Pradeep and 4 others vs State of Madhya Pradesh

In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the challenge is made to the order dated 22-06-2011 (Annexure P/18) whereby the State Level Caste Verification Committee has cancelled the Caste Certificate of the petitioner. The consequential order dated 02-09-2011 (Annexure P/19) passed by the Collector Balaghat cancelling the Caste Certificate of the petitioner is also called in question.

In short, the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Village Gudrughat, Post Miragpur, Tehsil Khairlanji, District Balaghat. The grandfather of the petitioner had purchased a land in the said village in the year 1955 (Annexure P/1). The said land at present is entered in the revenue record in the name of the petitioner, his mother and brothers. The revenue entries and Rin Pustika are filed as Annexure P/2 and P/3. The petitioner is a commerce graduate. He did his higher secondary from Tekadi Tirodi, Balaghat. The marksheet and School Leaving Certificate are filed as Annexure P/4 and P/5. The Caste Certificate (Annexure P/8) was duly issued in favour of the petitioner. The Competent Authority certified that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe community i.e. ''Gond Gowari''. The petitioner secured employment as a reserved category candidate on the post of Rural Agriculture Extension Officer under special recruitment drive for SC/ST candidates. The respondent No.3 conducted the verification of Caste Certificate and opined that the petitioner belongs to ''Mahar'' community which is a Scheduled Caste community (Annexure P/10). On the basis of this information, explanation was called from the petitioner by the department on 22-10-2002. The petitioner filed his reply on 27-11-2002.

Pursuant to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. vs. Additional Commissioner Tribal Development & Ors . (1994) 6 SCC 241, a State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee was constituted. In obedience of directions of the said committee, the Vigilance Officer/Superintendent of Police conducted a verification/ investigation regarding the caste of the petitioner. As per report of S.P. dated 23-08-2008 (Annexure P/17A), the petitioner belongs to the reserved category of ''Gond Gowari''. This report was supplied to the petitioner by the Caste Verification Committee. The petitioner appeared and participated in the proceedings before the said committee. The said committee did not agree with the report of Vigilance Officer and opined that the petitioner does not belong to the said community.

Shri Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner raised singular contention. He submits that in view of judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Madhuri Patil (supra), which was followed subsequently in the case of Anand vs. Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claims & Ors. (2012) 1 SCC 113 and Dayaram vs. Sudhir Batham & Ors . (2012) 1 SCC 333, once the report of Vigilance Officer was submitted in favour of the petitioner, there was no occasion for the Caste Verification Committee to take a different view. Putting it differently, Shri Saini argued that since the report of Superintendent of Police (Annexure P/17A) was in favour of the petitioner, the committee was bound to accept it. In addition, it is submitted that there was no material available before the committee to take a different view. If the committee wanted to take a different view, it could have been taken on the basis of material available on record. Burden could not have been shifted on the petitioner to prove that he belongs to said cast when the basic Caste Certificate was issued after due scrutiny by the Competent Authority and no fault was found by the Superintendent of Police in his report in this regard.

Per contra, Shri Vishal Dhagat, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned order. He submits that three reasons assigned in the order of Caste Verification Committee dated 22-06-2011 are in accordance with law and no interference is warranted by this Court. As per AIR 1995 SC 1506 ( Director of Tribunal Welfare vs. Laveti Giri & Anr .), the person, who is claiming himself to be a ST category candidate, should take burden to prove that he belongs to the said community. Since the petitioner has not discharged the said burden, the committee has rightly held that the petitioner does not belong to the said community. It is further argued that no document regarding petitioner''s father''s cast were placed on record to show that his father had any material to show that he belongs to the said community, namely ''Gond Gowari''.

No other point is pressed by the parties.

I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.

The bone of contention of the petitioner is that when report of Vigilance Officer was in favour of the petitioner, it was no more open to the Caste Verification Committee to proceed further and decide the question of caste status of the petitioner. The argument is advanced on the basis of judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Madhuri Patil (supra). It was followed in the case of Dayaram (supra). Great emphasis was laid to para 13(5) of the judgment of Madhuri Patil (supra). This para reads as under:

''13(5) Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in over-all charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in the pro forma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the castes or tribes or tribal communities concerned etc.''

In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are produced or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed.

As per Para 13(5), the Vigilance Officer is required to conduct an inquiry in following manner:

'' (i) Inspector would go to local place of residence of the claimant;

(ii) He shall visit the original place;

(iii) The Inspector will visit the town from which the claimant originally hails from; (iv) He shall personally verify the school record, birth register;

(v) He will examine the parents/guardians and such other persons from whom information can be gathered;

(vi) The said officer shall in particular examine the trade, deity, ritual, custom, mode of marriage, death ceremonies and method of burial of claimant''s community.

This is the method prescribed in Kumari Madhuri Patil''s case with a view to trace the anthropological and ethnological history of the claimant.

In para 13(7) the Apex Court held as under:'' ''13(7). In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed.''

