//
you're reading...
legal issues

caste certificate – blessings in disguise = we find that the appellant belongs to `Koli’ tribe and it was in Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors. (supra) that it was held that `Mahadeo Koli’ and `Koli’ were not one or the same tribe and that `Koli’ tribe is not a Scheduled Tribe and the decision of this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors. (supra) has been relied upon by the High Court in the impugned judgment in this case to hold that the appellant did not belong to `Mahadeo Koli’ tribe. Before the decision of this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors. (supra), the appellant had been appointed in the service of NABARD on 28.02.1992 and since 1992 for long nineteen years, he has been in service. Invoking our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, we order that the initial appointment of the appellant in the service of NABARD will not be disturbed, but the appellant will not be granted any

Koli Women Selling Fish

Image via Wikipedia

 Reportable

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7857 OF 2004

Raiwad Manojkumar Nivruttirao ... Appellant

 Versus

State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents

 J U D G M E N T

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

 This is an appeal against the order dated 05.082003 of 

the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.2146 of 2003.

 2. The facts very briefly are that on 07.06.1990 the 

 Tehsildar and Executive Magistrate issued a caste 

 certificate to the appellant certifying that he belongs 

 to `Koli Mahadeo', which was recognized as a 

 Scheduled Tribe in the State of Maharashtra. On 

 28.02.1992, the appellant was selected and 

 appointed to a vacancy of Clerk Grade-II in the 

 National Bank of Agricultural and Rural 

 2

 Development (NABARD) in a vacancy reserved for 

 Scheduled Tribe. The General Manager of NABARD 

 referred the claim of the appellant as Scheduled 

 Tribe for verification and scrutiny. The Vigilance 

 Cell submitted its report on 19.09.2000. The 

 Scrutiny Committee then called the appellant for 

 interview and when the appellant did not appear on 

 several dates fixed for the interview, it finally 

 submitted its order on 27.01.2003 that the 

 appellant did not belong to `Koli Mahadeo', 

 Scheduled Tribe. 

3. Aggrieved by the findings of the Caste Scrutiny 

 Committee, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.2146 

 of 2003 in the High Court challenging the order of 

 the Caste Scrutiny Committee. By the impugned 

 order dated 05.08.2003, the High Court dismissed 

 the Writ Petition. In the impugned order, the High 

 Court held that the Caste Scrutiny Committee had 

 found from the documents on record that the father 

 of the appellant belonged to caste `Koli' and `Koli' 

 and `Koli Mahadeo' are different tribes as has been 

 3

 decided by this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil & 

 Anr. v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development 

 & Ors. [AIR 1995 SC 94]. The High Court also 

 found that despite several notices issued to the 

 appellant, he did not appear before the Caste 

 Scrutiny Committee to attend the hearing and that 

 the appellant had failed to discharge the burden to 

 prove by producing cogent and reliable evidence that 

 he belonged to the `Koli Mahadeo' tribe and not to 

 `Koli' tribe. 

4. Learned counsel for the appellant made efforts to 

 persuade us to set aside the findings of the High 

 Court and the Caste Scrutiny Committee, but on 

 perusal of the order of the Caste Scrutiny 

 Committee and the High Court, we are not inclined 

 to do so as we find that there is no infirmity in the 

 order of either the Caste Scrutiny Committee or the 

 High Court.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted 

 that the appellant had been in service since 1992, 

 4

 almost for nineteen years and if the appellant is 

 removed from service on the basis of the order of the 

 Caste Scrutiny Committee, he will suffer immense 

 hardship. He cited the decision in Raju Ramsing 

 Vasave v. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar & Ors. 

 [(2008) 9 SCC 54] in which this Court invoking its 

 jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, 

 directed that the appointment of the respondent 

 no.1 in that case, who had put in a long years of 

 service, should not be disturbed even though he was 

 found not to be belong to the Scheduled Tribe. He 

 submitted that a similar relief may be granted to the 

 appellant under Article 142 of the Constitution.

6. We find on reading of the judgment of this Court in 

 Raju Ramsing Vasave v. Mahesh Deorao 

 Bhivapurkar & Ors. (supra) that the respondent no.1 

 in that case claimed to be a member of the 

 Scheduled Tribe, namely, the `Halba' tribe. The 

 caste of his father in school record was shown as 

 `Koshti', whereas the caste of his Uncle and his 

 Cousins were shown as `Halba'. After his MBBS 

 5

course, he was appointed as a Field Officer in the 

Maharashtra Pollution Control Board against a 

vacancy meant for Scheduled Tribe subject to 

validity certificate. He filed a writ petition in the 

Bombay High Court and the Bombay High Court 

allowed the writ petition in 1988. The Division 

Bench of the Bombay High Court in its judgment 

dated 11.08.1988 held that the respondent no.1 

should be declared as belonging to `Halba' tribe as 

his other relatives have been declared as such. 

Thereafter, a co-employee of respondent no.1 

questioned the caste certificate granted in favour of 

the respondent no.1 and this Court held that the 

respondent no.1 did not belong to `Halba' tribe and 

was not a Scheduled Tribe. In Para 49 of the 

judgment, however, this Court held invoking the 

jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution 

that it would not be proper to disturb the very 

appointment of the respondent no.1 in that case, 

but observed that he shall not be eligible for grant of 

any benefit as a member of Scheduled Tribe.

 6

7. In the facts of the present case, we find that the 

 appellant belongs to `Koli' tribe and it was in Kumari 

 Madhuri Patil & Anr. v. Additional Commissioner, 

 Tribal Development & Ors. (supra) that it was held 

 that `Mahadeo Koli' and `Koli' were not one or the 

 same tribe and that `Koli' tribe is not a Scheduled 

 Tribe and the decision of this Court in Kumari 

 Madhuri Patil & Anr. v. Additional Commissioner, 

 Tribal Development & Ors. (supra) has been relied 

 upon by the High Court in the impugned judgment 

 in this case to hold that the appellant did not belong 

 to `Mahadeo Koli' tribe. Before the decision of this 

 Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. v. Additional 

 Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors. (supra), 

 the appellant had been appointed in the service of 

 NABARD on 28.02.1992 and since 1992 for long 

 nineteen years, he has been in service. Invoking our 

 jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, 

 we order that the initial appointment of the 

 appellant in the service of NABARD will not be 

 disturbed, but the appellant will not be granted any 

 7

 benefit as a member of the Scheduled Tribe 

 including any promotional benefit and promotional 

 benefit, if any, granted to the appellant as a member 

 of the Scheduled Tribe shall be cancelled. We make 

 it clear that the relief extended is not intended to be 

 precedent and shall not be relied upon to grant 

 similar relief.

 8. The appeal is partly allowed with no order as to 

 costs. 

The application for impleadment is dismissed.

 .............................J.

 (R. V. Raveendran)

 .............................J.

 (A. K. Patnaik)

New Delhi,October 13, 2011. 

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,881,036 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: