2024 INSC 266 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2741­2743 OF 2024 

Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles  …..Appellant

@ Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana

VERSUS

State of Maharashtra and Others.    …..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

J.K. Maheshwari J.

1.The   present   appeals   arise   out   of   impugned   common

judgment and final order dated 08.06.2021 passed by Division

Bench of High Court of Judicature at Bombay in three Writ

Petitions. Out of the said three petitions, Writ Petition No. 3370

of 2018 and Writ Petition No. 2675 of 2019 were preferred by

Anandra Vithoba Adsul and Raju Shamrao Mankar (Respondents

herein), inter­alia seeking identical reliefs, i.e., issuance of writ of

certiorari for quashing and setting aside order dated 03.11.2017

passed by District Caste Scrutiny Committee, Mumbai Suburban

(hereinafter   referred   to   as  ‘Scrutiny   Committee’)   which

validated   the   caste   claim   of   Appellant   herein   as  ‘Mochi   –

1

REPORTABLE

Scheduled   Caste’  in   Maharashtra.   Conversely,   Writ   Petition

(Lodging) No. 9426 of 2020 was filed by Appellant herein seeking

writ   of   certiorari   and   setting   aside   the   findings   of   Scrutiny

Committee, particularly in para 4 of order dated 03.11.2017 to

the extent of ‘non­consideration’ of oldest documents submitted

by her, which as contended by her sustained and established her

caste   claim.   The   Division   Bench   vide   common   impugned

judgment allowed the petitions of Anandra Vithoba Adsul and

Raju Shamrao Mankar and dismissed the petition preferred by

Appellant. The High Court quashed and set­aside the order dated

03.11.2017   passed   by   Scrutiny   Committee   primarily   on   the

ground that the same was obtained fraudulently and cancelled

the caste certificate issued in favour of Appellant. The Division

Bench further imposed a cost of Rs. 2,00,000/­ on the Appellant

and   directed   to   surrender   her   caste   certificate.   Hence,   the

present appeals.

FACTS IN BRIEF

2.The  entire controversy  revolves  around  the  validation  of

caste claim in favour of Appellant, on the anvil of which, the

Appellant   contested   the   2019   Parliamentary   election   from

2

Amravati   constituency   in   Maharashtra   as   an   independent

candidate on a seat reserved for Scheduled Caste and emerged as

winning   candidate   while   defeating   the   other   contesting

candidates   including   Anandra   Vithoba   Adsul   (Respondent

herein). Aggrieved, Appellant’s candidature on the reserved seat

was assailed by other contesting candidates primarily on the

ground that she obtained the ‘Mochi­Scheduled Caste’ certificate

from   the   authorities   concerned   by   submitting   forged   and

fabricated documents. The genesis of the dispute is traceable

from year 2013, when various complaints were submitted against

Appellant before the Scrutiny Committee seeking cancellation of

the   caste   validity   certificate   issued   in   her   favour   by   Deputy

Collector vide order dated 30.08.2013. From 2013 to 2017, the

proceedings   continued   and   eventually,   when   the   matter   was

seized before High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 325 of 2014

preferred by one Raju Mankar, the High Court vide order dated

28.06.2017 set­aside the caste validity certificate issued in favour

of Appellant and remanded the matter with directions to the

Scrutiny Committee to give opportunity of hearing to all the

parties and take decision in accordance with law. 

3

3.In furtherance of remand by High Court vide order dated

28.06.2017, the matter was taken up by Scrutiny Committee,

and   the   parties   duly   contested   their   case.   After   hearing   the

parties at length and having considered all the documents placed

on record, the Scrutiny Committee accepted the caste claim of

Appellant vide order 03.11.2017 predominantly on the basis of

two documents, i.e., (i) bona­fide certificate dated 11.02.2014

issued by Khalsa College of Arts, Science and Commerce in the

name of Appellant’s grandfather mentioning his caste as ‘Sikh­

Chamar’;   and   (ii)   the   Indenture   of   Tenancy   of   1932   which

corroborated   the   Appellant’s   claim   of   her   forefathers   having

migrated to Maharashtra from Punjab back in 1932 itself along

with proof of residence. Aggrieved from above, the parties filed

respective Writ Petitions and hence, the instant appeals. 

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY APPELLANT

4.Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dhruv Mehta at the outset

contended   that   High   Court   erred   in   upsetting   the   detailed

findings of Scrutiny Committee in exercise of jurisdiction under

Article 226 of Constitution of India. High Court by invoking its

jurisdiction   to   issue   a   writ   of   certiorari   ought   not   to   have

4

interfered in the matter since the Committee arrived at such

conclusion after having conducted extensive fact­finding exercise.

He further submitted that the scope of exercise of jurisdiction in

such cases is limited to examination of orders passed by the

Courts/Forums below to see if such orders have been passed

without jurisdiction, or in excess of the jurisdiction or due to

failure   of   exercise   of   jurisdiction.   Undisputedly,   Scrutiny

Committee in the instant case, being a quasi­judicial authority

exercised its jurisdiction under ‘Maharashtra Scheduled Castes,

Scheduled   Tribes,   De­Notified   Tribes   (Vimukta   Jatis),   Nomadic

Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category

(Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act,

2000’, (hereinafter referred to as ‘2000 Act’) and adjudicated the

claim. The fact­finding exercise and assessment of documents fell

within the exclusive domain of the Scrutiny Committee and High

Court in supervisory jurisdiction dealt with the petitions akin a

statutory appeal. The roving inquiry conducted by High Court

was uncalled for, particularly when in the instant case there is no

allegation   to   the   effect   that   Scrutiny   Committee   lacked

jurisdiction. The procedure as prescribed was duly followed by

the Scrutiny Committee and after due application of mind, the

5

claim of Appellant was validated. [See ‘Nagendra Nath Bora Vs.

The Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam and

Others., AIR 1958 SC 398’ – Para 30 to 39 and 41; ‘Rajendra

Diwan Vs. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala, (2019) 20 SCC 143’ –

Para 85 to 87; ‘Indian Overseas Bank Vs. I.O.B. Staff Canteen

Workers’ Union and Another, 2000 (4) SCC 245’ –  Para 17;

Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State

of Maharashtra and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 326 –  Para

28]  

5.So   far   as   question   of   inadmissibility   of   documents

submitted by Appellant before Scrutiny Committee is concerned,

it   was   argued   by   the   learned   Senior   Counsel   that   those

documents   carried   a   statutory   presumption   under   Indian

Evidence Act as they were related to forefathers of Appellant and

belonged from pre­independence era. Unless any adverse findings

were returned on those documents by Vigilance Cell, the Scrutiny

Committee erred in not considering them and holding them as

inadmissible.  [See  ‘Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and

Verification of Tribal Claims, (2012) 1 SCC 113’ –  Para 22;

6

‘Priya Pramod Gajbe Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others,

2023 SCC OnLine SC 909’ – Para 8 to 12]

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY RESPONDENTS

6.The   learned   Senior   Counsel   Mr.   Kapil   Sibal   mainly

contested   the   case   on   the   scope   of   interference   with   the

Scheduled   Castes   Order,   1950   (hereinafter   referred   to   as

‘Presidential Order’) issued by President under Article 341 of

Constitution   of   India   and   argued   that   it   is   constitutionally

impossible to grant the caste certificate in favour of Appellant. He

submitted that in absence of specific caste (‘Ravidasia Mochi’ or

‘Sikh Chamar’) being originally mentioned in the said Presidential

Order for Maharashtra State, no caste certificate could have been

conferred at the first instance in favour of Appellant. He further

submitted that the issue of interfering with the Presidential Order

is no more res­integra and has been long back well settled by

catena of judgments passed by this Court including Constitution

Bench judgments  [See  ‘Marri Chandra Sekhar Rao Vs. Seth

G.S. Medical College, (1990) 2 SCC 130’ ; ‘Action Committee

on   Issue   of   Caste   Certificate   to   Scheduled   Castes   and

Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and Another

7

Vs. Union of India and Another, (1994) 5 SCC 244’ ; ‘State of

Maharashtra   Vs.   Milind   and   Others,   (2001)   1   SCC   4’],

wherein it has been categorically held that the Presidential Order

is to be read as it is and no further interpretation is permissible

by any authority to such order. The terminology used in the

Presidential   Order   is   to   be   read   verbatim   and   if   a   caste   is

mentioned   in   the   original   Order,   then   only   benefit   of   caste

certificate can be issued in favour of an applicant belonging from

one State and migrated to another. No kind of ‘prefix’ or ‘suffix’

can   be   taken   into   consideration   to   expand   the   ambit   of

Presidential Order by any authority, and it is only the Parliament

which is competent by law to include or exclude a caste/tribe

from the list of notified Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

He further drew our attention  to the  extracts of Presidential

Order and submitted that neither ‘Ravidasia Mochi’ nor ‘Sikh

Chamar’ is mentioned or recognized therein. In such case, if a

caste has not been particularly mentioned or notified for a State,

then the benefit of recognition to an applicant belonging to a

caste notified for that particular State cannot be granted. What

cannot   be   done   directly,   cannot   be   done   indirectly.   Lastly,

learned Senior Counsel concluded his arguments on the note

8

that, once such is the situation where the Presidential Order

itself is a self­speaking document, nothing survives in the case

for adjudication and no interference of this Court is called for. 

7.The assisting learned counsel Mr. Shadan Farasat mainly

contended on the entirety of the facts and argued in support of

the observations made by High Court by demonstrating as to how

the Appellant obtained the caste claim certificate by submitting

multiple forged and fabricated documents. He submitted that a

fraud has been played by the Appellant on the authorities to get

her caste certificate by using ‘trial and error’ method by creating

multiple forged documents and submitting them to sustain her

claim,   specifically   when   her   initial   documents   in   support   of

‘Mochi’ caste were found to be forged and fabricated. He further

urged that, even for the sake of argument if it is assumed that

the documents are genuine in nature, then also the Appellant

cannot be granted the caste certificate for the reason that the

documents on the basis of which the Appellant sought benefit of

caste certificate are self­contradictory in nature. He drew the

attention   of   this   Court   to   the   first   claim   submitted   by   the

Appellant   where   she   claimed   herself   belonging   to   ‘Ravidasia

Mochi’ from Punjab State. Although the said documents were not

9

admitted by the Scrutiny Committee, however, the documents

showing the Appellant to be ‘Sikh Chamar’ were admitted and

intriguingly, she was granted a ‘Mochi’ caste certificate which had

cascading   effect   of   tinkering   with   the   Presidential   Order   as

neither ‘Sikh Chamar’ nor ‘Ravidasia Mochi’ is recognized as

Scheduled Caste for Maharashtra State therein. Hence, such an

exercise carried out by Scrutiny Committee by considering the

Appellant’s case as ‘Sikh­Chamar’ or ‘Ravidasia Mochi’ even on

the  surface of  it as  true  for  validating her caste  claim, was

impermissible in law since neither ‘Sikh­Chamar’ nor ‘Ravidasia

Mochi’ are present in the original Presidential Order of 1950 for

Maharashtra State. 

8.To   substantiate   the   above   argument,   he   further   placed

reliance   primarily   on   the   three   documents   submitted   by

Appellant  before the  Scrutiny  Committee, i.e., (i) her father’s

school leaving certificate; (ii) her father’s caste certificate; and (iii)

her self­school leaving certificate. It is submitted that all the

above three documents were interpolated, forged and fabricated

to procure the caste validity certificate. So far as first document,

i.e., Appellant’s father school leaving certificate is concerned, the

Vigilance  Cell  submitted its  report  that  on inspection it  was

10

found that the concerned school never issued the said certificate.

Secondly,   the   Appellant’s   father   caste   certificate   itself   stood

cancelled and confiscated by the Scrutiny Committee vide order

dated 03.11.2017. Though on the very same date, the Scrutiny

Committee validated the caste claim in favour of Appellant and

rejected the benefit of same caste to her father. Thirdly, the last

document, i.e., Appellant’s self­school leaving certificate issued

by Kartikeya High School and Junior College, New Hall Road,

Kurla   West,   Mumbai,   mentioning   ‘Mochi’   under   the   religion

column in favour of Appellant, it is submitted that  the said

change was done on 23.08.2013 under the political influence on

letter sent by Appellant’s husband who is a sitting Member of

Legislative   Assembly   from   Badnera   constituency   in   Amravati

district.

