http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 89 of 2004

PETITIONER:

R. Vishwanatha Pillai

RESPONDENT:

State of Kerala & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/01/2004

BENCH:

CJI,Ashok Bhan & Dr.AR. Lakshmanan.

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

(arising out of SLP (C) No. 18503 of 2000)

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO.90 OF 2004

(arising out of SLP (C) No. 12261 of 2001)

Vimal Ghosh V. \005Appellant

Versus

State of Kerala & Ors. \005Respondents

BHAN, J.

Leave granted.

This judgment shall dispose of both the Civil Appeals bearing Civil

No.89 of 2004 (arising out of SLP ) No. 18503 of 2000) and Civil

Appeal No.90 of 2004 (arising out of SLP) No. 12261 of 2001), arisen

from a common order dated 28.7.2000 passed by the High Court of Kerala.

The former has been filed by R. Vishwanatha Pillai challenging the order of

the High Court wherein the High Court has set aside the order of the Central

Administrative Tribunal in which a direction was issued to the State not to

remove the appellant from service without complying with the provisions of

Article 311 of the Constitution and the rules framed thereunder. High Court

held that the appellant was not entitled to the protection provided under

Article 311 of the Constitution and the Rules framed thereunder as the

appellant had obtained appointment on the basis of false caste certificate and

would be deemed not to have been appointed to the service validly ever.

The second appeal has been filed by his son Vimal Ghosh V. whose

admission to the Regional Engineering College, Calicut has been cancelled

on the basis that he obtained admission to the College against the seat

reserved for a Scheduled Caste on the basis of false caste certificate. After

the passing of the order by the High Court, an order removing the appellant

from service was passed on 11.10.2000 by the appointing authority.

We shall take up the Civil Appeal No.89 of 2004 (arising from the

SLP) No. 18503 of 2000) first and shall deal with the other appeal

separately.

In the school record the caste of R. Vishwanatha Pillai (hereinafter

referred to as "the appellant") was recorded as "Veduvar Pillai". His father

was one Radhakrishna Pillai. He was a "Nair" by caste. His mother's caste

was "Veduvar Pillai". "Nair" as well as "Veduvar Pillai" are forward

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10

castes. The caste of his brother and other two sisters in the school record

was also recorded as belonging to forward caste. Appellant obtained a

community certificate on 14.10.1969 from the Tahsildar, Ambalappuzha

stating that he was a member of the "Vettuvan" community. On the basis of

this certificate he was able to get an appointment as Assistant in the

Legislative Secretariat in the year 1973 against a post reserved for

Scheduled Caste. In the year 1977 he was selected as direct recruit to the

post of Deputy Superintend of Police against a seat reserved for Scheduled

Caste on the basis of caste certificate obtained by him. He was subsequently

promoted and included in the cadre of Indian Police Service (IPS). The

Government of Kerala on the basis of a complaint received, ordered a full

fledged anthropological enquiry into the caste status of the appellant. It was

alleged that the appellant did not belong to the Scheduled Caste and had

usurped the post meant for Scheduled Caste. The preliminary investigation

was conducted by the Kerala Institute for Research, Training &

Development Studies of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (for short

"KIRTADS") which is a department under SC/ST Development

Department which conducts anthropological investigation into the caste

status of individual, whenever it is doubted. The appellant was served

with a notice. He participated in the enquiry conducted by the KIRTADS

and during the enquiry (1992) the appellant claimed that he belonged to

"Kuruvan" community which is also a Scheduled Caste community as per

the Scheduled Caste order of Kerala. KIRTADS after examining both the

oral and documentary evidence submitted a report stating that the appellant

did not belong to Scheduled Caste community, as claimed.

Pursuant to the judgment of this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs.

Additional Commissioner, 1994 (6) SCC 241, the Government of Kerala

constituted a Scrutiny Committee by a notification dated 8.5.1995. The

enquiry into the caste status was referred to the said Scrutiny Committee.

