Holding

The 2000 Act prevails over the Government Resolution and, because the respondent was appointed after 15 June 1995 and held a false caste certificate, he is not entitled to protection and his appointment is invalidated.

Summary

The respondent, Sanjay K. Nimje, was appointed to a Maharashtra government post on 29 June 1995 and claimed Scheduled Tribe status as a member of the Halba community. A Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee examined his certificate and found him to belong to the Koshti caste, a Special Backward Class, invalidating his certificate. Nimje sought relief on the ground that a Government Resolution dated 15 June 1995 protected the services of persons selected before that date, arguing that he was selected on 15 June 1995. The High Court accepted this argument and ordered his reinstatement. The Supreme Court held that the resolution could not apply because the appointment date was after 15 June 1995, and that the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (sections 6, 7 and 10) being a legislative enactment prevails over the resolution; consequently, a person appointed on a false certificate cannot retain the benefit. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court order.

Issues considered

Whether the Government Resolution dated 15 June 1995 applies to a person appointed on 29 June 1995 but selected on 15 June 1995.
Whether the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000 overrides the Government Resolution in matters of caste certificate verification.
Whether a government employee appointed on the basis of a false caste certificate is entitled to retain his service.
Scope of the Supreme Court's discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 in such service law matters.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 136, s. Article 341, s. Article 342
Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Acts. 10, s. 6, s. 7

Subjects

reservationcaste certificatescheduled tribegovernment resolutionlegislative supremacyservice lawfalse certificatediscretionary jurisdictionArticle 136

Judgment

/\
1

A STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.-
v. <
SANJAY K. NIMJE

JANUARY 16, 2007

B [S.B. SINHAAND MARKANDEY KATW, JJ.]

Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes ~
)

(Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special
Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste
c Certificate Act, 2000---ss. 6, 7 and JO-Government service-On the basis ~

of r.aste certificate showing the procurer thereof belonging to Scheduled
°'!•
Tribe-Verification of Certificate-Certificate invalidated finding that he
did not belong to Scheduled Tribe-Invalidation challenged-High Court
on the basis of Government resolution protected the service-On appeal
held: Government Resolution was not applicable to the employee as the
D pre-condition thereof was not fulfilled-The Act being the legislative act
would prevail over any Government Resolution-In view of the provisions '"'-·
of the Act, invalidation justified-Service Law-Reservation-Con~titution
of India, 1950---Articles 341 and 342.

E Constitution of India, 1950---Article 136-Discretionary jurisdiction
under-Exercise of-Held: Exercise of discretionary jurisdiction would
depend upon facts and circumstances of each case.

Respondent was appointed on 29.6.1995 in State Government services.
He claimed to be belonging to 'Halba' community, a scheduled tribe. On
,..
F
doubt, the caste certificate procured by the respondent, was referred to
Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee for verification. He was found to be
belonging to 'Koshti' caste which came within the category of 'special
backward class' and not within the scheduled tribe category. His caste
certificate wP..s invalidated.
G
Respondent filed Writ Petition. He accepted the findings of the Caste
Scrutiny Committee but claimed protection. The petition was allowed by
High Court observing that though the respondent was appointed on 29.6.1995,
but since he was selected on 15.6.1995, he was entitled to protection under ~
...
H a Government Resolution whereby the services of persons who were
%0
I
STATEv. SANJAYK.NIMJE 961