ANALYSIS

9.Before adverting to the merits of the case, it is relevant to

highlight   that   the   issue   of   procurement   of   caste   certificate

through   fraudulent   means   has   been   a   longtime   menace.   In

absence   of   any   mechanism   prescribing   the   procedure,   the

discretionary powers vested with authorities concerned have been

11

subject   matter   of   multiple   layers   of   litigation   before   Courts

throughout India. Eventually, the issue concerning the procedure

to be followed for adjudication of caste claims was considered in

detail by Constitution Bench of this Court in ‘Kumari Madhuri

Patil   and   Another   Vs.   Additional   Commissioner,   Tribal

Development and Others, (1994) 6 SCC 241’ , wherein this

Court expressed grave concerns about the deprivation of benefits

to genuine candidates, especially when caste certificate has been

obtained   fraudulently   on   the   basis   of   forged   documents   and

social status.  This Court laid emphasis on the need of the hour

to streamline the procedure for issuance of caste certificates,

their scrutiny and validation thereafter. Resultantly, this Court

exercising the powers under Article 142 of Constitution of India,

laid down exhaustive procedural guidelines in para 13 which is

reproduced below as thus – 

13.  ……..It is, therefore, necessary that the certificates

issued   are   scrutinized   at   the   earliest   and   with   utmost

expedition   and   promptitude.   For   that   purpose,   it   is

necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of

social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval,

which may be the following:

12

1.The   application   for   grant   of   social   status

certificate   shall   be   made   to   the   Revenue   Sub­

Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy

Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued

by such officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or

Mandal level.

2.The   parent,   guardian   or   the   candidate,   as   the

case may be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn

and attested by a competent gazetted officer or

non­gazetted officer with particulars of castes and

sub­castes,   tribe,   tribal   community,   parts   or

groups of tribes or tribal communities, the place

from   which   he   originally   hails   from   and   other

particulars   as   may   be   prescribed   by   the

Directorate concerned.

3.Application for verification of the caste certificate

by the Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at least

six months in advance before seeking admission

into educational institution or an appointment to a

post.

4.All   the   State   Governments   shall   constitute   a

Committee   of   three   officers,   namely,   (I)   an

Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer high­er

in   rank   of   the   Director   of   the   department

concerned, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal

Welfare/Backward   Class   Welfare,   as   the   case

may be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes

another officer who has intimate knowledge in the

verification   and   issuance   of   the   social   status

certificates. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes,

the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge

13

in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts

of or groups of tribes or tribal communities.

5.Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell

consisting   of   Senior   Deputy   Superintendent   of

Police   in   over­all   charge   and   such   number   of

Police   Inspectors   to   investigate   into   the   social

status claims. The Inspector would go to the local

place of residence and original place from which

the candidate hails and usually resides or in case

of migration to the town or city, the place from

which   he   originally   hailed   from.   The   vigilance

officer should personally verify and collect all the

facts of the social status claimed by the candidate

or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He

should   also   examine   the   school   records,   birth

registration, if any. He should also examine the

parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to

their caste etc. or such other persons who have

knowledge of the social status of the candidate

and   then   submit   a   report   to   the   Directorate

together with all particulars as envisaged in the

pro forma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes

relating   to   their   peculiar   anthropological   and

ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode

of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial

of dead bodies etc. by the castes or tribes or tribal

communities concerned etc.

6.The Director concerned, on receipt of the report

from the vigilance officer if he found the claim for

social status to be “not genuine” or ‘doubtful’ or

spurious   or   falsely   or   wrongly   claimed,   the

14

Director   concerned   should   issue   show­cause

notice   supplying   a   copy   of   the   report   of   the

vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered

post with acknowledgement due or through the

head of the educational institution concerned in

which the candidate is studying or employed. The

notice should indicate that the representation or

reply, if any, would be made within two weeks

from the date of the receipt of the notice and in no

case on request not more than 30 days from the

date   of   the   receipt   of   the   notice.   In   case,   the

candidate seeks for an opportunity of hearing and

claims an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the

Director on receipt of such representation/reply

shall   convene   the   committee   and   the

Joint/Additional   Secretary   as   Chairperson   who

shall   give   reasonable   opportunity   to   the

candidate/parent/guardian   to   adduce   all

evidence in support of their claim. A public notice

by beat of drum or any other convenient mode

may be published in the village or locality and if

any person or association opposes such a claim,

an opportunity to adduce evidence may be given

to him/it. After giving such opportunity either in

person  or  through  counsel, the   Committee   may

make   such   inquiry   as   it   deems   expedient   and

consider the claims vis­

à­vis the objections raised

by   the   candidate   or   opponent   and   pass   an

appropriate order with brief reasons in support

thereof.

15

7.In case the report is in favour of the candidate

and   found   to   be   genuine   and   true,   no   further

action need be taken except where the report or

the particulars given are procured or found to be

false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter

event the same procedure as is envisaged in para

6 be followed.

8.Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to

the parents/guardian also in case candidate is

minor   to   appear   before   the   Committee   with   all

evidence in his or their support of the claim for the

social status certificates.

9.The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously

as possible preferably by day­to­day proceedings

within such period not exceeding two months. If

after inquiry, the Caste Scrutiny Committee finds

the   claim   to   be   false   or   spurious,   they   should

pass   an   order   cancelling   the   certificate   issued

and confiscate the same. It should communicate

within one month from the date of the conclusion

of  the   proceedings  the   result  of   enquiry  to   the

parent/guardian and the applicant.

10.In case of any delay in finalizing the proceedings,

and in the meanwhile the last date for admission

into an educational institution or appointment to

an officer post, is getting expired, the candidate

be   admitted   by   the   Principal   or   such   other

authority competent in that behalf or appointed on

the basis of the social status certificate already

issued   or   an   affidavit   duly   sworn   by   the

parent/guardian/candidate before the competent

16

officer   or   non­official   and   such   admission   or

appointment should be only provisional, subject to

the   result   of   the   inquiry   by   the   Scrutiny

Committee.

11.The order passed by the Committee shall be final

and   conclusive   only   subject   to   the   proceedings

under Article 226 of the Constitution.

12.No   suit   or   other   proceedings   before   any   other

authority should lie.

13.The High Court would dispose of these cases as

expeditiously as possible within a period of three

months. In case, as per its procedure, the writ

petition/miscellaneous   petition/matter   is

disposed of by a Single Judge, then no further

appeal would lie against that order to the Division

Bench but subject to special leave under Article

136.

14.In case, the certificate obtained or social status

claimed   is   found   to   be   false,   the

parent/guardian/the   candidate   should   be

prosecuted   for   making   false   claim.   If   the

prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of

the accused, it could be regarded as an offence

involving   moral   turpitude,   disqualification   for

elective posts  or offices  under the State  or the

Union or elections to any local body, legislature or

Parliament.