In para 13(7) aforesaid it has been held that in case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be ''genuine'' and ''true'', no further action need be taken except where the reports of the members given are procured and found to be fraudulently obtained The conjoint reading of paras 13(5) and 13(7) would show that the authority is required to conduct an enquiry as per the method and manner prescribed in aforesaid para and collect evidence in the same manner. The report should be prepared on the basis of aforesaid material. The Caste Verification Committee is required to apply its mind on the genuineness and correctness of the report. A microscopic reading of para 13(7) of the judgment would show that when the report is found to be genuine and true then only no further action need be taken by the committee. However, while examining ''genuineness'' or ''trueness'' of the said report, needless to mention that the committee is to be guided by para 13(5) of the said judgment. In other words, it is obligatory on the part of the S.P. to conduct an enquiry in a manner prescribed in para 5 of the judgment in Kumari Madhuri Patil. Thus, the basic question is whether the aforesaid reports of vigilance officer were prepared in consonance with para 13(5) and whether the committee has erred in proceeding further despite favourable reports.''

In the present case, the report of Superintendent of Police dated 23.08.2008 shows that he has obtained school leaving certificate of the petitioner from the primary school, perused the ''dakhil kharij'' register of the school. In addition, he obtained the certificate of Village Sarpanch certifying that the petitioner belongs to ST community, he produced revenue entries of five years which shows that against the name of petitioner''s father, the name of caste i.e. Gond Gowari is mentioned. The Superintendent of Police recorded the statement of Ward Panch and statements of Natthu and Nemchand. On the strength of these documents, he opined that the petitioner belongs to ''Gond Gowari'' community. If this report is tested on the anvil of Para 13(5) of the judgment of Madhuri Patil, it will be clear that the Vigilance report fulfills the condition No.(i) to (v) mentioned in Para 9 above.

As analyzed above, if report of Vigilance Officer is true and genuine, it is binding on the Caste Verification Committee. The genuineness and trueness needs to be tested by examining the manner and method by which report has been prepared. As a thumb rule, it cannot be said that even cryptic report of Vigilance Officer is binding on the Caste Verification Committee. If report is not prepared in consonance with the mandate of Para 13(5) of the judgment of Madhuri Patil (supra), it is open to the Caste Verification Committee to proceed further and decide the caste status of the candidate on merits. This view is taken by this Court in 2012 (3) MPLJ 199 (Rajendra Singh Saluja Vs. State of M.P. and others).

As noticed, in the present case, the Vigilance Officer''s report is by and large in consonance with the law laid down in the case of Madhuri Patil (supra). Thus, the said report was binding on the Caste Verification Committee. The Caste Verification Committee, without assigning any reason as to why the report of Vigilance Officer/Superintendent of Police did not suit it, proceeded further and committed an error in taking a different view.

The matter may be viewed from another angle. This Court in the case of Gokul Prasad Vs. State Level Committee, (2012) 1 MPLJ 359 held that the proceedings and findings of Caste Verification Committee are quasi-judicial in nature. The action of obtaining a false certificate is not only a fraud on the society, it is fraud played on the Constitution as well. The consequence of cancellation of caste certificate of a candidate may be drastic. It may lead to civil and criminal consequences. He may lose his employment, occupation or admission, as the case may be, which was obtained on the basis of aforesaid caste status. Therefore, it is necessary that these matters are dealt with carefully by adopting a fair and transparent procedure by the Caste Verification Committee.

In the present case, the Caste Verification Committee has not given any reason whatsoever for not accepting the report of the Superintendent of Police. The Committee prepared a cryptic report by assigning following reasons:

(i) The petitioner could not place any documents to show that during his education, he has taken the benefit of his caste status.

(ii) As per the judgment of Supreme Court in AIR 1995 SC 1506, the burden to establish the cast status was on the petitioner which he could not discharge.

(iii) As per circular of Home Ministry (Government of India) dated Nil April, 1975 (Clause 1.1), the documents relating to petitioner''s father''s caste could not be produced by the petitioner.

The report of Superintendent of Police shows that the revenue entries in relation to the petitioner''s father''s lands were enclosed which contains the name of the caste as ''Gond Gowari''. Thus, the third finding on the face of it is perverse. Along with Superintendent of Police''s report, the educational qualification documents were provided to the Committee. Para 2 of the report which is based on perusal of school record shows that the petitioner belongs to ''Gond Gowari''. Thus, the findings at para (i) is also incorrect. The necessary burden was prima facie discharged by the petitioner in view of said documents. If the said documents were not trustworthy, minimum expectation from the Caste Verification Committee was to assign reasons. The Committee has failed to assign reason for not accepting the documents produced with the Superintendent of Police''s report. The reasons are heart beat of conclusion. In absence of reasons, conclusion cannot be sustain judicial scrutiny. In M/s Kranti Association Pvt. Ltd. And another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others, the Apex Court emphasized the need of assigning reason in quasi-judicial administration and judicial functioning. The relevant portion reads as under:

a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.

e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts.

h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants'' faith in the justice delivery system.

j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.

k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then M/S Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors on 8 September, 2010 it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.

l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or `rubber-stamp reasons'' is not to be equated with a valid decision making process.

m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737).

n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions".

o. In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in

setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of

law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the

essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process".

In the light of aforesaid analysis, I have no scintilla of doubt that the report of Caste Verification Committee is cryptic. The decision making process and the final order dated 22.06.2001 is not passed after following ''due process''. In the result, the said order and consequential order dated 02.09.2011 are set aside.

Petition is allowed.