appointed prior to 15.6.1995 were protected. Hence the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Respondent admittedly was appointed on 29.06.1995.
Although he might have been selected on 15.06.1995, ex facie, the said
Government Resolution dated 15.06.1995 would have no application in his B
case. Once the respondent became disentitled to obtain the benefit of the
said Government Resolution dated 15.06.1995, Maharashtra Scheduled
Caste, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic
Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Sp_ecial Backward Category
(Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 C
will apply in his case. The 2000 Act being a legislative Act would prevail
over any Government Resolution. A Government Resolution may be
beneficient in nature but it is well-settled that a benefit under a Government
Resolution cannot be extended to a person who does not satisfy the
conditions precedent thereof. [Paras 14, 15 and 16) [967-G-H, 968-A)
D
1.2. Thus, it is a clear case where the provisions of the Act would
apply. There is no reason as to why the statutory provisions should not be
_,
directed to apply in the instant case. It may be that at one point of time,
keeping in view the stand taken in particular case, some indulgence had
been shown. Indulgence might have been shown to the students or who were E
found to have acted bona fide but the same would not mean that this Court
would pass an order contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of a
legislative act. [Para 23) [969-D-EJ

Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal
Development and Ors., [1994] 6 sec 241, referred to. F
,
•.
1.3. In any event, the effect of the judgment of this Court as also the
provisions of a statute in the light of the constitutional provisions contained
in Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India cannot be diluted by
reason of a Government Resolution or otherwise.[Para 171 [968-B)
G
2. Ordinarily a person, who has obtained appointment on the basis of
a false certificate, cannot retain the said benefit. [Para 19) [968-F)

State of Maharashtra and Ors. "·Ravi Prakash Babula/sing Parmar
and Anr., [2006) 10 SCALE 575 : [2007) 1 SCC 80, referred to. H
\
962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) I S.C.R.
··-
·~-

I
./
A Bank of India and Another v. Avinash D. Mandivikar and Ors., (2005)
7 SCC 690, Ram Saran v. J.G. of Police, CRPF and Ors., (2006) 2 SCALE
131; The Superintendent of Post Offices and Ors. v. R. Valasina Babu, Civil I
Appeal No. 5868 of 2006 disposed of on 14.12.2006 by Supreme Court,
relied on.

B 3. Respondent was not the member of a tribe. If a person is not a
member of a tribe, the question of the said tribe being a scheduled tribe ,
,_
"f
would not arise. [Para 22] (969-C]

State ofMaharashtra v. Mi/ind and Ors., (2000) 1SCC4, distinguished.
c 4. In a situation· of this nature, whether the court will refuse to
~

'

exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution
of India or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
(Para 20) (968-H)

D Sandeep Subhash Parate v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2006) 8
'-..
J
SCALE 503, relied on.
(·•

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 231 of2007. >'

From the Judgment and Final Order dated 19.8.2005 of the High Court
E of Judicature of Bombay in W.P. No. 4158/2005.

Aprajita Singh, S.S. Shinde and V.N. Raghupathy for the Appellants.

Manish Pitale and Chander Shekhar Ashri for the Respondent. k
r
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
·~·
I
S.B. SINHA, J. : 1. Leave granted.
~
2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 19.08.2005 ,,
G passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay in
l
Writ Petition No. 4158 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the writ petition
filed by the respondent herein was allowed.
;...

3. Respondent was appointed in the services of the Government of
Maharashtra on 29.06.1995. Respondent claimed to be belonging tp Halba
H
STATEv. SANJAYK. NIMJE [SINHA,J.] 963

community, a scheduled tribe. The caste certificate procured by the A
respondent from the competent officer having been doubted, the matter was
.....
referred to the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur on 27.08.1999
for verification. The respondent was found to be belonging to 'Koshti' caste
which comes within the category of 'special backward class' and not within
the scheduled tribe category.
B
4. The question as to whether 'Koshti - Halbas' are members of the
Scheduled Tribe or not came up for consideration before this Court in State
of Maharashtra v. Mi/ind and Others, [2001] 1 SCC 4, wherein it was held
that they were not.
c
5. In view of the finding of fact that the respondent herein was not a
member of the scheduled tribe but was a 'Koshti', his caste certificate was
invalidated by an order dated 24.06.2004.

6. A writ petition thereafter was filed by the respondent before the D
Hig~ Court praying inter alia for the following reliefs:

"(A) That by passing a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature
of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction, a quash and set aside the order ... dated 24.6.2004 passed
by the Respondent No. 2 Committee invalidating the tribe claim of E
Petitioner that he belongs to Halba, Scheduled Tribe.