15.As soon as the finding is recorded by the Scrutiny

Committee   holding   that   the   certificate   obtained

was   false,   on   its   cancellation   and   confiscation

17

simultaneously, it should be communicated to the

educational   institution   concerned   or   the

appointing   authority   by   registered   post   with

acknowledgement due with a request to cancel

the admission or the appointment. The Principal

etc. of the educational institution responsible for

making the admission or the appointing authority,

should   cancel   the   admission/appointment

without any further notice to the candidate and

debar   the   candidate   from   further   study   or

continue in office in a post.

In furtherance of the said guidelines, streamlined procedure

was formulated and State Acts were enacted to deal with caste

claim cases.

10.As the present case arises from Maharashtra, it is necessary

to deal with the respective State Act, i.e., the 2000 Act enacted

with effect from 18.10.2001 containing elaborative procedure and

mechanism for regulation and verification of caste claims. Since

the moot point in this case is arising from the verification and

issuance of caste validity certificate in favour of Appellant, it

becomes imperative to look into the relevant provisions of the Act,

in  particular   Section   6,   Section   7   and   Section   9,   which  are

reproduced below for ready reference – 

18

Section   6   –   Verification   of   Caste   Certificate   by

Scrutiny Committee. 

(1)The Government shall constitute by notification in the

Official Gazette, one or more Scrutiny Committee(s) for

verification   of   Caste   Certificates   issued   by   the

Competent Authorities under sub­section (1) of section

4 specifying in the said notification the functions and

the   area   of   jurisdiction   of   each   of   such   Scrutiny

Committee or Committees. 

(2)After   obtaining   the   Caste   Certificate   from   the

Competent Authority, any person desirous of availing

of   the   benefits   or   concessions   provided   to   the

Scheduled   Castes,   Scheduled   Tribes,   De­notified

Tribes   (Vimukta   Jatis),   Nomadic   Tribes,   Other

Backward Classes or Special Backward Category for

the purposes mentioned in section 3 may make an

application, well in time, in such form and in such

manner   as   may   be   prescribed,   to   the   concerned

Scrutiny Committee for the verification of such Caste

Certificate and issue of a validity certificate.

(3)The   appointing   authority   of   the   Central   or   State

Government,   local   authority,   public   sector

undertakings,   educational   institutions,   Co­operative

Societies or any other Government aided institutions

shall, make an application in such form and in such

manner   as   may   be   prescribed   by   the   Scrutiny

Committees for the verification of the Caste Certificate

and issue of a validity certificate, in case a person

selected   for   an   appointment   with   the   Government,

local   authority,   public   sector   undertakings,

19

educational institutions, Co­operative societies or any

other   Government   aided   institutions   who   has   not

obtain such certificate. 

(4)The Scrutiny Committee shall follow such procedure

for verification of the Caste Certificate and adhere to

the   time  limit   for verification  and  grant  of   validity

certificate, as prescribed.

Section 7 – Confiscation and Cancellation of false

Certificate.

(1)Where, before or after the commencement of this Act,

a   person   not   belonging   to   any   of   the   Scheduled

Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De­notified Tribes (Vimukta

Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or

Special   Backward   Category   has   obtained   a   false

Caste Certificate to the effect that either himself or his

children belong to such Castes, Tribes or Classes, the

Scrutiny Committee may, suo motu, or otherwise call

for the record and enquire into the correctness of such

certificate and if it is of the opinion that the certificate

was   obtained   fraudulently,   it   shall,   by   an   order

cancel and confiscate the certificate by following such

procedure   as   prescribed,   after   giving   the   person

concerned   an   opportunity   of   being   heard,   and

communicate the same to the concerned person and

the concerned authority, if any.

(2)The order passed by the Scrutiny Committee under

this Act shall be final and shall not be challenged

before any authority or court except the High Court

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

20

Section   9   –   Civil   Court   powers   to   Competent

Authority,   Appellate   Authority   and   Scrutiny

Committee.

(1)The Competent Authority, the Appellate Authority and

the   Scrutiny   Committee   shall,   while   holding   an

enquiry under this Act, have all the powers of a Civil

Court   while   trying   a   suit   under   the   Code   of   Civil

Procedure, 1908 and in particular in respect of the

following matters, namely :—

(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of

any person and examining him on oath; 

(b) requiring the discovery and production of any

document; 

(c) receiving evidence on affidavits; 

(d)   requisitioning   any   public   record   or   copy

thereof from any Court or office; and 

(e) issuing Commissions for the examination of

witnesses or documents.

A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions reveals that power

to verify the correctness/validation of the caste certificate issued

by Competent Authority under Section 4 is vested with Scrutiny

Committee   constituted   under   Section   6.   Section   7   further

empowers   the   Scrutiny   Committee   with  suo   motu  powers   or

otherwise to call for record and enquire into correctness of a

caste certificate if it is of the opinion that such certificate was

21

obtained fraudulently and also vests the Committee with the

power  to  cancel  and   confiscate   the  certificate  in  question  in

accordance with law. Such order of Scrutiny Committee as per

sub clause (2) is said to be final and protected from any challenge

before any authority except High Court under Article 226 of

Constitution of India. Furthermore, Section 9 confers all powers

on the Scrutiny Committee as exercised by Civil Court while

trying a suit as per Civil Procedure Code, 1908. 

11.In   furtherance   of   the   aforesaid   2000   Act,   the   State   of

Maharashtra   further   brought   in   force   the  ‘Maharashtra

Scheduled   Castes,   De­notified   Tribes   (Vimukta   Jatis),   Nomadic

Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category

(Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules,

2012’   (hereinafter   referred   to   as  ‘2012   Rules’),   stipulating

detailed   provisions   regarding   procedure   for   constitution   of

Scrutiny Committee as well as the procedure to be followed by it

while   dealing   with   the   claims   seeking   validation   of   caste

certificate issued by Competent Authority. For the purpose of

case at hand, Rule 13, Rule 14 and Rule 17 are relevant and thus

are reproduced below for ready reference – 

22

Rule 13 – Report of Vigilance Cell and Issues to be

dealt with.

