RAJESHWAR BABURAO BONEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

                     [2015] 8 S.C.R. 745


              RAJESHWAR BABURAO BONE                              A
                              v.
     THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAANDANOTHER
               (Civil Appeal No.5778 of 2015)
                       JULY29,2015                                B

          [M.Y. EQBALAND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]

     Social status - Tribe certificate - Validity of -
Appointment of appellant on the basis of his claim to be
member of scheduled tribe - Verification of tribe certificate     C
by Scrutiny Committee after 18 years of his appointment
- Issuance of validity certificate by the Scrutiny Committee
on consideration of all the documents - Subsequently,
Scrutiny Committee invalidated tribe certificate issueq in
                                                                  0
favour of appellant's brother and said order attaining finality
upto this Court - Thereafter, on reconsideration by the
Scrutiny Committee, tribe certificate issued in favour of the
appellant invalidated - Challenge to - High Court upheld
the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee holding that           E
the appellant willfully misled the Scrutiny Committee for
securing validity certificate wrongfully - Interference with -
Held: Not called for - However, on account of inordinate
delay in considering the certificate of the appellant, the
benefit of the certificate already availed by appellant not       F
to be disturbed - Appellant not entitled to any further
benefit of reservation.

    Dattu slo Namdev Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra &
Others 2011 (13) SCR 475: (2012) 1 SCC 549; Shalini G
vs. New English High School Association & Ors. 2013 (12)
SCR 807: (2013) 16 SCC 526 - referred to.


                             745                                  H
    746         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 8 S.C.R.


    A                        Case Law Reference
               2011(13)SCR475        referredto. Para12
               2013 (12) SCR 807     referred to. Para 12

    B         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
          5778 of 2015.    ·

               From the Judgment and Order dated 17.12.2013 of the
          High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench atAurangabad in
    C     Writ Petition No. 5160 of2012.

             Meenakshi Arora, Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Rana
          Sandeep Bussa for the Appellant.

             Arun R. Pedneker and Nishant R. Katneshwarkar for the
    D     Respondents.

              The Order of the Court was delivered by

              M. Y. EQBAL, J. 1. Leave granted.

    E          2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the
          order dated 17.12.2013 passed by the High Court of Bombay,
          Bench atAurangabad, whereby the High Court has dismissed
          the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.

    F         3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.

           4. The appellant herein claims to be belonging to 'Kali
      Mahadev' a scheduled tribe community. According to the
      appellant he separated from his family as there was dispute in
    G respect of the property with his father and for quite some time,
      the appellant have no relationship or communication with his
      father and other family members.

              5. Since the appellant has secured employment with Zilla
    H     Parishad, Beed, on the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe




I
    RAJESHWAR BABURAO BONE v. THE STATE OF                          747
          MAHARASHTRA[M. Y EQBAL, J.]

category, the tribe certificate issued in his favour was referred    A
to the Scrutiny Committee for verification after 18 years from
the date of appointment The appellant submitted several
documents in support of his claim including the oldest record
of 1348 fasali pertaining to his grandfather namely Gundaji
Narsingh Bone wherein his caste is recorded as Mahadev Koli.         B

      6. The claim of the appellant was referred to vigilance
·cell and vigilance officer has conducted the home and school
 enquiry. On consideration of all the documents furnished by
 the appellant including affidav~s as well as forms filled in by C
 the appellant, the Scrutiny Committee proceeded to i~sue
 validity certificate by reasoned order dated 19.06.2010.

     7. It was later on revealed that tribe certificate issued in
favour of appellant's brother by name Sharadkumar Baburao            D
Bone has been invalidated by the Committee by order dated
20.10.2004 and said order was communicated to him on
27 .10.2004. The writ petition challenging the order passed
by the Committee invalidating tribe claim of the brother of the
appellant, being Writ Petition No. 6934 of 2004, has been            E
dismissed by the High Court. The SLP filed against that order
of the High Court has been dismissed by this Court.

      8. The Scrutiny Committee, as such, decided to
reconsider the matter concerning issuance of validity certificate F
in favour of the appellant The appellant was duly noticed by
the Committee and after extending opportunity of hearing to
the appellant, the Scrutiny Committee by order dated
24.2.2012 recalled its earlier order and directed invalidation
of tribe certificate of the appellant In paragraph nos. 7,8,9, G
and 10, the Scrutiny Committee has observed thus:-

     " Applicant has submitted in Form 'E' in which column
     No.17(a) it is specifically asked that whether any family
     member from your family members previously verified?            H
748         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (2015] 8 S.C.R.


