Rajendra Singh Saluja vs State of M.P. and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order passed by the Caste Verification Committee dated 10-8-2011 (Annexure P-1). The Committee by the said order held that the petitioner do not belong to "Sansi" (Scheduled Caste) Community and directed confiscation of the Caste Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner and further directed to take appropriate action against the petitioner pursuant to cancellation of aforesaid Caste Certificate. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the petitioner preferred an application dated 20-2-2008 for grant of Provisional Caste Certificate. The application was pregnant with all requisite documents and material. The concerned authority after examining the application and its averments was pleased to issue the Provisional Caste Certificate, dated 31-5-2008 (Annexure P-9). Thereafter, the petitioner preferred application for grant of Permanent Caste Certificate on 3-6-2008. The learned Senior Counsel submits that after due verification and proper application of mind, certificate dated 8-8-2008 (Annexure P-16), i.e., Permanent Caste Certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner.

The learned Senior Counsel submits that it appears that subsequently some frivolous complaints were made against the petitioner, which persuaded the State Level Caste Verification Committee (hereinafter called as the "Committee") to take cognizance of the matter. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the said Committee is constituted as per the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patila and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, . In the said judgment, the Apex Court has prescribed the methodology to verify the caste status of a person and the entire enquiry needs to be conducted in consonance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil (supra). The learned Counsel by placing reliance on various circulars issued by the General Administration Department (GAD) submits that the said direction of the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil (supra), was circulated in the shape of executive instruction and it was directed that if Vigilance Officers'' report is in favour of the candidate, no further action is required to be taken by the Committee. He placed reliance on the GAD, circular dated 1-8-1996 in this regard. He further submits that the Caste Certificate was issued strictly in consonance with the GAD circular, dated 11-7-2005, which prescribes the methodology of issuance of a valid Caste Certificate. He further submits that the Revenue Authorities consumed sufficient time to verify the genuineness of the information furnished by the petitioner for obtaining the Caste Certificate and only thereafter the Caste Certificate was issued.

The learned Counsel submits that the order impugned is bad in law because the decision making process was erroneous as well as the ultimate decision Thus, the attack is of two fold--

(1) On the decision making process

(2) On the ultimate decision taken by the Committee

To elaborate, the learned Senior Counsel submits that in the judgment of Madhuri Patil (supra), in Paragraph 13(4), the constitution of Committee is prescribed The State is under a legal obligation to constitute the Committee strictly in consonance with the direction given by the Supreme Court However, Shri Gupta submits that the State Government issued circular in this regard and prescribed the constitution of the Committee The learned Senior Counsel submits that the Committee, which decided the matter was not constituted in consonance with the executive instructions on the subject dated 8-9-1997 (Annexure P-17) A perusal of Annexure P-17 shows that the constitution of Committee should be as under:-

(1) Principal Secretary/Secretary, Tribal Welfare and Scheduled Caste Welfare Department-Chairman

(2) Director Scheduled Caste Development Member Secretary

(3) A person having expertise in the subject of Scheduled Caste who is nominated by the Chairman-Member

(4) Secretary, Scheduled Caste Commission Member

Shri K.N. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel submits that the constitution of the Committee was defective in as much as the person/member as prescribed in No. 3 above was not there. In other words, the contention is that no officer who is nominated and having expertise in the subject of Scheduled Caste was there as a member of the Committee. Thus he submits that the constitution of the Committee itself is defective and, therefore, the whole order based on the said defective Committee cannot sustain and liable to be set aside He relied on Salam Mani Singh (Dr.) Vs. Lakshmibai National Institute of Physical Education and Others, Jagdish Singh Gujar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, (Paras 10, 11 and 12) in this regard

Another attack on the decision making process adopted by the Committee is on the ground that two Vigilance Officers submitted their reports and in both the reports, after due verification it was found that the petitioner belongs to "Sansi" (Scheduled Caste) Community. By placing reliance on the judgment in Madhuri Patil (supra), [Para 13(7)], and the GAD circular dated 1-8-1996. it is submitted that once the Vigilance Officers'' report is in favour of the petitioner and it is not found that those reports were obtained fraudulently, there was no occasion for the Committee to proceed further and the matter should have been closed at that stage itself. Thus, it is stated that the Committee has exceeded its jurisdiction and assumed jurisdiction after getting two reports by very senior Vigilance Officers, who issued their reports in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, the Committee has not followed the judgment in Madhuri Patil''s case (supra).