(1)Vigilance   Cell   Officer(s)   shall   submit   report   upon

investigating   into   the   Scheduled   Caste,   Scheduled

Caste   converts   to   Buddhism,   De­notified   Tribes

(Vimukta   Jatis),   Nomadic   Tribes,   Other   Backward

Classes   or   Special   Backward   Category   claim,

referred to it, – 

(a)by visiting permanent place of residence and

conducting domestic inquiry; or 

(b)by   recording   statements   of   respected   and

responsible   persons   from   concerned   area,

including   representatives   of   Local   Self

Government, Police Patil, etc.; or 

(c)by collecting information, as part of recording

statement,   as   regards   to   name,   age,

educational   qualification,   occupation,

existing place of residence and information

regarding properties (existing and disposed)

of family members of applicant or claimant;

or 

(d)by   collecting   information   including   the

sociological, anthropological and ethnological

(anthropological   moorings   and   ethnological

kinship),   genetical   traits   of   the   Scheduled

Caste,   Scheduled   Caste   converts   to

Buddhism,   De­notified   Tribes   (Vimukta

Jatis),   Nomadic   Tribes,   Other   Backward

Classes   or   Special   Backward   Category,   if

any; or 

23

(e)by personally visiting Office of the Competent

Authority   or   revenue   or   school   or   other

concerned offices.

(2)Notwithstanding anything contained in any provision

of these rules, –

(a)the Vigilance Cell shall not record concluding

remark or opinion, since vigilance inquiry is

meant for internal assistance to the Scrutiny

Committee   and   adjudication   of   Scheduled

Caste,   Scheduled   Caste   converts   to

Buddhism,   De­notified   Tribes   (Vimukta

Jatis),   Nomadic   Tribes,   Other   Backward

Classes   or   Special   Backward   Category

status  is  exclusive  domain  of   the  Scrutiny

Committee;

(b)finding   recorded   and   opinion   expressed,  if

any,   by   the   Vigilance   Officer   shall   not   be

binding on Scrutiny Committee nor could be

used as evidence, in support of Scheduled

Caste,   Scheduled   Caste   converts   to

Buddhism,   De­notified   Tribes   (Vimukta

Jatis),   Nomadic   Tribes,   Other   Backward

Classes   or   Special   Backward   Category

claim.

Rule 14 – Verification of Caste Certificate. 

Any   person   desirous   of   availing   of   the   benefits   and

concessions provided to the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled

Caste converts to Buddhism, De­notified Tribes (Vimukta

Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special

Backward   Categories   for   any   of   the   purposes   as

24

mentioned in Section 3 of the Act shall, invariably submit

an application in FORM–16 with an affidavit in FORM–3

and FORM–17 for students; FORM–18 with an affidavit in

FORM–3 and FORM–19 for employees or service purpose;

FORM–20 with an affidavit in FORM–3 and FORM–21 for

election purpose; or FORM–22 with an affidavit in FORM–3

and FORM–23 for other purpose, as per his requirement, to

the concerned Scrutiny Committee for verification of his

caste claim and issue of Caste Validity Certificate, well in

time : 

Provided that, the Caste Certificate issued to migrant

from   other   State   and   Caste   or   Community   Certificates

issued by Authorities of the States other than the State of

Maharashtra, shall not be verified by such Caste Scrutiny

Committee.

Rule 17 – Procedure of Scrutiny Committee.

(1)On   receipt   of   application,   the   Scrutiny   Committee

shall ensure that the application and the information

supplied therewith is complete in all respects and to

carry out scrutiny of the application. 

(2)Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules,

the   claimant   or   applicant   or   complainant   shall   be

personally   responsible   for   removal   of   objections

raised   by   Scrutiny   Committee,   if   any,   within   two

weeks or within such extended period, which shall

not be more than six weeks, failing which the claim or

application   or   complaint   shall   be   disposed   of,   by

appreciating available records and such decision may

be   communicated   to   the   applicant   by   the   Scrutiny

Committee. 

25

(3)The   incomplete   application   may   be   rejected   by

recording reasons. 

(4)Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, it

will   be   the   sole   responsibility   of   the   claimant   or

applicant   to   attend   the   dates   of   hearing,   either

personally or through duly authorized representative.

(5)The roznama of the Scrutiny committee shall be self­

evident as to what transpired on a particular day and

it shall be signed by all the members of the Scrutiny

Committee.

(6)If   the   Scrutiny   Committee,   upon   appreciating   the

statement of applicant or claimant submitted in the

form of Affidavit filed in consonance with Order 18

Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as well

as   other   evidence   and   documents   furnished   along

with any application or proposal is satisfied, about

the   genuineness   of   Scheduled   Caste   or   Scheduled

Caste   converts   to   Buddhism   or   De­notified   Tribes

(Vimukta Jatis) or Nomadic Tribes or Other Backward

Classes   or   Special   Backward   Category   claim   the

scrutiny   committee   shall   forthwith   issue   Validity

Certificate in FORM­20 without enquiry by vigilance

cell. 

(7)If   the   Scrutiny   Committee,   upon   appreciating   the

statement of applicant or claimant submitted in the

form of Affidavit filed in consonance with Order 18

Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as well

as   other   evidence   and   documents   furnished   along

with any application or proposal, is of the opinion

that   the   documents   do   not   satisfy   or   conclusively

prove   the   Scheduled   Caste   or   Scheduled   Caste

26

converts to Buddhism or De­notified Tribes (Vimukta

Jatis) or Nomadic Tribes or Other Backward Classes

or   Special   Backward   Category   claim,   the   Scrutiny

Committee by mentioning the same in the roznama,

shall refer such case to the Vigilance Cell for carrying

out suitable inquiry, as is deemed fit, by the Scrutiny

Committee:

Provided that, findings recorded by the Vigilance

Cell shall not be binding on the Scrutiny Committee,

as   the   vigilance   inquiry   is   meant   for   internal

assistance to the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny

Committee shall record its reasons for discarding the

report of Vigilance Cell. 

(8)The Vigilance Cell shall complete the inquiry within

six weeks, thereby making suitable inquiry, on all the

issues   or   as   specifically   directed   by   the   Scrutiny

Committee. 

(9)Vigilance   Inquiry   shall   be   made   for   respective

territorial area of jurisdiction of concerned Scrutiny

Committee. 

(10)In case of those cases which are referred to Vigilance

Cell,   upon   considering   the   report   submitted   by

Vigilance Cell, if the Scrutiny Committee is satisfied

about   the   genuineness   of   Scheduled   Caste   or

Scheduled Caste converts to Buddhism or De­notified

Tribes   (Vimukta   Jatis)   or   Nomadic   Tribes   or   Other

Backward   Classes   or   Special   Backward   Category

claim of claimant or applicant, it shall be lawful to

decide the matter finally by its written decision, and

forward the copy of decision and Validity Certificate

27

in FORM–24, to the concerned parties or authority, by

preserving its scanned copy (in electronic form). 

