I.B. Rajendra Prasad vs The Director Of Tribal Welfare And Ors. on 22 February, 1996
5. But while that is so, the question which is streneously urged and calls for our serious consideration is, what is the consequence of the appellant being found as not being a Scheduled Tribe and whether any question of equities is involved in the case. Out of the issues, the problem which poses itself is, what is the right or disability of persons who run their affairs in accordance with the existing law as declared by a Court of Record competently but subsequently the judgment is reversed at later point of time. At the outset, it is to be made clear that so far as the caste certificates are concerned, a false certificate or wrong certificate, on the basis of which certain benefits are given, does not create estoppel in favour of the beneficiary of the certificate. On the first hand, there is no estoppel against the statute or a legal provision and on the second, benefits which have been received in the shape of appointment or admission or the like on the basis of the certificate cannot be said of having been conduct undertaken to the detriment of the person taking the benefit. Reservations made on the basis of enabling constitutional provisions to give a beneficial treatment to non-advanced groups in the society is a constitutional right in favour of those persons and it can hardly be said that a person who has got the benefit erroneously being described as a member of the privileged community can be allowed to plead estoppel to defeat the constitutional protection afforded to the protected groups. We are not required to elaborate upon the question in view of the decision in Lingadhari Koya v. The Union of India, and S.C. Railway v. B. Veera Raju, which have gone into the question in detail, but even, though we hold so, yet we do not think so far as the appellant is concerned, that is the end of the question.