The learned Senior Counsel further submits that Page 84 of the petition shows that the Vigilance Officer should be an officer of the rank of Senior Deputy Police Superintendent. It is not in dispute that the Vigilance Officers, who have submitted the reports are of the same rank and therefore, there was an error in procedure adopted by the Committee in proceeding further in the matter, despite those two favourable reports. He further submits that no reasons are assigned by the Committee as to why the report of those Vigilance Officers were not trustworthy. By placing reliance on a recent judgment of this Court in Gokul Prasad Vs. State Level Committee and Another, , it is stated that any conclusion, which is not based on reason is liable to be set aside. It is stated that the reasons are heart beat of conclusions and in absence of reasons, no conclusion can be permitted to stand. Reliance is also placed on Anand Vs. Committee For Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and Others, , Kalpana Karatkar Vs. State of M.P. and Others, Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others, and Madhvi Khambra (Dr.) Vs. State of M.P. and others, . On the basis of these judgments, it is stated that the decision making process is polluted and the order based on it is liable to be axed. The decision was also attacked on the ground that the Vigilance Officers have given detailed reports in favour of the petitioner and in absence of any justifiable reason, the decision itself is perverse and bad in law.

Per contra, Mrs. Nidhi Patankar, learned Government Advocate supported the order passed by Caste Verification Committee. The learned Counsel submits that initially the circular dated 8-9-1997, was issued by General Administration Department whereby six members Committee was constituted. However, subsequently vide Annexure P-17, dated 8-9-1997 the constitution of the Committee was modified and four members Committee was constituted. She submits that the Committee was properly constituted and in support thereof, she relied on document dated 4-11-1999 issued by the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department No. F 23-34/98/25/4, dated 4-11-1999. It is mentioned in this order that the State Government has decided to nominate the Director, Adimjati Anusandhan Sanstha as an expert member in lieu of Shri S.K. Pandey, Joint Director, who was earlier acting as Member. On the strength of this, it is stated that the constitution of the Committee was proper and Director, Adimjati Anusandhan Sanstha is an expert in this subject who was duly nominated and therefore, no fault can be found in the constitution of the Committee. It is further stated that the said member has done research in the filed of Scheduled Caste and, therefore, he was rightly nominated and the nomination dated 4-11-1999 is not called in question in the present petition. Thus, as per order dated 4-11-1999 by no stretch of imagination, the constitution of the Committee can be said to be impermissible or running contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil (supra).

Coming to the second contention of Shri Gupta, the learned Government Advocate submits that a minute scrutiny of the judgment in Madhuri Patil (supra), would show that when the Vigilance Officer''s report is correct and genuine and prepared as per method prescribed in Madhuri Patil (supra), then only it can be relied upon. However, the discretion of Committee is not taken away and the Committee is well within its jurisdiction to examine the genuineness and correctness of these reports. The Committee has assigned reasons as to why these reports were not found trustworthy. By placing reliance on those documents, the learned Government Advocate submits that both the reports submitted by the Vigilance Officers were based on oral submissions of the persons and no documentary evidence was in favour of the petitioner herein. Thus, the Committee has committed no error of law in not blindly believing those reports and examined the matter in toto. The learned Counsel submits that Annexure P-2 clearly shows the jurisdiction of the Committee. When the Caste Certificate is obtained by furnishing incorrect informations, the Committee has jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

Shri Anil Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 submits that as per executive instructions (Annexure P-2) the scope of enquiry by the Committee is defined. By placing reliance on "points of enquiry". Shri Mishra submits that the Committee has rightly assumed and exercised jurisdiction as per the circular. The learned Counsel submits that along with application (Annexure R-3-11), dated 20-2-2008, the petitioner has not provided any documentary evidence in support of his desired caste status. Shri Anil Mishra, vehemently opposed the petition and stated that there is not a single documentary evidence to establish that at any point of time the petitioner mentioned himself as belonging to the Scheduled Caste Community. Neither in the revenue record nor in the educational qualification certificates it is mentioned that the petitioner belongs to "Sansi" Community. The only document is an application allegedly preferred by the petitioner in the year 1972, wherein petitioner''s father described himself belonging to "Sansi" Community. The learned Counsel submits that this document is also incorrect and not-genuine document. He then relied on an application for obtaining ration card preferred by the petitioner wherein he described himself as Sikh and general category person. There is a declaration in the bottom of this application wherein the petitioner verified the correctness of the information given by him in the said application for obtaining ration card. The learned Counsel submits that after verifying the correctness of this information, the petition is estopped and cannot take "U" turn only for the purposes of showing himself to be a reserved category candidate to contest the election. The learned Counsel then relied on certain informations obtained by him under the RTI Act to show that the petitioner''s father came to Markimahu on 10-8-1950. He further relied on various Supreme Court judgments on the subject.