(11)(i)In   case   of   those   cases   which   are   refereed   to

Vigilance   Cell,   upon   considering   the   report   of

Vigilance   Cell,   if   the   Scrutiny   Committee   is   not

satisfied about the claim of the applicant, it shall call

upon   the   applicant   to   prove   his   Caste   claim,   by

discharging   his   burden,   as   contemplated   under

Section 8 of the Act, by issuing a notice in FORM–25

coupled with copy of report of Vigilance Inquiry; 

(ii)After issuance of notice, if applicant requests, by

way   of   written   application,   for   copies   of   vigilance

inquiry  report   or any   other  document   or prays   for

adjournment, reasonable time for final hearing or for

submitting written submission, it may be granted; 

(iii) After affording an opportunity of hearing, Scrutiny

Committee shall, – 

(a)being satisfied regarding the genuineness of

the Caste  claim, decide the  matter finally,

upon   appreciation   of   evidence,   by   its

reasoned decision, i.e., decision of committee

and issue Certificate of Validity, in FORM–

24;   and   forward   the   same   to   concerned

authorities within thirty days, by preserving

its scanned copy (in electronic form); 

(b)being not satisfied about the genuineness of

the   claim   and   veracity   of   the   Caste

Certificate, it shall pass its decision, thereby

cancelling and confiscating the original Caste

Certificate   and   invalidating   the   Caste   or

Tribe claim of the applicant or claimant; 

28

(c)upon invalidation of Caste or Tribe claim, the

Caste   Certificate   under   inquiry   shall   be

stamped as "cancelled and confiscated", and

forward   the   same   along   with   copy   of

decision,   to   the   Competent   Authority   and

concerned parties, by preserving its scanned

copy (in electronic form); 

(d)after conclusion of the hearing of the case,

the work of writing of the decision shall be

assigned   to   one   of   its   members   by   the

Scrutiny Committee; 

(e)in case of difference of opinion amongst the

members of Committee, on the main order of

majority, the dissenting member shall write

his separate order; 

(f)The name of member of Committee to whom

work   of   writing   final   order   was   assigned,

shall   be   mentioned   in   the   roznama.

Moreover,   front   page   of   final   order   shall

disclose the date of the order. 

(12)Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, it

is incumbent on the applicant to disclose all the true

and   correct   information,   including   disclosure   of

adverse entries or material, failing which, it shall be

lawful for the Scrutiny Committee to draw adverse

inference. 

(13)If the Scrutiny Committee finds and concludes that

the report of Vigilance Cell is false or unrealistic, it

shall   record   the   reason   in   decision   and   direct

appropriate action as contemplated under Section 14,

read  with  Section  11  and  12  of  the  Act  and  also

29

recommend   Departmental   inquiry   against   such

Vigilance Officer:

Provided that, an opportunity of being heard be

granted to the concerned Vigilance Cell officer prior to

any   direction   for   appropriate   action.   This   hearing

shall be independent to adjudication of Caste or Tribe

claim.

12.A combined reading of the Sections of 2000 Act and Rules of

2012 Rules, makes it clear that a detailed procedure has been

prescribed for the Scrutiny Committee to deal with the claim of

an applicant seeking validation of caste certificate issued by the

Competent Authority. The power to deal with such verification

has been specifically vested with Scrutiny Committee and it falls

within the exclusive domain of it in view of Rule 13(b) of 2012

Rules. For the purposes of verification, the Scrutiny Committee

has all the powers of Civil Court while trying a civil suit and it

can   further   take   internal   assistance   of   Vigilance   Cell   for

verification in those cases as and when needed by the Committee.

It is pertinent here to note that, as per Rule13(2)(b), the findings

recorded, and opinion expressed by the Vigilance Cell shall not be

binding   on   Scrutiny   Committee   and   nor   could   be   used   in

evidence for the purpose of claim. Further, Rule 17(6) provides

that if the Scrutiny Committee upon appreciation of statement of

30

applicant in prescribed format as well as other evidence and

documents   furnished   along   with   it,   is   satisfied   about   the

genuineness of same, then it shall forthwith issue the validity

certificate in FORM–20 without enquiry by Vigilance Cell. In other

words, the said Rule provides for subjective satisfaction of the

Scrutiny Committee when a claim is made and does not mandate

verification in each case by the Vigilance Cell. At this juncture,

Section 7(2) of the 2000 Act also assumes significance. It fortifies

the exclusive domain of Scrutiny Committee and deals with the

finality of the orders passed by Scrutiny Committee under the

2000 Act stating that the orders passed by Scrutiny Committee

shall be final and it shall not be open to challenge before any

authority   or   Court   except   High   Court   under   Article   226   of

Constitution of India. The said language used in sub clause (2)

clearly reflects the intention of legislature to ensure minimal

interference with the orders of Scrutiny Committee. 

13.Now reverting to the facts of the instant case, the Scrutiny

Committee   admitted   the   claim   of   Appellant   vide   order   dated

03.11.2017 based on its subjective satisfaction regarding two

documents   namely,   (i)   bona­fide   certificate   issued   by   Khalsa

College of Arts, Science and Commerce in favour of Appellant’s

31

grandfather mentioning his caste as ‘Sikh­Chamar’; and (ii) the

Indenture of Tenancy of year 1932 in favour of great grandfather

of Appellant as his residence proof, proving his migration from

Punjab to Maharashtra prior to issuance of Presidential Order in

1950.   The   Scrutiny   Committee   also   extensively   referred   to

pedigree   table   of   Appellant   tracing   the   genealogy   of   caste   of

Appellant’s forefathers as ‘Mochi’. The said fact was also affirmed

by Vigilance squad which made a personal site visit in Punjab

and confirmed the truthfulness/genuineness of the contents of

the pedigree documents from the locals as well as authorities

concerned. Although the said documents were not admitted by

the Scrutiny Committee for them not being in ‘complete form’,

however,   notably   these   documents   were   neither   objected   nor

debated by the complainant. Be that as it may, once the Scrutiny

Committee after hearing the contesting parties and evaluating the

documents   on   record   reached   on   conclusion   based   on   its

satisfaction and application of mind, the question that arises for

consideration of this Court in the particular facts of this case is

that   how   far   the   High   Court   was   justified   in   completely

overturning the findings of Scrutiny Committee in exercise of

32

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by re­

appraisal of the entire evidence on record? 

14.The   entire   sum   and   substance   of   the   Respondents’

arguments before this Court and High Court is that the Appellant

has forged and fabricated the documents to obtain her caste

validity certificate. In our view, it is a disputed question of facts

and can only be sustained by leading evidence. Admittedly in the

present case, on remand by High Court, the parties appeared

before the Scrutiny Committee, filed objections and led evidence.

They were heard and after due consideration of all the material

brought   on   record,   the   Scrutiny   Committee,   delineated   the

objections and passed the detailed order validating the caste

certificate   of   the   Appellant   primarily   on   the   anvil   of   report

submitted by Vigilance Cell and report of home enquiry and also

held that other documents produced by the contesting parties are

inadmissible. So far as question of admissibility of  bona­fide

certificate   dated   11.02.2014   issued   in   favour   of   Appellant’s

grandfather is concerned, the Scrutiny Committee recorded its

satisfaction and formed opinion that the said certificate is a

competent evidence and held it as admissible after verification of

the   students’   original   register   which   recorded   the   date   of

33

admission   of   Appellant’s   grandfather   as   16.11.1946.   The

complainants   have   not   raised   any   oral   or   written   objection

regarding   this  document   before   the  Scrutiny   Committee.  The

primary   grievance   of   the   complainants   before   the   Scrutiny

Committee was that they were not allowed to cross­examine the

Vice­Principal of the said college who came to present the original

record. However, the present case herein is not that the said

grievance was not considered by the Committee or that it had a

biased or favourable approach towards the applicant. A perusal

of   the   order   passed   by   Scrutiny   Committee   reveals   that   the

request of complainants for cross­examination of Vice­Principal

was not accepted for the reason that the said person came as a

presenter of the original student register on behalf of Principal of

the college, and being representative, he does not automatically

become witness of the applicant. 

15.Now,  when the   Scrutiny   Committee  which is  principally

tasked with the fact­finding exercise for validation of caste claim,

had applied its mind and reached a conclusion, then in such a

situation, whether a roving enquiry by High Court was required?

It is well settled that High Courts as well as Supreme Court

should refrain themselves from deeper probe into factual issues

34

like   an   appellate   body   unless   the   inferences   made   by   the

concerned authority suffers from perversity on the face of it or

are impermissible in the eyes of law. In the instant case, the

order passed by Scrutiny Committee reflects due appreciation of

evidence and application of mind and in absence of any allegation

of bias/malice or lack of jurisdiction, disturbing the findings of

Scrutiny Committee cannot be sustained. 

16.In view of the above discussion, if we take a look at the

findings of the High Court in said perspective and deal with each

findings   individually,   it   would   rather   burden   the   judgment

unnecessarily and therefore, we deem it appropriate to confine

our analysis only to those findings by which the High Court has

upset the reasonings adopted by Scrutiny Committee to admit

those two documents, i.e., the bona­fide certificate of Appellant’s

grandfather and indenture of tenancy of year 1932 to allow the

claim of Appellant. With respect to bona­fide certificate, the High

Court opined that the Scrutiny Committee did not deal with the

observations made by Vigilance Cell that the original student

register was not produced by the Vice­Principal for inspection

and that the handwriting and ink of the last two entries made in

the said register did not match. The High Court itself perused the

35

coloured photocopy of the last page of the register and affirmed

the difference in handwriting and the ink by appreciating the said

evidence. On the other hand, insofar as the indenture of tenancy

of year 1932 is concerned, the High Court in contradiction with

the Scrutiny Committee was of the view that the alleged rent

agreement was relied upon by Appellant much later in time,

coupled with the  fact that  it  did not  make any  sense  for  a

landlord and tenant in a private rent agreement to mention the

caste   of   tenant.   The   High   Court   further   observed   that   to

substantiate the rent agreement, the Scrutiny Committee heavily

relied upon the affidavit of one Smt. Radha Adukiya, i.e., the

granddaughter of the erstwhile landlord who rented the property

in favour of Appellant’s grandfather. In the said affidavit, Smt.

Akudia   deposed   that   her   grandfather   rented   the   property   in

favour   of   Appellant’s   grandfather   and   further   identified   his

signatures too. Smt. Akudiya at the time of deposition herself was

about 82 years of age and she recognized the signatures of her

grandfather on an agreement allegedly executed 55 years back. In

view of the same, the High Court was of the opinion that Scrutiny

Committee failed in not carrying out an enquiry in finding out the

authenticity   of   the   said   rent   agreement.   With   these   primary

36

findings, the High Court quashed and set­aside the order of

Scrutiny Committee. 

17.Having perused the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee

and findings recorded by it to reach its subjective satisfaction

with respect to claim of Appellant, at this juncture, if we look at

the whole exercise carried out by High Court from the perspective

of settled principles of law for invocation of jurisdiction under

Article 226 of Constitution of India, particularly in relation of writ

of certiorari, it leaves us with no scope of doubt that the High

Court has clearly overstepped by re­appreciating the evidence in

absence of any allegation of mala­fide or perversity. As fairly

settled by this Court in catena of judgments, the writ of certiorari

being a writ of high prerogative, should not be invoked on mere

asking. The purpose of a writ of certiorari for a superior Court is

not   to   review   or   reweigh   the   evidence   to   adjudicate   unless

warranted.   The   jurisdiction   is   supervisory   and   the   Court

exercising it, ought to refrain to act as an appellate court unless

the facts so warrant. It also ought not re­appreciate the evidence

and   substitute   its   own   conclusion   interfering   with   a   finding

unless perverse. The High Court in a writ for certiorari should not

interfere when such challenge is on the ground of insufficiency or

37

adequacy   of   material   to   sustain   the   impugned   finding.

Assessment of adequacy or sufficiency of evidence in the case at

hand,   fell   within   the   exclusive   jurisdiction   of   the   Scrutiny

Committee and re­agitation of challenge on such grounds ought

not have been entertained by High Court in a routine manner.

18.As per the ratio of larger Bench judgment of this Court in

‘Dayaram Vs. Sudhir Batham and Others., (2012) 1 SCC

333’, it reveals that the Court while answering the question as to

whether   the   Civil   Courts’   jurisdiction   was   rightly   barred   by

judgment in  Kumari Madhuri Patil  (supra), observed that a

Scrutiny Committee is not an adjudicating authority like a Court

or Tribunal, rather it is an administrative body which verifies the

fact,   investigates   into   a   specific   caste   claim   and   ascertains

whether the caste claim is correct or not. It was further observed

that permitting civil suits to challenge such proceedings with the

provisions   of   appeal   and   further   appeals   would   defeat   the

purpose of the scheme. However, such decisions were rightly

made available to challenge in proceedings under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India ‘which may be within the parameters for

invoking the writ jurisdiction by High Court’ in the judgment of

38

Kumari Madhuri Patil  (supra). Though at the same time, the

said observation does not explicitly give a wide power in a writ of

certiorari which is not within the purview of issuance of such writ

merely   because   of   decision   of   Scrutiny   Committee   is   under

challenge. 