A          Applicant answered that, 'No'.

           Applicant filed affidavit, notorised before notary on
           13.1.2009 in format 'F' in which he specially made
           statement on oath, "No scheduled tribe certificate of any
B          of my relatives from paternal side is ever held invalid by
           the Scrutiny Committee.

            Applicant also submitted another affidavit dated •
            16.3.2009 in which he again made fake statement that
c           'Any of my sister and brother or blood relatives bears
          . surname as Bone whose claim never invalidated by the
            Committee or no any petition pending before any Court.

           The Police inspector of vigilance cell recorded statement
           on 9.4.2009 of applicant's father namely Shri Baburao
D
           Gundaji Bone. He also again made statement that "in
           my family, in Bone surnames or in my relatives whose
           claim never invalidated by the committee or no any
           petition pending before any Court."
E          9. The appellant challenged the aforesaid order dated
      24.2.2012 passed by the Scrutiny Committee by filing a writ
      petition being writ petition No.5160 of 2012 in the High Court
      of Bombay atAurangabad Bench. The High Court after hearing
F     the appellant dismissed the writ petition and observed as
      under:-

          "In our opinion, petitioner has willfully misled the Scrutiny
          Committee for securing validity certificate wrongfully. The
          petitioner is guilty of making false statements on oath
G         before the Scrutiny Committee. As a result of
          misrepresentation made by the petitioner earlier, the
          Scrutiny Committee had issued validity certificate in his
          favour. However, after realizing fraudulent act of the
          petitioner, the Committee proceeded to recall its earlier
H
    RAJESHWAR BABURAO BONE v. THE STATE OF                       749
          MAHARASHTRA[M.Y. EQBAL, J.]

    order. Since the petitioner has played fraud by filing false A
    affidavits on record before the Committee, the Committee
    was justified in recalling its earlier order of granting validity
    certificate in favour of the petitioner. It is well established
    that in the event of occurrence of fraud, Scrutiny
    Committee can recall its earlier order even in the absence B
    of specific provision enabling the Committee to exercise
    powers of review."

    10. Hence the present Appeal by Special Leave.
                                                                  c
     11. We have heard Mrs. MeenakshiArora learned senior
counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Arun R. Pedneker,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State.

     12. Mrs. Meenakshi Arora, put heavy reliance on the
decision of this Court in the case of Dattu s/o Namdev D
Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra & ,Others (2012) 1 SCC
549 and Shalini vs. New English High School Association
& Ors. (2013) 16 SCC 526. We have carefully examined the
ratio decided by this Court in the decisions referred to E
hereinabove.

     13. In the instant case, the appellant claimed to be a
 member of scheduled tribe on the basis of false statements
and false affidavits submitted by him. At the same time F
indisputably in the year 1991, the appellant got employment
on the basis of his claim to be a member of scheduled tribe.
After 18 years of his employment, the matter was referred to a
Scrutiny Committee for verification. On consideration of all
the documents, the enquiry conducted by vigilance cell, a G
validity certificate was issued by the Scrutiny Committee on
19.06.2010. However the matter was reconsidered by the
Scrutiny Committee for the reason that the tribe certificate
issued in favour of his brother was invalidated by the
Committee in 2004 and the order attained finality up to this H
750         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2015] 8 S.C.R.


A     Court. The Scrutiny Committee after giving opportunity recalled
      its earlier order dated 19.6.2010, whereby validity certificate
      was issued in favour of the appellant.

       14. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of
B the opinion that the impugned order passed by the High Court
  needs no interference and this appeal deserves to be
  dismissed. However, we hold that because of inordinate delay
  in considering the certificate of the appellant, the benefit of
  the certificate already availed by the appellant shall not be
C disturbed making it clear that the appellant shall not be entitled
  to take any further benefit of reservation in future including the
  benefit of continuing in service.

          15. In the result, this appe<!I is dismissed with the
D     observation made hereinabove.

      NidhiJain                                     Appeal dismissed.