Shri Mishra, learned Counsel submits that the petitioner was noticed and he participated in the proceedings before the Committee. The petitioner never raised any objection regarding constitution of the Committee or regarding any violation of principles of natural justice. Shri Mishra further submits that no objection was taken by the petitioner during the proceedings before the Committee regarding jurisdiction of the Committee despite availability of two Vigilance Officers report in favour of the petitioner. In nut-shell, Shri Mishra submits that the petitioner submitted to the jurisdiction of the Committee and now cannot take "U" turn and challenge the jurisdiction or correctness of the order.

Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel submits that the scope of judicial review in these matters under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited. This Court is not sitting as an Appellate Court. He further submits that on the basis of aforesaid judgments, it is clear that a person, who admittedly, never availed the benefit of caste status cannot be permitted to say on one fine morning that he belongs to reserved community.

In rejoinder submissions, the learned Senior Counsel submits that I.A. No. 1680/12 is filed by the petitioner by placing reliance on the document (Annexure P-4), which is written by respondent No. 3 to the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Revenue Officer, Adimjati Anusandhan Sanstha. Respondent No. 3 desired certain informations including the information whether the earlier documents were actually issued by Tehsildar, Amritsar on the strength of which Caste Certificate was issued. In turn, the said authority, by communication (Annexure P-41), dated 15-2-2012 informed that these documents were actually issued by the then Tehsildar, Amritsar Shri Rajinder Singh. It is also stated that said report was issued by Shri Rajinder Singh on the basis of report obtained by field staff of his department.

The learned Senior Counsel further submits that respondent No. 3 is complainant and he had never chosen to appear before the Committee to put forth his case and for the first time he has submitted certain new documents before this Court. He submits that those new documents, which were not on record before the Committee cannot be looked into by this Court in a proceeding of this nature where judicial review is almost on the basis of Wednesbury Principles and this Court is not acting as an I inquiry Officer or Appellate Authority. The learned Senior Counsel by placing reliance on Annexures P-28 and P-29 submits that respondent No. 3 desired those documents including the 1972 application preferred by petitioner''s father for obtaining Patta by showing himself to be a person of "Sansi" Community. By placing reliance on Annexures P-28 and P-29, it is stated that the documents were supplied to the petitioner and therefore, it cannot be said that these are doctored documents. No other point is argued by the parties.

I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record.

The questions need to be decided are as under:--

(i) Whether constitution of Committee was proper ?

(ii) Whether Committee''s decision in proceeding with the Caste Verification despite favourable vigilance reports is justified ?

(iii) Whether the decision/order passed by the Committee is legal and justified ?

First two questions are related with decision-making process whereas the third question aforesaid deals with the validity of the decision itself.

Question No. (i) --Constitution of the Committee:-- By circular dated 8-9-1997 (Annexure P-17) a four member Committee was constituted for Caste Verification. The only objection of the petitioner is with regard to non-representation of a member having expertised in the subject of SC, who is nominated by the Chairman. The Government by placing reliance on a circular dated 4-11-1999 staled that Director. Tribal Research Institute was appointed as member and that officer is expert in the field of SC. Learned Senior Counsel although stated that the said Director might be an expert of the subject related to ST because he is appointed in a research institute, which is confined for ST and, therefore, he cannot be treated to be a person having expertise regarding SC community. In the considered opinion of this Court, merely because the said Director is the head of a ST Research Institute would not mean that he does not have expertise in the field of SC unless proved otherwise. The decision of Government in appointing him by communication dated 4-11-1999 was not called in question. No material was produced to show that the said Director was not competent to become a member. Therefore, I am unable to hold that constitution of Committee was defective. The burden was on the petitioner to prove that either nomination of the Director, ST Research Institute is not in accordance with law or the said officer is not having requisite expertise in the field of SC. In absence of any specific pleading and material in this regard and more particularly when the decision dated 4-11-1999 was not challenged, no fault can be found in the constitution of the Committee. The petitioner also participated in the proceeding without any objection in this regard and submitted to the jurisdiction of the said Committee. Thus, this question is decided against the petitioner.