The appellant was duly notified by the said Scrutiny Committee. Initially,

the appellant challenged the authority of the Scrutiny Committee before the

High Court but subsequently participated in the proceedings and entered

appearance through counsel and submitted the documentary evidence in

support of his claim of being Scheduled Caste before the Committee. The

appellant submitted 117 documents. The Scrutiny Committee by an order

dated 18.11.1995 rejected the claim of the appellant in a well considered and

elaborate order. The appellant challenged the order of the Scrutiny

Committee in the High Court of Kerala in O.P. No. 963 of 1996. The

petition was dismissed by the Division Bench on 26.2.1997 by a reasoned

order. The order of the Scrutiny Committee was upheld. The special leave

petition bearing No. 11199 of 1997 filed against the order of the High Court

was dismissed on 1.5.1998. The review petition in the order of the SLP was

also dismissed on 12.8.1998.

Thereafter, the appellant filed O.A. No. 340 of 1997 before the

Central Administrative Tribunal (Ernakulam Bench) seeking direction

against the respondents not to terminate the service of the appellant based on

the proceedings of the Scrutiny Committee, and also not to terminate the

service without satisfying the conditions laid down in Article 311 of the

Constitution of India along with the provisions of All India Service

(Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the

Rules"). The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the O.A. on

24.4.1997 and directed that the service of the appellant be not terminated

without following the procedure laid down in Article 311 and also under the

Rules. The said decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal was

challenged before the High Court of Kerala by the State of Kerala in O.P.

No. 10840 of 1997.

The High Court by the impugned order accepted the writ petition and

reversed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. It was held that

the question regarding the caste status of the appellant stood settled in the

earlier proceedings upto this Court and was no longer debatable. The

competent authority had found that the appellant did not belong to

Scheduled Caste. The very basis of his appointment was taken away. Since

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10

his appointment was no appointment in the eye of law, the appellant could

not claim any right to the post to which he was appointed on the basis of a

false caste certificate thereby usurping the post meant for a Scheduled Caste.

It was held that the appellant would not be entitled to the protection

provided under Article 311 of the Constitution of India as well as the Rules

framed thereunder. The High Court relied upon the judgment of this

Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra). After the judgment of the

High Court the appellant was removed from service by an order dated

12.10.2000. Aggrieved against the said order the present appeal has been

filed.

At the admission stage notice was issued on the contention raised by

the counsel for the appellant that the decision of this Court in Kumari

Madhuri Patil's case (supra) required reconsideration in so far as it directs

that "admission or appointment can be cancelled without notice to the

candidate" being contrary to the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution

of India. Later on 19.2.2002 it was suggested to the Court that the order of

dismissal be substituted by an order of compulsorily retiring the appellant or

an order of removal from service to protect the pensionery benefits as he had

rendered about 27 years of service. This was not accepted by the

respondents.

Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant

fairly conceded that the question regarding the validity of the caste

certificate has become final after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition

No. 11199 of 1997 and is no longer debatable.

It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the decision of this

Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) directed that "admission or

appointment can be cancelled without notice to the candidate" requires to be

reconsidered. According to him the protection under Article 311 of the

Constitution of India and the Rules made thereunder cannot be taken away

by a judicial pronouncement and the appellant would be entitled to the

constitutional protection provided to him under Article 311 of the

Constitution and the Government was required to comply with the All India

Service (Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1969 before terminating his

services.

In Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) the admissions were taken

by two sisters to the professional courses on the basis of false caste

certificate produced by them, which were cancelled after the report

submitted by the Verification Committee to the effect that the certificates

produced by the appellants therein were false and that the appellants did not

belong to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. The Court observed that

all citizens were to be treated equally. That the Constitution guaranteed to

the citizens equality before law and the equal protection of law. Though

Articles 14 and 15 (1) prohibit discrimination among citizens but Article 15

(4) empowers the State to make special provisions for advancement of

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Article 16(1) requires equality of

opportunity to all citizens in the matters of appointment to an office or a post

under the Union or a State Government or a public undertakings etc. But

Article 16(4) empowers the State to make provision for reservation of

appointments or posts in favour of castes not adequately represented in the

services under the State. That the admission wrongly gained or appointment

wrongly obtained on the basis of false social status certificate necessarily has

the effect of depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or

OBC candidates as enjoined in the Constitution of the benefits conferred on

them by the Constitution. Thereafter the Court laid down the procedure for

the grant of social status certificate, its due verification and the examination

by the Scrutiny committee of its genuineness. If the certificate was found to

be genuine then no further action was required to be taken but if the caste

certificate produced was found to be false or fraudulently obtained then

immediate action was required to be taken. The findings recorded by the

Scrutiny Committee were made final and conclusive which could not be

challenged in any suit or any proceedings except in the High Court under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Scrutiny Committee was

