YOGESH RAMCHANDRA NAIKWADIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

                         (2008] 5 S.C.R. 456


A              YOGESH RAMCHANDRA NAIKWADI
                                  V.
             STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
                (Civil Appeal No. 2079 of 2008)

                          MARCH 7, 2008
8
    [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJ. & R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
                                                                      "'
        Education - Admission - Appellant, claiming to be
  member of the Scheduled Tribe, sought admission to
c Engineering Course - Caste claim rejected by Scrutiny
  Committee - Writ petition - High Court passed interim order
  directing the Director of Technical Education to accept the
  admission form of Appellant without insisting upon the
  validation of caste and to process the same as if Appellant
  belonged to Scheduled Tribe - Appellant granted benefit of
D
  reservation and admitted to Engineering course - He
  completed the course and was conferred degree - Writ petition
  filed by Appellant ultimately dismissed thereby upholding the
  order of Scrutiny Committee - Direction given 'by High Court
  for recall of the degree granted to Appellant - Challenge to -
E Held: If Appellant's admission or degree is to be annulled, it is
  to nobody's benefit as his seat cannot be offered to someone
  else - There is also no allegation that Appellant forged or faked
  the caste certificate - His admission to engineering course
  was nearly thirteen years back and he secured the degree
F more than four years back - Therefore, Appellant permitted to
  retain the benefit of the degree but subject to certain terms.
       Appellant sought admission to Engineering course
  claiming benefit of reservation on the ground that he
G
  belonged to a Scheduled Tribe. The Scrutiny Committee
  rejected the claim of Appellant after verification of his caste
                                                                            ..
  certificate. Appellant challenged the order of Scrutiny
  Committee by filing writ petition. High Court passed                 ..
  interim order directing Respondent No.3 (Director of

H                                456
       YOGESH RAMCHANDRA NAIKWADI v. STATE OF              457
                MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

     Technical Education, State of Maharashtra) to accept the A
     application of appellant for admission by treating him as
     a candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe, but with the
     condition that the admission was provisional and subject
     to final decision of the Court. Appellant was granted the
     benefit of reservation and admitted to the Engineering B
)
     course. He completed_ the course and was conferred
     degree. Two years thereafter, writ petition filed by
     Appellant was dismissed thereby upholding the order of
     Scrutiny Committee. Direction was given by the High
     Court to Respondent No.3 to take appropriate steps for      c
     recall of the degree granted to the Apiiellant.       ·
          In appeal to this Court, it was contended by the
     Appellant that even if his Scheduled Tribe claim was.
     rejected, he should not have been denied the benefit of
     degree obtained by him. In support of this contention, he D
     relied on the decisions of this Court in Mi/ind* and R.
     Vishwanatha Pillai** case.
         Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
          HELD:1.1. In Mi/ind and Vishwanatha Pillai, the E
     candidates apparently believed that they belonged to a
     scheduled tribe/caste when they sought admission and
     were admitted. Further, their caste certificates showing
     them as belonging to a scheduled tribe/caste had not
     been invalidated when they were admitted to the course. F
     The direction in both cases permitting retention of degree ·
~-   was in exercise of power under Article 142 of the
     Constitution. [Para 5] [462-D & E]
           1.2. There may however be cases where it will not be
     proper to permit the student to retain the degree obtained G
     by making a false claim. One .example is where the
     candidates secure seats by producing forged or fake
     caste certificates. There may be cases, where knowing
     full well that they do not belong to a scheduled tribe/caste,
     candidates may make a false claim that they belong to a H
    458      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2008] 5 S.C.R.