Question No. (ii) -- Effect of vigilance reports in favour of the petitioner:--

It is not in dispute that there are two reports by the Vigilance Officer in favour of the petitioner. In the first report dated 16-7-2009 the Vigilance Officer after considering the material before him opined that the petitioner belongs to Sansi (SC) Community. A perusal of this report shows that he had examined following material:--

(i) All documents relating to issuance of Caste Certificate in favour of the petitioner;

(ii) Information obtained from the petitioner in prescribed proforma;

(iii) Statements of villagers of Village Bandala (Amritsar-Punjab) recorded through an officer of State Government;

(iv) Copy of admission register of Class 1 of petitioner;

(v) Statements of petitioner, his father, Gajadhar Prasad Agarwal, Harveer Singh Santokh Singh and complainant Sangita Mohan Rajak; and

(vi) Statements of villagers of Village Bandala obtained by Sub-Inspector Dinesh Sharma.

The case of petitioner is that his family basically hails from Village Pindi, Bhawaldeen, District Gujarat (Pakistan) and in 1947, they migrated to Village Bandala (District Amritsar) and stayed there for four years. Thereafter, in 1948, the petitioner''s father switched over to Village Markimahu (District Guna). Admittedly, the petitioner''s father and petitioner never showed that their caste is Sansi (SC). Neither in the revenue record nor in educational record of the petitioner''s father or petitioner, there is any mention that they belong to Sansi (SC). The petitioner has fairly admitted that in 1972, his father preferred an application wherein his caste is mentioned as "Punjabi-Sansi". Except this document (Annexure P-12), admittedly there is no document, which reflects the caste of the petitioner or his father as Sansi (SC). Annexure P-12 is also an application for grant of permanent ''patta'' and was preferred to the Tehsildar, wherein petitioner''s father described his caste as ''Punjabi Sansi''. However, in this document also, there is no mention that Sansi belongs to SC Community. The aforesaid vigilance report is followed by yet another vigilance report of Superintendent of Police (SP), dated 16-11-2009 (Annexure P-20). The said officer also relied on almost same material on which the SDO (Police) relied while issuing Annexure P-18. This officer also gave a finding that in the school admission register the petitioner''s caste is shown as ''Punjabi'' and in APL/BPL list his caste is shown as ''General''. In the ration card, petitioner''s caste is mentioned as ''Sikh'' whereas in school transfer certificate his caste is mentioned as ''Hindu''. Both the authorities have relied on the petitioner''s stand that he did not mention his actual caste so that he does not face the insult being a "Dalit". However, it is mentioned that on the basis of statements of villagers of Village Bandala and on the basis of documentary evidence, the S.P. stated that it appears that the petitioner belongs to SC Community. On the basis of these reports coupled with GAD circular, it is stated that once report is in favour of the petitioner, the Committee erred in proceeding further.

The Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil''s case (supra), in Para 13 (5) held 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.

A bare perusal of this para shows that it is made obligatory for the Vigilance Officer to conduct the enquiry in a particular manner. The said officer is required to enquire in this 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 (supra), 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 SP to conduct an enquiry in a manner prescribed in Para 5 of the judgment in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). 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.

The Committee in its proceeding dated 23-9-2009 considered the report of the Vigilance Officer. The Committee opined that the report in favour of petitioner is wholly based on the basis of oral statements of the persons. There is no documentary evidence which shows that petitioner''s caste is Sansi (SC). In school admission register, in APL/BPL list and in ration card the petitioner''s caste is not mentioned as Sansi (SC). Rather, it is mentioned as "General", "Sikh" or "Hindu". On the basis of these documentary evidence, the Committee did not agree with the report. In proceeding dated 23-2-2011, the Committee did not agree with another report, which is almost of the same nature. A perusal of the report shows that no efforts were made by the concerned officer to trace the rituals, custom, trade, deity, mode of marriage, death ceremonies and method of burial. In Kumari Madhuri Patil''s case (supra), the Apex Court has placed heavy reliance on this aspect so that the actual person can get the benefit of reservation.

