17. Ishwar Shrawan Nikhare v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (Civil Appeal No.7187 of 2013) :

The appellant was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a vacancy reserved for the Scheduled Tribes on 30 January 1999. The Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidated the claim of the appellant on 1 July 2008. The Division Bench of the High Court, by its order dated 30 January 2009 allowed the request for the withdrawal of the writ petition filed by the appellant keeping open the validity of the observations made by the Scrutiny Committee whereby prosecution was ordered. The services of the appellant were terminated on 8 February 2009. The appellant filed an appeal before the School Tribunal which was dismissed on 19 October 2011 on the ground that the appointment of the appellant was not a valid appointment in the eye of law. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition challenging the order of the Tribunal. A Letters Patent Appeal has been dismissed by the Division Bench by its judgment dated 7 May 2012. Having regard to the fact that the claim of the appellant to belong to a Scheduled Tribe was invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee, the School Tribunal cannot be faulted in declining to entertain the appeal against the consequential order of termination of service. Moreover, for the reasons contained in the body of the present judgment, we find no merit in the Civil Appeal. The Civil Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No other submission has been urged.

There shall be no order as to costs.

18. Eknath Barikrao Dhanwade v. Divisional Controller, State Transport Corporation & Anr., (Civil Appeal 8608/17 @ SLP (C)... CC No. 10889 of 2015) :

The appellant was appointed as a driver in 1999 with the respondent on a post reserved for Scheduled Tribes on the basis of a caste certificate that he belongs to the Mahadeo Koli tribe. The appellant's caste claim was rejected by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the appellant does not belong to the said tribe. A writ petition was filed by the appellant. The High Court by an order dated 11 January 2000 remanded the matter to the Scrutiny Committee. On 2 March 2001 the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the tribe claim of the appellant. The appellant filed a Writ Petition before the High Court. By an order dated 30 June 2014, the High Court dismissed the petition. The appellant filed another writ petition which was dismissed with costs by an order dated 19 September 2014. Subsequently on 19 November 2014 the first respondent terminated the service of the appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed another writ petition which was dismissed by the High Court by its order 19 January 2015. The above narration indicates a complete abuse of process by the appellant.

For the reasons contained in the body of the present judgment and in view of the above, we find no merit in the appeal. The Civil Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No other submission is separately urged.

There shall be no order as to costs.

19. Pradip Gajanan Koli v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (Civil Appeal No.8598/17 @ SLP (C) 18925 of 2014) :

The appellant was appointed to the post of Fireman in the reserved category for the Scheduled Tribes on 12 March 1996. Thereafter a caste certificate dated 22 June 2000 certifying that the appellant belongs to the Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe was issued. The caste certificate was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification. The appellant submitted an affidavit stating that he belongs to the said caste and also appeared before the Committee. By an order dated 7 July 2012 the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste certificate of the appellant. The appellant filed a writ petition which was disposed of by the High Court, by its judgment and order dated 20 November 2013 with a direction that in case the appellant is still in service as on that date, his employment shall not be terminated for a period of three months from the date of its order.

For the reasons contained in the body of the present judgment, we find no error in the impugned judgment. The Civil Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No other submission is separately urged.

There shall be no order as to costs.

20. Union of India & Ors. v. Suryakant & Ors., (Civil Appeal No.8597/17 @ SLP (C) No. 16852 of 2016) :

The Director General, Vigilance, New Delhi by an order dated 1 July 2005, initiated the verification of tribe certificates of employees who were appointed from 1995. Accordingly, the original tribe certificate of the respondent was asked to be produced. The respondent was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk reserved for the Scheduled Tribes on the strength of a caste certificate stating that he belongs to the Mahadeo Koli tribe. The certificate was issued by the Tahsildar, Akola on 13 May 1985. Subsequently on enquiry about the authenticity of the tribe certificate, the Tahsildar, Akola informed that the register for the year 1985 was not traceable and hence it cannot be stated whether certificate was issued by office or otherwise. Instead of submitting his original caste certificate the respondent produced a fresh tribe certificate dated 21 July 2005 issued by S.D.O., Bhusawal wherein it was stated that he belongs to the Mahadeo Koli tribe. By an order dated 10 October 2011 the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim of the respondent. The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court by its impugned judgment and order dated 20 October 2015 allowed the writ petition, relying upon its Full Bench judgment in Arun Sonone (supra) with a direction that the respondent is entitled to claim service protection and shall not be entitled to claim promotion in employment.

The narration of facts reveals a complete misuse of process by the Respondent. For the reasons contained in the body of the judgment, the impugned order of the High Court is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. The Civil Appeal is accordingly allowed in these terms. No separate submission is urged.

There shall be no order as to costs.

21. Executive Director (Lubes), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Ashok Mahadeorao Pathrabe & Ors., (Civil Appeal Nos.8599-8600/17 @ SLP (C) Nos. 29388-89 of 2016) :

The respondent joined IOCL in 1976 at its R & D Centre, Faridabad. At the time of the appointment, the respondent has shown himself as belonging to the Halba Scheduled Tribe. The appointment was subject to the information submitted by the respondent being true and correct. The respondent submitted his caste certificate along with a prescribed form/documents on 15 December 2006 which were forwarded for verification. The Scrutiny Committee rejected the caste claim of the respondent on 4 October 2010. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred an internal appeal and also a writ petition before the High Court. By its order dated 1 March 2011 the appellant rejected the appeal of the respondent upholding the dismissal order. Subsequently on 7 December 2011 the High Court also dismissed the petition of the respondent upholding the dismissal order. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed a Special Leave Petition before this Court which was dismissed by an order dated 27 February 2012. The appellant filed another writ petition before the High Court which was allowed by an order dated 24 November 2015 to the extent that the services of the respondent were protected till his superannuation.

The facts narrated above reveal a complete misuse of process by the Respondent. For the reasons contained in the body of the judgment, the impugned orders of the High Court are unsustainable and are accordingly set aside. The Civil Appeals are accordingly allowed in these terms. No other submission is urged.

There shall be no order as to costs.

22. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Rupesh s/o.Teksingh Shinde, (Civil Appeal Nos.8610/17 @ SLP (C) No.2299 of 2017) :

The respondent was appointed as a clerk on a post earmarked for the Vimukta Jatis on 26 March 1999 claiming that he belongs to the Rajput Bhamta Vimukta Jati. The caste claim of the respondent was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification and was invalidated by an order dated 29 July 2011. As the caste claim was invalidated the respondent was terminated from service by an order dated 16 August 2011. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court. After hearing both the parties, the court remanded the matter back to the Scrutiny Committee. The caste certificate was again invalidated by an order dated 21 January 2014 and the Committee observed that the respondent obtained a false caste certificate and directed the registration of an FIR against the respondent, pursuant to which the services of the respondent were terminated. Being aggrieved the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court by its impugned judgment and order dated 3 February 2016 allowed the writ petition relying upon its Full Bench judgment in the case of Arun Sonone v. State of Maharashtra (supra) with a direction to the appellant to reinstate the respondent on his original post.

The facts narrated above indicate the manner in which the process has been abused by the Respondent. For the reasons contained in the body of the judgment, the impugned order of the High Court is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. The Civil Appeal is accordingly allowed in these terms. No other submission is urged.