(B) It be held and declared that in view of Government Resolutions
dated 15.6.1995 and 30.6.2004 the services of Petitioner's are liable
to be protected thereby issuing such order to the Respondent Nos. F
2 and 3.

(C) During the pendency of present petition by passing an order
ad interim in nature stay the effect, operation and implementation
of the order .... dated 24.6.2004 invalidating tribe claim of Petitioner
and/ or in the alternative restrain the Respondents No. 1 and 3 from G
passing any adverse order consequent upon invalidation of tribe
claim of petitioner by Respondent No. 2 Committee."

7. It appears that the respondent accepted the findings of the Caste
Scrutiny Conimittee. However, relying on or on the basis of a purported H
964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] l S.C.R

A government resolution dated 15 .06.1995 whereby and whe;-eunder the services I.
of persons who were appointed prior thereto were sought to be protected,
the Division Bench of the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment
..."
directed that although the respondent was appointed on 29.06.1995, having
regard to the fact that he had been selected on 15.06.1995, he was entitled
to protection in terms of the said resolution stating:
B
"5. In the present case the Petitioner was selected on 15th June,
1995 and gc:it the appointment order on 29th June, 1995. Since ~

Maruti Sandipan Jadhav the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 422 of
1997, is entitled to get the benefit under the Government Resolution
c dated 15th June, 1995 the same principle should be applied to the
Petitfoner in the present petition. ;-

6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of
dismissal dated 27th May 2005 is quashed and set aside. The
Respondents are directed to reinstate the Petitioner with continuity
D
of service but without back wages and to regularize his service in
the light of the Government Resolution dated 15th June, 1995 ... " ·,

~--
8. Mr. S.S. Shinde, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants,
would submit that hav~ng regard fo the decision of the Caste Scrutiny
E Committee, the impugnedjudgmerit cannot be sustained particularly in view
of the fact that he was appointed on 29.06.1995.

9. Mr. Manish Pitale, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent, on the other hand, would submit that in a case of this nature
F and particularly in view of the fact that the question as to whether 'Koshti-
Halbas' are the members of the scheduled tribe or not had authoritatively
been pronounced only in Mi/ind (supra); this Court may protect the services
..,,
of the respondent. Reliance in this behalf has been placed in a similar case
in Civil Appeal No. 3375 of 2000 decided on 12.12.2000, which is in the
following terms:
G
"The appellant having belonged to Koshti caste claimed to be
included in the scheduled tribe of Halba and obtained an
appointment as Assistant Engineer. When his appointment was
1-c:
sought to be terminated on the basis that he did not belong to
H scheduled tribe by the Government a writ petition was filed before
STATEv. SANJAYK.NIMJE [SINHA,J.] 965

the High Court challenging that order which was allowed. That A
order is questioned in this appeal. The questions arising in this
case are covered by the decision in State of Maharashtra v. Mi/ind
& Ors., (2000] 7 SCALE 628 and was got to be allowed, however,
the benefits derived till now shall be available to the appellant to
the effect that his appointment as Assistant Engineer shall stand
protected but no further. The appeal is disposed of accordingly."
B
.. 10. Indisputably, the State of Maharashtra enacted "Maharashtra
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis),
Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category
(Regulation oflssuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (for C
short "the 2000 Act"). Section 6 of the 2000 Act laid down the procedure
for the verification of caste certificate. Section 7 thereof provides for
confiscation and cancellation of a caste certificate in the event the same
appears to be false. Section 10 provides for withdrawal of the benefits
secured on the basis of the false caste certificate in the following terms: D
"IO. Benefits secured on the basis offalse Caste Certificate to be
withdrawn.- (1) Whoever not being a person belonging to any of
the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes,
(Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special
Backward Category secures admission in any educational institution E
against a seat reserved for such Castes, Tribes or Classes, or
secures any appointment in the Government, local autho~ity or in
any other Company or Corporation, owned or controlled by the
Government or in any Government aided institution or Co-operative
Society against a post reserved for such Castes, Tribes or Classes F
by producing a false Caste Certificate shall, on CID).Cellation of the
Caste Certificate by the Scrutiny Committee, be liable to be debarred
from the concerned educational institution, or as the case may be,
discharged from the said employment forthwith and any other
benefits enjoyed or derived by virtue of such admission or
appointment by such person as aforesaid shall be withdrawn G
forthwith.

