KUMARI APARNA SHRIKANT BHAYEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

             KUMAR! APARNA SHRIKANT BHAYE
                                                                              A
                           v.
             STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

                           AUGUST 24, 1990

               [M.H. KANIA AND K.J. REDDY, JJ.]                               B

      Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act
 1976--Para 9, Entry 29-Son Kolis-Whether a section of the Schedu-
led Tribe of Mahadeo Koli.

       The petitioner sought admission to a medical college in the State
of Maharashtra on the footing that she belonged to the Scheduled Tribe        c
of Mahadeo Koli and submitted several caste certificates, including her
father's Secondary School Leaving Certiticate. The Scrutiny Commit-
tee, the expert body for determining such claims, rejected her claim on
the basis of entries made in 1945 in the register of the Municipal Pri-
mary School, where her father had his primary education, which                D
showed that the caste of the petitioner's father was recorded as 'Son
Koli'. This decision was upheld by the Additional Commissioner for
Tribal Development: The High Court summarily dismissed the petitioner's
writ petition.

      In the Special Leave Petition before this Court, on behalf of the       E
petitioner it was contended that the High Court was in error in rejecting
the Writ Petition summarily and that the Scrutiny Committee had pro-
ceeded on an entirely erroneous basis as the real basis of the petitioner's
claim was that Son Kolis were a section of the Schedule Tribe of
Mahadeo Koli.
                                                                              F
      Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, this Court,

      HELD: Entry 29 of the list of Scheduled Tribes in the State of
Maharashtra, appearing in Para 9 of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 shows that 'Koli
Mahadeo' is a Scheduled Trib• recognised in Maharashtra. In the list of G
Backward Classes issued by the State, Kolis are recognised as belong-
ing to ''other backward classes". Son Kolis are shown as belonging to
other backward classes in the list of other backward classes. These
documents nowhere support the claim that Son Kolis are a section of
Scheduled Tribe of Mahadeo Koli. Though Kolis are described as a
tribe in the publication entitled "Transactions of the Bombay Geog- H

                                    1
    2             SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [1990] Supp. I S.C.R.

A· raphical Society from 1836 to 1838", a perusal of the relevant observa-
   tions shows that no distinction has been drawn in the said publication
   between
     .
            castes
               . '
                   and tribes.
                          '
                               [2D-F]

           Admittf~ly, Mahadeo Koli is a Scheduled Tribe whereas Son
     Koli is a caste. The Scrutiny Committee cannot be faulted for placing
B   gr.eat relianc~ on t~e entries in the register of the primary school where
    the petitioqer's father took his primary education, as at the \ime when
    these entries were made there was no reason why he should have lllade a
    wrong statement about the caste or tribe to which he belonged. These
    entries were made in 1945, wlien there was no special advantage which         •
    t11e Schedul.ed Tribe of Mahadeo Koli enjoyed over the members of the
    caste of Son Koli. The certificates relied upon by the petitioner have
c   been rejected by the Scrutiny Committee primarily because these
    certificates were inconsistent with the entries in the said register of the
    Primary School relating to the petitioner's father to which the Commit-
    tee attached great probative value, as it was of the view that they were
    made at :i time when no question of making any manipulation arose,
D   The reasons given by the Scrutiny Committee for the rejection cannot
    be said to be irrelevant or perverse. There is no complaint that the rules
    of fair play ~~ve pot been observe!i by the Scrutiny Committee. [4A-E]

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
    («::ivil) No. 11493 of 1989

         From \)le Judgment and Order dated 7.9.1989 of the Bombay
    High Cpurt ii! W.J', Jl!o, 37fi2of1989.

          Mrs, !!lrlirn Jqising!i, Tripµrari Ray anq M.N. Shroff for the
    Petitioner.                                                                   >
F
          V.N. Qanpule and ;A.S. Bhasme for the Respondents.

          The Juqgrµent of the Court was delivered by

          KAN!~, J. This Special Leave is directed against the judgment
G   of a Divisio!) Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing summarily
    Writ Petitioq No. 3762 of 1989 filed by the petitioner.