This Court, in its recent judgment in Gokul Prasad Vs. State Level Committee and Another, opined that where report of Vigilance Officer is not prepared in consonance with Para 13(5) aforesaid, it is open for the Committee to proceed further and enquire about the caste status of the candidate. Since the reports do not fulfill the requirement of Para 13(5) in toto and has placed much reliance on oral statements despite availability of petitioner''s own declaration and old school records etc., the Committee decided to proceed further. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no error in this decision of the Committee. Since the reports do not fulfill the requirement of Para 13(5), the reports can be said to be binding on the Committee as per Para 13(7) of the judgment and it was open for the Committee to proceed further. Thus, this question is also decided against the petitioner.

Question No. (iii)--Whether the order (Annexure P-1) is legal and justified ?

In the present case, when petitioner was noticed by the Committee, he submitted his written statement dated 10-8-2011. In the said statement, he took following stand:--

A minute scrutiny of this written statement of the petitioner shows that admittedly after migrating to Guna in 1948 the petitioner or his lather never claimed or informed that they belong to Sansi (SC) Community. They used to show that they are "Sikh" or "Punjabi". They used to tell that their surname is "Saluja", which does not show any caste. The only reliance is on 1972 application for grant of permanent "patta" aforesaid, wherein in writing petitioner''s father mentioned his caste as "Punjabi Sansi".

Before both the Vigilance Officer and the Caste Verification Committee the school record, APL/BPL record, application for grant of Caste Certificate by the petitioner and ration card were placed. Petitioner''s relevant school record of Class-1 were also placed before the Vigilance Officer and the Caste Verification Committee. Thus, the contention of learned Senior Counsel that these documents were produced for the first time by the respondent No. 3 before this Court is without any basis and is hereby rejected. On the basis of peculiar fact situation of this case the following position emerges--in all documentary records, the petitioner or his father''s caste is mentioned either as "Hindu", "Punjabi" or "Sikh" except in one application in 1972, wherein he disclosed himself as "Punjabi Sansi". The Vigilance Officer heavily relied on the oral statements of the villagers of Bandala Village, on the strength of which Amritsar Tehsildar opined that petitioner belongs to "Sansi" Community. Admittedly, in Bandala Village also, no documentary evidence in favour of the petitioner was found. At the cost of repetition, it is relevant to mention that ethnological and anthropological history was not traced by the Vigilance Officer or Amritsar Tehsildar to determine the real caste of the petitioner. Thus, the whole benefit is conferred on the basis of oral statements of certain villagers of Village Bandala and Markimahu. These statements were recorded after submission of application for grant of Caste Certificate by the petitioner. Thus, these are recent oral statements whereas School Leaving Certificate of Class-1 of the petitioner is a document of more than 30 years old and its genuineness is not questioned by the petitioner.

This is settled in law that old documents obtained from the institution have a great probative and evidentiary value. In Kumari Madhuri Patil''s case (supra), the Apex Court held as under:--

The entries in the school register preceding the Constitution do furnish great probative value to the declaration of the status of a Caste. Hierarchical caste stratification of Hindu social order has its reflection in all entries in the public records. What would, therefore, depict the caste status of the people inclusive of the school or college records, as the then census rules insisted upon.

Therefore, it is no wonder that caste is reflected in relevant entries in the public records or school or college admission register at the relevant time and the certificates are issued on its basis. The father of the appellants admittedly described himself in 1943 and thereafter as a Hindu Koli. In other words his status was declared a Koli by caste and Hindu by religion. Kolis are admittedly OBCs. His feigned ignorance of the ancestry is too hard to believe. The averment in the affidavit that the entries were mistakenly made as Hindu Koli is an obvious afterthought.

(Emphasis supplied)

In the same judgment, it is held that the Caste Certificate issued by the Samaj is a self-servicing document and is always subject to scrutiny. The same cannot be held to be the exclusive proof to determine the caste status. It is further held that the minute details and material are required to be gone into because the tricks are common where the person starts asserting himself as SC or ST with a view to earn the concession and facilities reserved for SC/ST. Thus, it is emphasized that the scrutiny should he on legal and ethnological basis. Spurious persons have become a threat to the genuine persons of the particular caste and benefit of genuine claimants is snatched away by spurious persons.

In R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and Others, the Apex Court considered the school record of the petitioner and found it to be of great evidentiary value. In the said case, school record of the then petitioner R. Vishwanatha Pillai reflects that he belongs to a forward caste but he obtained a community certificate from Tehsildar wherein for the first time he showed himself to be a SC.

In Lilly Kutty Vs. Scrutiny Committee, S.C. and S.T. and Others, , in Para 6 the Apex Court has held as under:--

(6) The appellant was, therefore, a born Christian. It further found that the caste entries of the appellant showing her to be Hindu Pulayan Scheduled Caste have been obtained fraudulently by misrepresenting facts with a view to corner benefits as a member of a Scheduled Caste. The appellant, however, was a Christian. The appellant''s children were also participating actively in Baptist Church, Thannithode. The Committee found that though the appellant professed Christian religion and never followed Hinduism nor lived in Hindu culture, she declared herself to be Pulayan Hindu and styled herself as a member of the Scheduled Caste falsely.

In Bank of India and Another Vs. Avinash D. Mandivikar and Others, the Apex Court held that if the Caste Certificate is obtained by a fraud or misrepresentation, same cannot be allowed to stand. The Apex Court dealt with various judgments relating to fraud which reads as under:--

This Court in Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, dealt with the effect of fraud. It was held as follows in the said judgment: (SCC pp. 613-14, Paras 12-16)

12[14]... ''Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false.''

13[15]. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in Roshan Deen Vs. Preeti Lal, , Ram Preeti Yadav Vs. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education and Others, Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi and Others, and Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another,

14[16]. Suppression of a material document would also amount to a fraud on the Court. [See Gowrishankar and Another Vs. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust and Others, and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others,

15[17]. ''Fraud'' is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. Although negligence is not fraud but it can be evidence on fraud; as observed in Ram Preeti Yadav case.

16[18]. In Lazarus Estates Ltd. Vs. Beasley, (1956) 1 QB 702, Lord Denning observed at QB pp. 712 and 713: (All ER p. 345-C)

''No judgment of a Court, no order of a minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything.''

In the same judgment Lord Parker, LJ, observed that fraud vitiates all transactions known to the law of however high a degree of solemnity, (p. 722)

[19]. These aspects were recently highlighted in The State of Andhra Pradesh and Another Vs. T. Suryachandra Rao,

In State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Sanjay K. Nimje, the Apex Court held as under in Para 19:--

From the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee itself, it is evident that the father of the respondent was shown in the primary school register as belonging to "Koshti" caste. They were not members of a Scheduled Tribe. They were not even "Koshti-Halbas". It may be true that an authoritative pronouncement in this behalf came for the first time in State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind and Others, but it is not a case where the respondent pleaded and proved bona fide.

In Geeta Vs. State of M.P. and Others, , the Apex Court held as under in Paras 18 and 21:--

(18) We may notice that both her father and the appellant are well educated. The appellant''s father was said to have been born on 1-1-1947. No birth certificate was produced. No documents whatsoever were produced prior to 3-11-1977 to prove that they belong to Majhi Tribe, which is Scheduled Tribe.

(21) Even in the midst of hearing of this appeal, we granted more time to the appellant, to produce any document, which will establish her tribe as Majhi, which is a Scheduled Tribe, prior to 3-11-1977, but she utterly failed. This would clearly show that the tribe certificate showing the appellant as Majhi Tribe obtained on 29-8-1986 on the basis of tribe certificate of her father obtained on 3-11-1977 is without any documentary proof and is a manufactured document.

In Desh Raj Vs. Bodh Raj, the Apex Court held as under in Paragraphs 25, 30, 38 and 39:--

Section 35 of the Evidence Act provides that an entry in any public or other official book or register or record, stating a fact in issue or relevant fact and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty or by any other person in performance of a duty specifically enjoined by law of the country in which such book or register is kept is itself a relevant fact Having regard to the provisions of Section 35 entries in school admission registers in regard to age caste etc have always been considered as relevant and admissible [See Umesh Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan, and State of Punjab Vs. Mohinder Singh, In Kumari Madhuri Patila and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, , this Court observed that caste is reflected in relevant entries in the public records or school or college admission register at the relevant time and certificates are issued on its basis.

