Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The petitioner vide his reply dated 8.2.2012 submitted before the Committee that his grandfather - Manju Rajak, who was a labour, resided in Bhopal District since 1948 till his death in 2000 and thereafter, his father - Hiralal Rajak is residing in Bhopal. A number of documents procured by him from various sources were also filed in support of the reply including affidavit of his father, who stated that Manju Rajak migrated from Sagar to Bhopal some times in year 1948. The petitioner further stated in his reply that he was born on 10.5.1989 in Bhopal and after having primary education at Bhopal with his father, he completed his 5th and 8th examination from Devri (Sagar), where he was residing with his 'Bua' Smt. Guarabai, resident of Devri, District Sagar and 9th and 10th examination from Village Karrapur, District Sagar, where he resided with his maternal grandfather namely Bhagwandas @ Bhagwani and that, subsequent thereto, he cleared his 11th and 12th examination from Bhopal and that, his name is also reflected in the Rashion Card of his brother. It was further stated by the petitioner in the reply that in a certificate issued by the Additional Collector, Sagar with regard to the fact that his maternal grandfather was a freedom fighter, petitioner's reference was also given stating that his mother is daughter of a freedom fighter. However, that certificate is not with regard to petitioner's domicile.

9. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents State that as the petitioner, on the basis of a forged and fake certificate, managed to get admission in MBBS Course, hence, he cannot be allowed to take benefit of forgery committed by him. It is further submitted that at the time of admission to MBBS Course, the petitioner had produced the certificate wherein, his domicile has been clearly shown as Devri, District Sagar. That certificate was issued by Additional Collector, Sagar during 2007-2008, meaning thereby, when the petitioner was aspiring to get admission in MBBS Course. The submission is that the certificate so filed by the petitioner with the concerned authorities, on its very face, is a genuine document, while the certificates procured subsequently by the petitioner regarding birth-place, residence, etc, are managed one and have been procured only to substantiate the claim and to get out of the clutches of law, therefore, the Committee has rightly held that certificate dated 27.7.2003 purportedly issued by Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Hujur, District Bhopal, is a forged and fake document. It is further submitted that the Committee has duly called a report with regard to the certificate from the concerned official, reference whereof finds place in Para 6.2 of the report. It is further submitted that the caste-certificate dated 23.7.2015 (Annexure P/20) has been procured by the petitioner without even disclosing to the concerned authority that an inquiry by the Committee with regard to fake and forged caste- certificate is being conducted against the petitioner. The contention is that the Committee, on due inquiry, has found that though the petitioner belongs to 'Dhobi' caste, however, he not being a domicile of Bhopal, does not fall within Scheduled Caste category; hence, the subsequent certificate dated 23.7.2015 (Annexure P/20) which has been procured by the petitioner by concealing material facts including pendency of inquiry before the Committee, cannot be made basis to hold that he falls in scheduled caste category.

10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

11. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the decision of apex Court in Ku. Madhuri Patil's case (supra), particularly Para 5 and 6 thereof, has contended that the Committee has not conducted its proceedings strictly in accordance with the directions of the apex Court, however, we do find any substance in this plea because a perusal of order dated 22.10.2016 passed by the Committee clearly reveals that the information with regard to caste and domicile status of the petitioner was procured from all sources including revenue officials and senior police officials. Apart this, the petitioner was given opportunity to explain as to how he had procured certificate dated 27.7.2003, however, he miserably failed to offer any plausible explanation in that regard. As held by the apex Court in Director of Tribal Welfare, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh vs. Laveti & another, (1995) 4 SCC 32, the burden to prove that the certificate with regard to caste is genuine, is always on the candidate. The fact remains that the certificates with regard to birth-place, caste, etc. submitted by the petitioner along with his reply have all been procured after the commencement of the inquiry by the Committee. One document which inspires confidence and prevailed upon the Committee and which equally commends us, is the certificate, which was filed by the petitioner at the time of his admission in MBBS Course and which has been issued on 28.4.2008 by Additional Collector, Sagar, wherein the residence of petitioner with his parentage, is clearly stated as Devri (Patharia), Tehsil Devri, District Sagar. Needless to state that though the certificate was issued stating that Bhagwandas @ Bhagwani (maternal grandfather of the petitioner) resident of Karrapur, Sagar is a freedom fighter, however, in the subsequent paragraphs, the entries including name, parentage, and residence are with regard to the petitioner and the certificate was procured by the petitioner to demonstrate that he is grandson of Bhagwandas @ Bhagwani. It may be stated that the certificate was issued on the basis of Revenue Case No.167/B- 121/2007-2008, therefore, it carries much credence.