          The peti tipner passed Hie Higher Secondary Certificate (herein-
    after referrefl tp as "the H.S.«::P) examination !:te!d in l\1<Jrch 1989,
    and sought admission to a medical college in Bombay conductecj by the
H   Government pr one of the Municipal Medical Colleges in the city of
         A.S. BHAYE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [KANIA, J.I                 3

Bombay on the footing that she belonged to the Scheduled Tribe of
                                                                            A
Mahadco Koli. In support of her claim she tendered certain caste
certificates. Her application was referred, in accordance with the
relevant rules to the Scrutiny Committee. which is an expert body for
determination of caste claims, for verifying her claim to belong to the
aforesaid Scheduled Tribe. Jn support of her claim, the petitioner
submitted several caste certificates obtained by her. At the hearing        B
before the Scrutiny Committee the petitioner also furnished the
Secondary School Leaving Certificate of her father. Her father was
requested to furnish his Primary School Leaving Certificate or birth
certificate in order to ascertain the correct caste of the petitioner but
he failed to produce the same. The Committee, therefore, conducted
the necessary inquiries. at the Municipal Primary School, Worli.
Koliwada, Bombay where the petitioner's father had taken his primary        c
education. That school by its letter dated April 29, 1989, disclosed
entries made in register of the said school showing inter alia, that the
caste of the petitioner's father was recorded as "Son Kali". These
entries were made in 1945 when there was no special advantage which
the Scheduled Tribe of Mahadeo Kali enjoyed over the members of             D
the cast~ of Son Kali. It was pointed out by the Committee that these
entries are entitled to a very great probative value as they have been
made at a time when no question of making any manupulation arose.
The certificates relied upon by the petitioner have been rejected by the
Scrutiny Committee primarily becuase these certificates were inconsis-
tent with the entries in the said Register of the Primary School relating   E
to the petitioner's father to which the Committee attached great pro-
bative value. The reasons given by the Scrutiny Committee for the
rejection cannot be said to be irrelevant or perverse. There is no
complaint that the rules of fairplay have not been observed by the
scrutiny Committee. It rejected the claim of the petitioner that she
belonged to the Scheduled Tribe of Mahadeo Kali. This decision was          F
upheld by the Additional Commissioner for Tribal Development.
State of Maharashtra in an appeal preferred by the petitioner. Against
the decision the petitioner filed a writ petition in the Bombay High
Court challenging the aforesaid decision and that writ petition was
summarily dismissed by a Division Bench of that High Court.
                                                                            G
       We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner who has
strongly urged that the High Court was in error in rejecting the writ
p,etition summarily as it is done. We find, however, that it has not been
shown how the decision of the Scrutiny Committee or the Appellate
decision of the Commissioner for Tribal Welfare discloses any error
calling for any interference in a writ petition. The entire controversy     H
        4           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [1990] Supp. 1 S.C .R.

    A   has to be appreciated in the light of the admitted fact that Mahadeo
        Koli is a Scheduled Tribe whereas Son Kali is a caste. We cannot find
        fault with the Scrutiny Committee for placing great reliance on the
        entries in the register of the primary school where the petitioner's
        father took his primary education, as at the time when these entries
        were made there was no reason why he should have made a wrong
    B
        statement <ibout the caste or tripe to which he belonged.

            It was sought to be contended by learned counsel for the
      petitioner that Scrutiny Committee has proceeded on an entirely
      erroneous basis as the real c!a.im of the petitioner is that Son Kolis are
      a section of the Scheduled Tribe of Mahadeo Koli. We find. however,
    c that this contention has nowhere been raised before the Scrutiny Com-
      mittee or before the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare although it does
      appear to have been raised in the writ petition. It was not open to the
      petitioner to raise this contention for the first time in the writ petition.
      Learned counsel (lrew our attention to the list of the Scheduled Tribes
      in the State of Maharashtra appearing in Para 9 of the Scheduled
    D Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976. Entry
      29 shows that "Kali Mahadeo" js a Scheduled Tribe recognised in
      Maharashtra. In the list of Backward Classes issued by the State of
      Maharashtra we find that Kolis are recognised as belonging to "other
      backward classes". Son Kolis are shown as belonging to other back-
      ward classes in the list of other backward classes issued by the State of
    E
      Maharashtra. These documents, however, nowhere support the claim
      that Son Kolis are a section of Scheduled Tribe of Mahadeo Koli.

              Learned counsel for \he petitioner drew our attention to a pubh-
        cMion entitled ''Transactions of the Bombay Geographical Society
        from 1836 tp 1838" which has been printed in 1844. In this publication,
    F
        Kolis are described as a tribe but a perusal of the relevant observations
•       show that no distinction has been drawn in this publication between
        castes and tribes, and hence, the statements made in the said publica-
        tion do not lend any support to the claim of the petitioner.

              In the result, there is no merit in the special leave petition and it
    G is dismissed. No orders as to costs.

        N.P.V.                                                 Petition dismissed.