required to communicate its report under a registered cover to the

educational institution as well as the appointing authority. The educational

institution or the appointing authority on receipt of the said report was

required to cancel the admission/appointment without any further notice to

the candidate and debar the candidate from the further study or continue in

office in a post. This was done to simplify the procedure for grant of the

social status certificate as well as its scrutiny, and, if found to be false the

follow-up action to be taken. It was done primarily for quick disposal of

such matters so that the genuine Schedules Castes and Scheduled Tribes

persons are not deprived of the benefits conferred on them under the

Constitution of India and to debar the non genuine Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes from taking advantage of the benefit conferred under the

Constitution on the basis of false caste certificate obtained by them by

committing a fraud. The persons who had obtained admission or got the

appointment on the basis of false caste certificate thereby usurping the

seat/post reserved for the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes were required

to be weeded out by prompt action. It was held:

"13. The Admission wrongly gained or

appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of false

social status certificate necessarily has the effect of

depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes or

Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined

in the Constitution of the benefits conferred on

them by the Constitution. The genuine candidates

ate also denied admission to educational

institutions or appointments to office or posts

under a State for want of social status certificate.

The ineligible or spurious persons who falsely

gained entry resort to dilatory tactics and create

hurdles in completion of the inquiries by the

Scrutiny Committee. It is true that the applications

for admission to educational institutions are

generally made by a parent, since on that date

many a time the student may be a minor. It is the

parent or the guardian who may play fraud

claiming false status certificate. It is, therefore,

necessary that the certificates issued are scrutinised

at the earliest and with utmost expedition and

promptitude."

Article 311 provides that a member of a civil service of the Union or

the State shall not be dismissed or removed by any authority subordinate to

that by which he was appointed. That the employee shall not be dismissed

or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry, in which he has been

informed of the charges against him and a give a reasonable opportunity of

being heard in respect of those charges. In exercise of the power conferred

by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the All India Services Act, 1951, the

Central Government, in consultation with the Governments of the States

concerned, framed the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,

1969. These Rules lay down the detailed procedure as to the manner in

which the action is required to be taken against a delinquent public servant.

Relying upon the Article 311 and provisions of the Rules, it was contended

by Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellant, that the

service of the appellant could not be terminated without following the

procedure laid therein.

We do not find any substance in this submission. The misconduct

alleged against the appellant is that he entered the service against reserved

post meant for the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe on the basis of a false

caste certificate. While appointing the appellant as Deputy Superintendent

of Police in the year 1977, he was considered as belonging to the Scheduled

Caste. This was found to be wrong and his appointment is to be treated as

cancelled. This action has been taken not for any misconduct of the appellant

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10

during his tenure as civil servant but on the finding that he does not belong

to the Scheduled Caste as claimed by him before his appointment to the post.

As to whether the certificate produced by him was genuine or not was

examined in detail by the KIRTADS and the Scrutiny Committee constituted

under the orders of this Court. Appellant was given due opportunity to

defend himself. The order passed by the Scrutiny Committee was upheld by

the High Court and later on by this Court. On close scrutiny of facts we find

that the safeguards provided in Article 311 of the Constitution that the

Government servant should not be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank

without holding an inquiry in which he has been given an opportunity to

defend himself stands complied with. Instead of departmental inquiry the

inquiry has been conducted by the Scrutiny Committee consisting of three

officers, namely, (1) 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 having intimate

knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certifies, who

were better equipped to examine the question regarding the validity or

otherwise of the caste certificate. Due opportunity was given to the

appellant to put-forth his point of view and defend himself. The issuance of

a fresh notice under the Rules for proving the same misconduct which has

already been examined by an independent body constituted under the

direction of this Court, the decision of which has already been upheld upto

this Court would be repetitive as well as futile. The second safeguard in

Article 311 that the order of dismissal, removal and reduction in rank should

not be passed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed

has also been met with. The impugned order terminating the services of the

appellant has been passed by his appointing authority.

Rule 6 of the Rules provides the penalties 'major' or 'minor' which

can be awarded to the delinquent officer on being found guilty of

misconduct alleged against him. Rule 7(1) provides that where a member of

the service has committed any act or omission, either before his appointment

or subsequently, which renders him liable to any penalty specified in Rule 6,

then, the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsorily retirement shall not

be imposed in the case of Central Government employee except by an order

of the Central Government{Rule 7(2)}. In the present case, the order has

been passed by the Central Government as the appellant was an IPS officer.

The act or omission on the part of the appellant pertains to the period prior to

his joining the service. There is no non-compliance of Rules 6 or 7 of the

Rules.

This apart, the appellant obtained the appointment in the service on

the basis that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste community. When it was

found by the Scrutiny Committee that he did not belong to the Scheduled

Caste community, then the very basis of his appointment was taken away.

His appointment was no appointment in the eyes of law. He cannot claim a

right to the post as he had usurped the post meant for a reserved candidate by

playing a fraud and producing a false caste certificate. Unless the appellant

can lay a claim to the post on the basis of his appointment he cannot claim

the constitutional guarantee given under the Article 311 of the Constitution.

As he had obtained the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate

he cannot be considered to be a person who holds a post within the meaning

of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Finding recorded by the

Scrutiny Committee that the appellant got the appointment on the basis of

false caste certificate has become final. The position, therefore, is that the

appellant has usurped the post which should have gone to a member of the

Scheduled Caste. In view of the finding recorded by the Scrutiny

Committee and upheld upto this Court he has disqualified himself to hold

the post. Appointment was void from its inception. It cannot be said that

the said void appointment would enable the appellant to claim that he was

holding a civil post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of

India. As appellant had obtained the appointment by playing a fraud he

cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own fraud in entering the service

and claim that he was holder of the post entitled to be dealt with in terms of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10

Article 311 of the Constitution of India or the Rules framed thereunder.

Where an appointment in a service has been acquired by practising fraud or

deceit such an appointment is no appointment in law, in service and in such

a situation Article 311 of the Constitution is not attracted at all.

In Ishwar Dayal Sah Vs. State of Bihar, 1987 Lab.I.C. 390, the

Division Bench of the Patna High Court examined the point as to whether a

person who obtained the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate

was entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution. In the said

case the employee had obtained appointment by producing a caste certificate

that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste community which later on was found

to be false. His appointment was cancelled. It was contended by the

employee that the cancellation of his appointment amounted to removal

from service within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution and

therefore void. It was contended that he could not be terminated from service

without holding departmental inquiry as provided under the Rules. Dealing

with the above contention, the High Court held that if the very appointment

to the civil post is vitiated by fraud, forgery or crime or illegality, it would

necessarily follow that no constitutional rights under Article 311 of the

Constitution can possibly flow. It was held:

"If the very appointment to civil post is vitiated by

fraud, forgery or crime or illegality, it would

necessarily follow that no constitutional rights

under Article 311 can possible flow from such a

tainted force. In such a situation, the question is

whether the person concerned is at all a civil

servant of the Union or the State and if he is not

validly so, then the issue remains outside the

purview of Art. 311. If the very entry or the

crossing of the threshold into the arena of the civil

service of the State or the Union is put in issue and

door is barred against him, the cloak of protection

under Art. 311 is not attracted."

The point was again examined by a Full Bench of the Patna High

Court in Rita Mishra Vs. Director, Primary Education, Bihar, AIR 1988

Patna 26. The question posed before the Full Bench was whether a public

servant was entitled to payment of salary to him for the work done despite

the fact that his letter of appointment was forged, fraudulent or illegal. The

Full Bench held:

"13. It is manifest from the above that the rights to

salary, pension and other service benefits are

entirely statutory in nature in pubic service.

Therefore, these rights including the right to

salary, spring from a valid and legal appointment

to the post. Once it is found that the very

appointment is illegal and is non est in the eye of

law, no statutory entitlement for salary or

consequential rights of pension and other monetary

benefits can arise. In particular, if the very

appointment is rested on forgery, no statutory right

can flow it."