A scheduled tribe/caste. There may also be cases where
  even before the date of admission, the caste certificates
  of the candidates might have been invalidated on
  verification by the Scrutiny Committee. There may be
  cases where the admissions may be in pursuance of
B interim orders granted by courts subject to final decision
  making it clear that the candidate will not be entitled to
  claim any equities by reason of the admission. The benefit
  extended in Mi/ind and Vishwanatha Pillai, cannot
  obviously be extended uniformly to all such cases. Each
c case may have to be considered on its own merits. Further
  what has precedential value is the ratio decidendi of the
  decision and not the direction issued while moulding the
  relief in exercise of power under Article 142 on the special
  facts and circumstances of a case. Therefore, Mi/ind and
  Vishwanatha Pillai cannot be considered as laying down a
0
  proposition that in every case where a candidate's caste claim
  is rejected by a caste verification committee, the candidate
  should invariably be permitted to retain the benefit of the
  admission and the consequential degree, irrespective of
  the facts. [Para 6] [462-F, G & H; 463-A, 8 & C]
E
        1.3. As the caste ciaim of the appellant had been
  rejected by the Scrutiny Committee even before
  admission, his case stands on a different footing. But in
  this case though the scrutiny committee had rejected the
F appellant's claim even prior to his admission to the
  professional course, the High Court had directed the
  Director of Technical Education to accept the admission
  form of appellant without insisting upon the validation of
  caste and to process the same as if appellant belonged
G to Scheduled Tribe, making it clear that admission if any
  made was provisional, and if the appellant failed in his
  petition he will not be entitled to the benefit of degree he
  may obtain. However, as observed in Mi/ind, if the
  appellant's admission or degree is to be annulled, it is to
  nobody's benefit as his seat cannot be offered to someone
H
       YOGESH RAMCHANDRA NAIKWADI v. STATE OF                   459
                MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

    else. There is also no allegation that appellant forged or         A
    faked the caste certificate. His admission to engineering
    course was nearly thirteen years back and he secured
    the degree more than four years back. Therefore, the
    appellant should be permitted to retain the benefit of the
    degree but subject to terms. The first is that he shall not        B
    claim or seek any further benefit by claiming to belong to
    a scheduled Tribe. The second is that if the State has
    spent or incurred any expenditure on the appellant's
    professional degree education by extending the benefit
    of exemption from payment of fee or award of scholarship           c
    or by extending the benefit of concession in fee (that is
    less than what is charged to general category students)
    by treating him as a Scheduled Tribe candidate, the
    appellant cannot retain such financial benefits. The third
    Respondent may, on behalf of the State Government, take
                                                                       D
1   appropriate steps to enquire and assess the amount, if
    any spent on the appellant either towards fee, scholarship
    or by way of concession in fee and make a demand on
    appellant for payment thereof. If the appellant fails to pay
    the amount so found due within six months of the demand
    by the third Respondent, the third Respondent may take             E
    steps for recalling the degree granted to the appellant. If
    no amount is found to be due or if the amount determined
    and demanded is paid by appellant, he may be permitted
    to retain the degree obtained by him. [Para 7] [463-D, E, F,
    G & H; 464-A, B, C & DJ                                            F

          *State of Maharashtra V. Mi/ind (2001) 1 sec 4 and **R.
    Vishwanatha Pillai v State of Kera/a - (2004) 2 SCC 105 -
    referred to.
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.                G
    2079 of 2008.
         From the final Judgment and Order dated 28.3.2006 of
    the High Court of Judicature of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2667
    of 1995.
                                                                       H
    460       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2008] 5 S.C.R.


A        Vinod A. Bobde, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Rahul Joshi and Brij
    Kishor Sah for the Appellant.
        Sanjay V. Kharde and Asha Gopalan Nair for the
    Respondents.
8         The Order of the Court was delivered by
         K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI. Leave granted. Heard
    learned counsel for the parties.
          2. The appellant sought admission to Engineering course
c claiming the benefit of reservation alleging that he belonged to
  'Mahadeo Koli' - a scheduled tribe. The Scrutiny Committee
  which verified the validity of his caste certificate, made an order
  dated 29.3.1995 rejecting his claim that he belonged to a
  Scheduled Tribe. The appellant challenged the order of the
D scrutiny committee in W.P. No.2667/1995. In the said petition,
  the Bombay High Court issued an interim order directing the
  third respondent (Director of Technical Education, State of
  Maharashtra) to accept the application of Appellant for
  admission to BE course and process the same and give
  admission by treating him as a candidate belonging to a
E scheduled tribe, with a condition that the admission, if granted,
  will be provisional and subject to the final decision. In pursuance
  of it, the appellant was admitted to the BE course by extending
  the benefit of reservation under the quota for Scheduled Tribes.
  Eventually he completed the Engineering course and was
F conferred a degree by the University of Pune on 31.3.2004.
       3. The writ petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed
  by order dated 28.3.2006, upholding the order of the Scrutiny
  Committee, with a direction to the third Respondent to take
G appropriate steps for recall_ of the degree granted to the
  appellant. The said order of the High Court is challenged in this
  appeal by special leave. The only contention urged by the
  appellant is that even if his scheduled tribe claim was rejected,
  he should not have been denied the benefit of the degree
H obtained by him. In support of this contention, he relied on the
       YOGESH RAMCHANDRA NAIKWADI v. STATE OF                     461
      MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]

     decisions of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Mi/ind- (2001)   A
     1 SCC 4 and R. Vishwanatha Pillai v State of Kera/a - (2004)
     2 sec 105.
           4. In Mi/ind, a Constitution Bench of this Court while
     rejecting the caste claim of first Respondent therein, extended
     the benefit of retention of degree to him on the following          B
     reasoning :-

           "Respondent 1 joined the medical course for the year
           1985-86. Almost 15 years have passed by now. We are
           told he has already completed the course and may be he c
           is practicing as a doctor. In this view and at this length of
           time it is for nobody's benefit to annul his admission. Hege
           amount is spent on each candidate for completion of
           medical course. No doubt, one Scheduled Tribe candidate
           was deprived of joining medical course by the admission
                                                                         D
           given to Respondent 1. If any action is taken against
           Respondent 1, it may lead to depriving the service of a
           doctor to the society on whom public money has already
           been spent. In these circumstances, this judgment shall
           not affect the degree obtained by him and his practicing
           as a doctor. But we make it clear that he cannot claim to E
           belong to the Scheduled Tribe covered by the Scheduled
           Tribes Order. In other words, he cannot take advantage of
           the Scheduled Tribes Order any further or for any other
           constitutional purpose."
                                                                         F
           In Vishwanatha Pillai, this Court, following Mi/ind,
~·
     permitted one of the appellants therein, who had been admitted
     to an Engineering Degree College against a seat reserved for
     a scheduled caste and whose caste claim was negatived, to
     be allowed to take his degree with the condition that he will not
                                                                         G
     be treated as a Scheduled Caste candidate in future either for
     securing employment or other benefits on the basis of the
     cancelled caste certificate.
         5. In Mi/ind, the question was whether the first respondent
     who belonged to 'Koshti' caste could claim the benefit of ST        H
    462       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2008] 5 S.C.R.


A reseNation on the ground that it was a sub-tribe of 'Halba' [Entry
  No.19 in Part IX of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order
  1950]. This Court held that 'Koshti' was not a part of the
  Scheduled Tribe of Halba and that the entries in the Scheduled
  Tribes Order could not be amended or expanded by any
B Authority. As a consequence, the State's appeal was allowed
  and the claim of first respondent therein that he belonged to a        f
  scheduled tribe was rejected. Having allowed the State's appeal,
  this Court moulded the relief in exercise of its power under Article
  142 by permitting the first Respondent therein to retain the
C benefit of his degree (for the reasons extracted above).
  Vishwanatha Pillai merely followed Mi/ind. In Mi/ind, there was
  a bona fide doubt as to whether 'Halba-Koshti' could be
  considered as 'Halba'. In Vishwanatha Pillai, the candidate's
  caste certificate was cancelled merely as a consequence of
  cancellation of his father's caste certificate. Thus in Mi/ind and
0
  Vishwanatha Pillai, the candidates apparently believed that they
  belonged to a scheduled tribe/caste when they sought admission
  and were admitted. Further, their caste certificates showing them
  as belonging to a scheduled tribe/caste had not been
  invalidated when they were admitted to the course. The direction
E in both cases permitting retention of degree was in exercise of
  power under Article 142 of the Constitution.
        6. There may however be cases where it will not be proper
  to permit the student to retain the degree obtained by making a
F false claim. One example is where the candidates secure seats
  by producing forged or fake caste certificates. There may be
  cases, where knowing full well that they do not belong to a
  scheduled t~ibe/caste, candidates may make a false claim that
  they belong to a scheduled tribe/caste. There may also be cases
G where even before the date of admission, the caste certificates
  of the candidates might have been invalidated on verification
  by the Scrutiny Committee. There may be cases where the
  admissions may be in pursuance of interim orders granted by
  courts subject to final decision making it clear that the candidate
  will not be entitled to claim any equities by reason of the
H
               YOGESH RAMCHANDRA NAIKWADI v. STATE OF                          463
              MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
      -'!
             admission. The benefit extended in Mi/ind and Vishwanatha A
             Pillai, cannot obviously be extended uniformly to all such cases.
             Each case may have to be considered on its own merits. Further
             what has precedential value is the ratio decidendi of the decision
             and not the direction issued while moulding the relief in exercise
             of power under Article 142 on the special facts and B
    t        circumstances of a case. We are therefore of the view that Mi/ind
             and Vishwanatha Pillai cannot be considered as laying down a
             proposition that in every case where a candidate's caste claim
•            is rejected by a caste verification committee, the candidate
             should invariably be permitted to retain the benefit of the c
             admission and the consequential degree, irrespective of the
             facts.
                   7. We may therefore examine the facts of this case to
             decide whether the appellant should be given any benefit and if
      ..,.   so whether they should be similar to relief granted in Mi/ind and         D
             Vishwanatha Pillai. As the caste claim of the appellant had been
             rejected by the Scrutiny Committee even before admission, this
             case stands on a different footing. But in this case though the
             scrutiny committee had rejected the appellant's claim even prior
             to his admission to the professional course, the High Court by            E
             order dated 22.6.1995 had directed the Director of Technical
             Education to accept the admission form of appellant without
             insisting upon the validation of caste and to process the same
             as if appellant belonged to Scheduled Tribe, making it clear
             that admission if any made was provisional, and if the appellant          F
    •        failed in his petition he will not be entitled to the benefit of degree
             he may obtain. As observed in Mi/ind, if the appellant's
             admission or degree is to be annulled, it is to nobody's benefit
             as his seat cannot be offered to someone else. There is also
             no allegation that appellant forged or faked the caste certificate.
                                                                                       G
             His admission to engineering course was nearly thirteen years
             back and he secured the degree more than four years back.
    _....
             We are therefore of the view that the appellant herein should be
             permitted to retain the benefit of the degree but subject to terms.
             The first is that he shall not claim or seek any further benefit by
                                                                                       H
    464       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2008] 5 S.C.R


A claiming to belong to a scheduled Tribe. The second is that if
  the State has spent or incurred any expenditure on the
  appellant's professional degree education by extending the
  benefit of exemption from payment of fee or award of scholarship
  or by extending the benefit of concession in fee (that is less
B than what is charged to general category students) by treating
  him as a Scheduled Tribe candidate, the appellant cannot retain       f
  such financial benefits. The third Respondent may, on behalf of
  the State Government, take appropriate steps to enquire and
  assess the amount, if any spent on the appellant either towards
C fee, scholarship or by way of concession in fee and make a
  demand on appellant for payment thereof. If the appellant fails
  to pay the amount so found due within six months of the demand
  by the third Respondent, the third Respondent may take steps
  for recalling the degree granted to the appellant. If no amount is
  found to be due or if the amount determined and demanded is
0
  paid by appellant, he may be permitted to retain the degree
  obtained by him.

          8. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part, deleting the
    direction of the High Court to the third respondent to take steps
E   to recall the degree awarded to the appellant.
    B.B.B.                                   Appeal partly allowed.