19.In sum and substance, the writ of certiorari is expended as

a remedy and is intended to cure jurisdictional error, if any,

committed by the Courts/forums below. It should not be used by

superior Court to substitute its own views by getting into fact­

finding   exercise   unless   warranted.  [See  Central   Council   for

Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and Another Vs. Bikartan

Das and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine 996 –   Para 51 and 52;

Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477 –

Para 7]. At this juncture, it would also be profitable to refer

relevant extract from judgment delivered by this Court in ‘Indian

Overseas Bank’  (supra),  wherein para 17, it was observed as

thus – 

“17. ……..The findings of fact recorded by a fact­finding

authority   duly   constituted   for   the   purpose   and   which

ordinarily   should   be   considered   to   have   become   final,

cannot be disturbed for the mere reason of having been

39

based on materials or evidence not sufficient or credible in

the opinion of the writ Court to warrant those findings at

any rate, as long as they are based upon such materials

which are relevant for the purpose or even on the ground

that there is yet another view which can be reasonably

and possibly undertaken……”

Such being the situation, in the instant case, the High

Court went into a probe regarding credibility of the opinion of the

Scrutiny   Committee   because   the   writ   Court   felt   the   need   to

substitute it’s own views. In case if the findings of the Scrutiny

Committee are based on the materials specified under Rule 16

followed   by   its   subjective   satisfaction,   then   exercise   of

jurisdiction   under   writ   of   certiorari   to   quash   the   order   of

validation of caste claim by Scrutiny Committee is unwarranted

and uncalled for. 

20.In a recent reference in  ‘Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat

Swarakshan Samiti’ (supra), while answering the question as to

‘whether paramount importance should be given to the affinity test

while adjudicating upon a caste claim on the basis of a caste

certificate issued by a Competent Authority, or in other words,

whether the affinity test is a litmus test for deciding a caste claim’,

this Court observed that if the Scrutiny Committee is satisfied

40

with the documents, it need not mechanically forward the same

to the Vigilance Cell for verification in a routine manner. Even as

per Rule 17(7) of the 2012 Rules, the Scrutiny Committee is not

required to send every document to Vigilance Cell. It is only when

the Scrutiny Committee after holding an enquiry is not satisfied

with the material produced by the applicant, it may refer to

Vigilance Cell. Therefore, in our considered view, the observations

made  by the   High Court  in the   case  at  hand  regarding not

sending the documents to Vigilance Cell is not justified. 

21.Lastly, the documents which are furnished by an applicant

before   the   Scrutiny   Committee   are   a   reference   point   for   the

Scrutiny Committee to verify the caste claim of an Applicant. In

such a case, where the Applicant is tracing the caste genealogy

based  on  documents   from  pre­independence  era,  the  task  of

Scrutiny Committee is to validate or reject a claim of validity

certificate based on assessment of documents that are filed by

the Applicant. More so, the Scrutiny Committee under Rule 4(3)

of   the   2012   Rules   can   even   allow   caste   claim   without   any

supporting documents. Hence, as already discussed above, such

adjudication  is  kept  within  the  exclusive  domain  of  Scrutiny

Committee under Rule 13(2)(a) of 2012 Rules.

41

22.In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered

opinion that High Court inadvertently undertook an erroneous

exercise of appreciating evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction

under Article 226 of Constitution of India and swayed itself into a

roving   inquiry   which   was   not   expected   as   per   settled   legal

position. At the cost of repetition, we again observe that under

Rule 13(2)(a) of 2012 Rules, the adjudication on the basis of the

documents falls solely within the domain of Scrutiny Committee

based   on   the   inputs   received   from   the   Vigilance   Cell.   The

Scrutiny Committee is an expert forum armed with fact finding

authority. The High Court ought not to have interfered, especially

when Scrutiny Committee had followed the due procedure under

Rule 12, 17 and 18 of the 2012 Rules and that there was nothing

perverse about a finding of fact.

23.In the instant case, the Scrutiny Committee duly considered

the documents placed before it and after due application of mind

on being satisfied, accorded reasons for accepting/validating the

caste   claim   of   the   Appellant   herein   while   accepting/rejecting

other certain documents. The Scrutiny Committee heard all the

parties in detail complying with the principles of natural justice.

Hence,   in   our   considered   opinion,   the   order   of   Scrutiny

42

Committee did not merit any interference by the High Court in a

‘writ of certiorari’ under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

24.So   far   as   question   as   to   judicial   scope   to   tinker   with

Presidential   Order   is   concerned,   there   is   no   quarrel   that

Presidential   Order   cannot   be   amended   directly   or   indirectly.

However,   the   whole   argument   of   Respondents   to   the   effect

interference by this Court would amount to fiddling with the

Presidential Order is not sustainable for the reason that, the case

of the Appellant neither calls for any inquiry into a sub­caste nor

does it amend the Presidential Order. The Appellant had claimed

‘Mochi’,   the   Scrutiny   Committee   validated   and   granted   the

‘Mochi’ caste certificate and ‘Mochi’ caste is clearly mentioned in

Entry   11   of   the   Presidential   Order.   The   argument   of   the

Respondents that a reserved category in one State cannot be

granted benefit of reservation in another State has no bearing in

the present case since in the instant case, the Appellant did not

claim ‘Mochi’ caste based on her caste in some other State.

Rather, the claim was for ‘Mochi’ based on genealogical caste

history of Appellant’s forefathers. The Scrutiny Committee has

verified the claim of Appellant holding that Appellant belongs to

43

‘Mochi’ caste in accordance with Entry 11 of Presidential Order

as application to Maharashtra.

25.Accordingly, in the light of discussion made hereinabove

and considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, the instant

appeals stand allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the

High   Court   stands   set­aside.   The   validation   order   dated

03.11.2017   passed   by   the   Scrutiny   Committee   is   restored.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. There

shall be no order as to costs.

…………….…………J.

(J.K. MAHESHWARI)

………………………..J.

(SANJAY KAROL)

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 04, 2024.

44