We agree with the view taken by the Patna High Court in the

aforesaid cases.

It was then contended by Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the

appellant that since the appellant has rendered about 27 years of service the

order of dismissal be substituted by an order of compulsory retirement or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10

removal from service to protect the pensionery benefits of the appellant. We

do not find any substance in this submission, as well. The rights to salary,

pension and other service benefits are entirely statutory in nature in public

service. Appellant obtained the appointment against a post meant for a

reserved candidate by producing a false caste certificate and by playing a

fraud. His appointment to the post was void and non est in the eyes of law.

The right to salary or pension after retirement flow from a valid and legal

appointment. The consequential right of pension and monetary benefits can

be given only if the appointment was valid and legal. Such benefits cannot

be given in a case where the appointment was found to have been obtained

fraudulently and rested on false caste certificate. A person who entered the

service by producing a false caste certificate and obtained appointment for

the post meant for Scheduled Caste thus depriving the genuine Scheduled

Caste of appointment to that post does not deserve any sympathy or

indulgence of this Court. A person who seeks equity must come with clean

hands. He, who comes to the Court with false claims, cannot plead equity

nor the Court would be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour.

A person who seeks equity must act in a fair and equitable manner. Equity

jurisdiction cannot be exercised in the case of a person who got the

appointment on the basis of false caste certificate by playing a fraud. No

sympathy and equitable consideration can come to his rescue. We are of the

view that equity or compassion cannot be allowed to bend the arms of law

in a case where an individual acquired a status by practising fraud.

Another point argued by the learned senior counsel for the appellant

was that the law laid down by this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case

(supra) would be operate prospectively and could not be applied in the case

of the appellant. We do not find any substance in this submission as well.

The judgment in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) was delivered on

2.9.1994. Inquiry against the appellant had started in the year 1988 by

KIRTADS. Report of the Inquiry Committee is dated 11.4.1994. Report of

the Scrutiny Committee is dated 18.11.1995. The order of removal from

service is dated 11.10.2000. Keeping in view the fact that the order was

passed subsequent to the order of this Court it cannot be held that the law

laid down in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) is being applied

retrospectively. Because of this decision cases which were concluded prior

to the judgment of the Court are not being reopened. Procedure/Rule laid

down in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) is being applied to a case in

which fraud was detected after the judgment.

For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this appeal

and dismiss the same.

Civil Appeal No.90 of 2004

(arising from the SLP ) No. 12261 of 2001)

Appellant herein is the son of R. Vishwanatha Pillai, the appellant in

Civil Appeal No.89 of 2004 (arising from the SLP ) No. 18503 of

2000). He was born on 10.6.1974. His caste was shown as Scheduled caste

in the school record at the time of admission. He applied for the admission

to the Regional Engineering College at Calicut against a seat reserved for a

Scheduled caste candidate. He was given admission on the basis of the caste

certificate dated 22.6.1992. The Scrutiny Committee constituted under the

orders of this Court on 18.11.1995 held that the appellant's father did not

belong to the Scheduled caste and cancelled the community certificate

issued to him. Consequently, the caste certificate issued to the appellant

was cancelled. On the basis of the KIRTADS report and the findings of the

Scrutiny Committee communicated to the Regional Engineering College,

Calicut the admission of the appellant was cancelled and his name was

removed from the rolls of the College.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10

This order was challenged by the appellant in the High Court by filing

a writ petition being O.P. No. 18774 of 1995. In the writ petition the

appellant filed an application praying for the issuance of a direction to the

College to permit the appellant to appear for the 6th semester examination

which was to commence on 6.12.1995. On 15.12.1995 the High Court

allowed the appellant to appear in the 6th semester examination subject to the

condition that result be not published without obtaining further orders from

the Court. Later on, on a similar application filed by the appellant he was

allowed to continue the studies in the College and sit for the 7th and 8th

semester examinations. Pursuant to the permission granted by the High

Court the appellant appeared for 6th, 7th and 8th semester examinations but

the result was not declared. Appellant completed his engineering course in

the year 1996.