(2) Any amount paid to such person by the Government or
any other agency by way of scholarship, grant, allowance or other
financial benefit shall be recovered from such person as an arrear H
966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 1 S.C.R.

A of land revenue.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any Act for the
time being in force, any Degree, Diploma or any other educational
qualification acquired by such person after securing admission in
any educational institution on the basis of a Caste Certificate which
B is subsequently proved to be false shall also stand cancelled, on
cancellation of such Caste Certificate, by the Scrutiny Committee. ..
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the
time being in force, a person shall be disqualified for being a
c member of any statutory body if he had contested the election for
local authority, Co-operative Society or any statutory body on the
seat reserved for any of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-
notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward
Classes or Special Backward Category by procuring a false Caste
Certificate as belonging to such Caste, Tribe or Class on such false
D
Caste Certificate being cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee, and .
any benefits obtained by such person shall be recoverable as
arrears of land revenue and the election of such person shall be
deemed to have been tenninated retrospectively."

E 11. The Caste Scrutiny Committee was initially constituted in terms of
the decision of this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. v. Additional
Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors., [1994] 6 SCC 241. The Committee
which was now constituted iri terms of the 2000 Act issued a notice upon
the respondent. He was given an opportunity of hearing. The principles of
F natural justice had, thus, been complied with. The Caste Scrutiny Committee
opined that the respondent failed to prove that his socio-cultural traits,
characteristics, festivals and customs match with those of Halba, Scheduled
Tribe community. It was found that the father of the respondent himself had
given details of his family tree as also socio-cultural traits which categorically
showed that the respondent was not a member of the Scheduled Tribe
G community. Even the primary school leaving certificate of the respondent's
father clearly showed that they belonged to 'Koshti'. It was ordered:

"After considering all the documents and facts and in exercise of
the powers vested vide Government Resolutions quoted in the
H preamble at Sr.No. I, the Caste Scrutiny Committee has come to the
-
STATEv. SANJAYK. NIMJE [SINHA,J.] 967

conclusion that Shri Sanjay Krushnarao Nimje does not belong to A
the Halba Scheduled Tribe hence his claim towards the same is held
invalid. His caste certificate granted by the Executive Magistrate,
Nagpur vide R.C.No.287/MRC-81/88-89, dated 1.9.88 is hereby
cancelled confiscated."

12. It is accepted that an undertaking was filed by the respondent B
accepting the order passed by Appellant No. 3 Committee before the High
Court in the following terms:

"The Petitioner is filing this pursis/undertaking that he accepts the
order passed by the Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee and c
further undertakes that he or his legal heirs/progeny will not claim
any benefit as a schedule Tribe Candidate either in education or in
employment.

In view of the Government Resolution dated 15.6.1995 and the
judgment uf this Hon'ble Court, filed along with this petition as D
Annexure T, the services of the Petitioner be protected and he may
be continued in service by giving specific directions to the
Respondent employer."

13. Indisputably, on 7.12.1994, 'Koshtis' were declared to be as Special E
Backward Class category. By reason of the said Government Resolution
dated 15.06.1995, it was directed:

"The reservation as aforesaid given to Special Backward Class
category is applicable to direct recruitment and promotions and the
Creamy layer criteria is not applicable to this category. The persons F
from this category who have entered into service and has obtained
promotion on the basis of Schedule Tribe Certificates, they should
not be reverted or terminated from service."

