Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. 16 The state legislature was evidently not content with a mere invalidation of a caste certificate which is founded on a false claim made by a candidate to belong to a designated caste, tribe or class. Section 6 (2) provides that a candidate who desires to obtain a benefit must apply well in time to the Scrutiny Committee for verification and similarly the appointing authority of a candidate who has been selected for appointment but has not obtained a validity certificate must apply to the Scrutiny Committee for verification. The legislature however was cognizant of the fact that by the time a scrutiny takes place before the Scrutiny Committee the candidate may have obtained the benefit of a concession reserved for a caste, tribe or class. As a matter of public interest, the legislation stipulates that the benefits which have been obtained on the basis of a false caste certificate shall be withdrawn upon the invalidation of the claim by the Scrutiny Committee. The ambit of Section 10 (1) extends, among other things, to an admission which is secured in an educational institution against a seat reserved for one of the designated castes, tribes or classes; an appointment in the government, local authority or corporation owned or controlled by the government or any government institution or co-operative society against a reserved post. A benefit  PART A which is obtained on the foundation of a false caste claim which has been invalidated is not permitted to be retained by the candidate. There is a legislative mandate that the benefit of an admission granted or an appointment to a post shall be withdrawn forthwith on the cancellation of a caste / tribe certificate. Any amount which is paid by way of scholarship, grant, allowance or financial benefits has to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Sub-Section (3) of Section 10 contains a non-obstante provision as a result of which notwithstanding anything contained in any Act for the time being in force a degree, diploma or educational qualification acquired by a person after securing admission on the basis of a caste certificate which is proved to be false and is cancelled would also be invalid. Similarly, by sub-Section (4) a disqualification from holding an electoral office has been stipulated where a person has contested an election on the basis of a false caste certificate which is since cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee. To ensure that the stringent provisions made by it impose a sufficient deterrent, the legislature considered it fit in its wisdom to create offences and to impose criminal penalties in Section 11.

7. Section 10 provides the consequence. The challenge to an order of the Scrutiny Committee (invalidating a caste or tribe certificate) may fail or succeeds. If the challenge before the High Court succeeds, no question of the consequence under Section 10 arises. If the challenge fails, the consequence under Section 10 follows the finding in the order under Section 7 that the certificate is false. Similarly, if the order under Section 7 is not challenged, or if the challenge is given up, there is no occasion to protect the benefits secured on the basis of a certificate which is invalidated. The expression “false” must be construed in contra-distinction to that which is true, genuine or authentic. Falsity in this sense means the setting up of a claim to belong to a reserved category. 45 Section 10, it must be noted, provides for the withdrawal of civil benefits which have accrued to an individual on the strength of a claim to belong to a  PART A reserved category, when the claim upon due enquiry and verification is invalidated. Section 10, as its marginal note indicates, provides for the withdrawal of benefits secured on the basis of a false caste certificate. Section 11 provides for offences and penalties. The invalidation of a caste certificate may result in two consequences : (i) immediate cancellation or withdrawal of the benefits received by the candidate on the basis of a false caste certificate; (ii) prosecution of a claimant who procures a certificate which is found to be false by the Scrutiny Committee. The intent of a candidate may be of relevance only if there is a prosecution for a criminal offence. However, where a civil consequence of withdrawing the benefits which have accrued on the basis of a false caste claim is in issue, it would be contrary to the legislative intent to import the requirement of a dishonest intent. In importing such a requirement, the bench of two Judges in Shalini (supra) has, with great respect, fallen into error. The judgment in Shalini (supra) must, therefore, be held not to lay down the correct principle. In the very nature of things it would be casting an impossible burden to delve into the mental processes of an applicant for a caste certificate. As the provisions of the Act indicate, a person, who claims to belong to a reserved category and who seeks the benefit of an appointment to a reserved post or of admission to an educational institution against a reserved seat or any other benefit provided by the provisions of Article 15(4), has to apply for the grant of a caste certificate. The burden of proof that he or she belongs to such a caste, tribe or class lies with the claimant. The legislature has legitimately assumed that a person who seeks a caste certificate must surely be aware of the caste, tribe or class to which he or she belongs and must establish the claim. If the claim to belong to the reserved  PART A category is found to be untrue, the caste certificate has to be cancelled on the ground that it has been obtained falsely. The grant of the benefit to the candidate is fraudulent because the candidate has obtained a benefit reserved exclusively for a specified caste, tribe or class to which he or she is not entitled. The decision in Shalini (supra) would result in serious consequences and would eviscerate the statutory provision. The interpretation which has been placed on the provisions of Section 10 by the judgment in Shalini (supra) is evidently incorrect.

(i) mere invalidation of the caste claim by the Scrutiny Committee would not entail the consequences of withdrawal of benefits or discharge from employment or cancellation of appointments that have become final prior to the decision in Milind (supra) on 28 November 2000;

(ii) the benefit of protection in service upon invalidation of the caste claim is available not only to persons belonging to Koshti and Halba Koshti but is also available to persons belonging to the special backward category on the same terms. The High Court has even gone to the extent of holding that the decision in Milind (supra) was in the nature of prospective overruling of the law which was laid down by the Bombay High Court. The above view of the Bombay High Court is clearly unsustainable. Neither the judgment in Milind (supra) nor any of the judgments of this Court which have construed it have held that Milind (supra) was an exercise in prospective overruling. The High Court was in error in holding so. The decision of the Full Bench in Arun Sonone (supra) is unsustainable. The Full Bench had evidently failed to notice that cases where the protection was granted by this Court following the invalidation of a caste claim was in exercise of the power conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The jurisdiction under Article 142 is clearly not available to the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226. The High Court erred in arrogating that jurisdiction to itself. 49 We do not find any merit in the submission which has been urged on behalf of the persons whose castes/ tribes claims have been invalidated that PART A Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 cannot apply to admissions or appointments which were made prior to the date on which the Act came into force. 50 The submission based on retrospectivity overlooks certain crucial links in the analysis. It is a cardinal principle of construction that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have a retrospective operation. However, the rule in general is applicable where the object of the statute is to affect vested rights or to impose new burdens or to impair existing obligations. Equally the rule against retrospective construction is not applicable to a statute merely because a part of the requisites for its action is drawn from a time antecedent to its passing 40. Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 provides in Section 1 (2) that it shall come into force on such dates as the State Government may, by notification in the official gazette, appoint upon receiving assent of the President. The Act was notified to come into force by a government notification dated 17 October 2001 with effect from 18 October 2001. Prior to the enforcement of the Act, the regime which held the field was in terms of the directions that were issued by this Court in its judgment dated 2 September 1994 in Madhuri Patil. The directions which were issued by this Court comprehended :

The facts narrated above reveal a complete misuse of process by the Respondent. For the reasons contained in the body of the judgment, the impugned orders of the High Court are unsustainable and are accordingly set aside. The Civil Appeals are accordingly allowed in these terms. No other submission is urged.

There shall be no order as to costs.

22 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Rupesh s/o.Teksingh Shinde63 :

The respondent was appointed as a clerk on a post earmarked for the Vimukta Jatis on 26 March 1999 claiming that he belongs to the Rajput Bhamta Vimukta Jati. The caste claim of the respondent was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification and was invalidated by an order dated 29 July 2011. As the caste claim was invalidated the respondent was terminated from service by an order dated 16 August 2011. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court. After hearing both the parties, the court remanded the matter back to the Scrutiny Committee. The caste certificate was again SLP (C) No.2299 of 2017)  PART A invalidated by an order dated 21 January 2014 and the Committee observed that the respondent obtained a false caste certificate and directed the registration of an FIR against the respondent, pursuant to which the services of the respondent were terminated. Being aggrieved the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court by its impugned judgment and order dated 3 February 2016 allowed the writ petition relying upon its Full Bench judgment in the case of Arun Sonone Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) with a direction to the appellant to reinstate the respondent on his original post.