We are of the view that the High Court committed an error in ignoring the entries in the admission and withdrawal registers of Government Primary and Middle Schools Mohtli (Exh. P.W. 2-A and Exh. P.W. 3-B)

However, ''even if we exclude the entire oral evidence, the documentary evidence produced by the appellant to which we have adverted to above clearly demonstrates that the respondent''s father and his family members including the respondent had always held out to be and accepted as persons belonging to Tarkhan caste. It was only after 1990 that the respondent tried to show that he belonged to Lohar caste.

The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that in view of Exhs. PW4D and RW5A he should be considered as having established that he belongs to Lohar caste Exh. PW4-D is the Pariwar Register extract for the year 1990 onwards. The same no doubt shows the caste of the respondent as Lohar But when Exh. PW4D is read in conjunction with PW4-A, PW4-B and PW4-C, which are the Pariwar Register extracts relating to the previous years (1976-1977 and 1982-1989) where his caste was shown as Tarkhan and later altered as "Lohar" the entry in Exh. P.W. 4D becomes a self serving statement.

(Emphasis supplied)

The aforesaid judgments would show that the old documentary evidence will have more probative and evidence value in comparison to oral statements obtained at a later point of time. The petitioner''s Class-1 admission register has a great probative value. The petitioner''s father preferred an application for obtaining ration card in which he disclosed himself as "General Category" person and gave following declaration--

In the light of aforesaid judgments, it is also clear that only application of 1972 (Annexure P-12) is at best a self-serving statement and cannot be relied upon. Thus, consistently the petitioner and his father showed themselves as "Hindu", "Sikh" or "General Category" person. It is only when they decided to obtain a SC certificate, they came out with a case that they belong to Sansi community. Admittedly, deprivation, disadvantages, difficulties and discrimination faced by a SC community person were not faced by them because they never disclosed that they belong to said community. The basic purpose to provide reservation is to provide a helping hand and protection to the person who has actually faced disadvantage, difficulties, deprivation and discrimination in the society being a reserve category person. The petitioner felt ashamed even to disclose his caste as "Dalit''" as per his own admission in the reply before the Committee. Before preferring the application for obtaining SC certificate, the petitioner never showed his caste as "Sansi". However, after obtaining certificate he contested the election as a reserve category candidate and won it and became a member of Legislative Assembly.

In Anjan Kumar Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, the Apex Court by relying the judgment of Mrs. Valsamma Paul Vs. Cochin University and others, , held as under in Para 14:--

In view of the catena of decisions of this Court, the questions raised before us are no more res integra. The condition precedent for granting tribe certificate being that one must suffer disabilities wherefrom one belongs.

On the basis of aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that no fault can be found in the decision of Committee (Annexure P-1). The Committee passed its order on the basis of documentary evidence wherein the petitioner and his father himself disclosed his caste as "Hindu", "Sikh" or "Punjabi" and even gave a declaration to that effect with open eyes. The petitioner''s school leaving/admission documents of Class-1 are more than 30 years old. As per Section 90 of the Evidence Act also this document has great evidentiary value. The Committee has relied on these documentary evidence and on the basis of these documents found that the certificate was erroneously issued in favour of the petitioner.

Thus, I do not find any infirmity in either decision-making process or decision of the Committee. The petitioner could not establish any prejudice of any nature in procedural part of the enquiry conducted by the Committee. Since this Court came to the conclusion that the Committee was duly formed/constituted, the judgments relied upon by learned Senior Counsel regarding defective constitution of the Committee have no effect. The judgment of Madhavi Khambra (supra), cited by learned Senior Counsel has no application because in the said case vigilance report was against the claimant which was not supplied to the petitioner in the said case and thereby caused prejudice to him. In the present case, reports are in favour of the petitioner. Thus, said judgment has no application.

The judgments cited by learned Senior Counsel on the legal principle that if something is prescribed in law, it has to be followed in the same manner and other methods are forbidden also has no application because, as analyzed above, the decision-making process is in consonance with the law laid down in Kumari Madhuri Patil''s case (supra). Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The order passed by the Committee (Annexure P-1) is affirmed.

Parties shall bear their own costs.