14. Respondent admittedly was appointed on 29.06.1995. Although he
G
might have been selected on 15.06.1995, ex facie, the said Government
ResolutiOn dated 15.06.1995 would have no application in his case.

15. Once the respondent became disentitled to obtain the benefit of the
said Government Resolution dated 15.06.1995, the 2000 Act will apply in his
case. H
968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 1 S.C.R.

A 16. The 2000 Act being a legislative Act would prevail over any
Government Resolution. A Government Resolution may be beneficient in
nature but it is well-settled that a benefit under a Government Resolution
cannot be extended to a person who does not satisfy the conditions
precedent thereof.

B 17. In any event, the effect of the judgment of this Court as also the
provisions of a statute in the light of the constitutional provisions contained
in Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India cannot be diluted by
reason of a Government Resolution or otherwise.

C 18. The extent of jurisdiction of the Caste Scrutiny Committee came up
for consideration before this Court in State of Maharashtra and Others v.
Ravi Prakash Babula/sing Parmar & Anr., [2006] 10 SCALE 575 : [2007] 1
SCC 80 wherein this Court categorically held that the Caste Scrutiny
Committee has the requisite jurisdiction in relation thereto, stating:

D "The makers of the Constitution laid emphasis on equality amongst
citizens. Constitution oflndia provides for protective discrimination
and reservation so as to enable the disadvantaged group to come
on the same platform as that of the forward community. If and when
a person takes an undue advantage of the said beneficent provision
E of the Constitution by obtaining the benefits of reservation and
other benefits provided under the Presidential Order although he is
not entitled thereto, he not only plays a fraud on the society but
in effect and substance plays a fraud on the Constitution. When,
therefore, a certificate is granted to a person who is not otherwise
F entitled thereto, it is entirely incorrect to contend that the State
shall be helpless spectator in the matter."

19. We may also notice that ordinarily a person, who has obtained
appointment on the basis of a false certificate, cannot retain the said benefit.
[See Bank of India and Another v. Avinash D. Mandivikar and Others,
G [2005] 7 SCC 690, Ram Saran v. IG. ofPolice, CRPF & Ors., [2006] 2 SCALE
13 I and The Superintendent of Post Offices & Ors. v. R. Valasina Babu,
Civil Appeal No. 5868 of2006, disposed of on 14.12.2006]

20. In a situation of this nature, whether the court will refuse to exercise
H its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India
STATE v. SANJAYK. NIMJE [SINHA, J.] 969
)
or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. This A
aspect of the matter has been considered recently by this Court in Sandeep
Subhash Parate v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., [2006] 8 SCALE 503.

21. 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 Scheduled Tribe.
B
... They were not even 'Koshti-Halbas'. It may be true that an authoritative
pronouncement in this behalf came for the first time in Mi/ind (supra), but
it is not a case where the respondent pleaded and proved bona fide.

22. Respondent was not the member of a tribe. If a person is not a C
member of a tribe, the question of the said tribe being a scheduled tribe
would not arise.

23. Thus, it is a clear case where the provisions of the 2000 Act would
apply. We see no reason as to why the statutory provisions should not be D
r' directed to apply in the instant case. It may be that at· one point of time,
keeping in view of the stand taken in particular case, some indulgence had
been shown. Indulgence might have been shown to the students or who
were found to have acted bona fide but the same would not mean that this
Court would pass an order contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions
of a legislative act. E

24. Our attention was drawn to an order dated 12th December, 2000
pas~ed in Civil Appeal No. 3375 of 2000, but it does not appear the
provisions of the 2000 Act had been brought to the notice of this Court
therein. Furthermore, we are not aware as to the fact involved therein and, F
thus, the same cannot be treated to be a precedent.

25.For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be
sustained, which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. In the facts
.and circumstances of the case, however, we make no order as to costs.
G
K.KT. Appeal allowed.