The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Division

Bench on 26.2.1997. Review Petition No. 174 of 1997 for the review of the

aforesaid order was also dismissed by the Division Bench on 3.7.1997.

Appellant, thereafter, filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13524 of 1997

in this Court, which was dismissed on 1.5.1998. Review Petition filed for

the review of the order dated 1.5.1998 was also dismissed on 12.8.1998.

Thereafter, the appellant filed interlocutory application in this Court seeking

declaration of the results of 6th, 7th and 8th semester examinations taken by

him. The said interlocutory application was not entertained by the Registry

of this Court and put up before the Court for orders.

Thereafter, the appellant filed Civil Misc. Petition No. 30521 of 2000

in O.P. No. 18774 of 1995 in the High Court for direction to the respondents

to publish the results of the 6th, 7th and 8th semester examinations of the

appellant on whatever condition the Court imposed. He moved the

application as he had completed his course in the year 1996 and had

appeared in all the examinations though under the orders of the Court. It

was pleaded by him that he had become ineligible to apply for admission to

any other professional college as he had become over age. It was further

stated by him that he did not make any false claim as to his caste. Because

of his father is declared caste at that time he was issued the caste certificate.

That the withholding of the appellant's result and consequently his degree

would not give any material advantage to the respondent but on the other

hand the same would cause grave and irreparable loss and hardship to the

appellant and would gravely affect his future career. He relied upon two

judgments of this Court, namely, Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) as

well as a Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in State of

Maharashtra Vs. Milind & Ors., 2001 (1) SCC 4 in which in spite of fact

that caste certificate produced by the candidate was found to be false, the

result of the candidate was directed to be declared with the stipulation that in

future the candidate shall not take any benefit/advantage on the basis of false

caste certificate obtained by him/her.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In Kumari Madhuri

Patil's case (supra) the Court while upholding the cancellation of the social

status fraudulently obtained by the candidate allowed her to appear in the

final year examination of the MBBS course with the rider that she would not

be entitled to take any benefit in future on the basis of the social caste

certificate obtained by her. It was observed:

"18. The Delay in the process is inevitable but that

factor should neither be considered to be relevant

nor be an aid to complete the course of study. But

for the fact that she has completed the entire

course except to appear for the final examination,

we would have directed to debar her from

prosecuting the studies and appearing in the

examination. In this factual situation no useful

purpose would be served to debar her from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10

appearing for the examination of final year MBBS.

Therefore, we uphold the cancellation of the social

status as Mahadeo Koli fraudulently obtained by

Km Suchita Laxman Patil, but she be allowed to

appear for the final year examination of MBBS

course. She will not, however be entitled in future

for any benefits on the basis of the fraudulent

social status as Mahadeo Koli. However, this

direction should not be treated and used as a

precedent in future cases to give any similar

direction since the same defeats constitutional

goals."

[Emphasis supplied]

In State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind & Ors., (supra), a Constitution Bench

of this Court while permitting the candidate to retain the degree obtained by

him even though his claim as member of the Scheduled Tribe was rejected

observed:

"Respondent 1 joined the medical course for the

year 1985 \02686. Almost 15 years have passed by

now. We are told he has already completed the

course and may be he is practising as a doctor. In

this view and at this length of time it is for

nobody's benefit to annul his admission. Huge

amount is spent on each candidate for completion

of joining of medical course. Bo doubt, one

Scheduled Tribe candidate was deprived of joining

medical course by the admission given to

Respondent 1. If nay 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 practising as a doctor. But we make it

clear that he cannot claim to 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. Having regard to the

passage of time, in the given circumstances,

including interim orders passed by this Court in

SLP (C) No. 16372 of 1985 and other related

affairs, we make it clear that the admissions and

appointments that have become final, shall remain

unaffected by this judgment."

[Emphasis supplied]

In this case we find that the appellant had joined the Regional

Engineering College in the year 1992. He completed the course of his

studies in the year 1996 under the interim orders of this Court which were

subject to the final orders to be passed in the writ petition. No purpose

would be served in withholding the declaration of the result on the basis of

the examination already taken by him or depriving him of the degree in case

he passes the examination. In terms of the orders passed by the Constitution

Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind & Ors., (Supra)

we direct that his result be declared and he be allowed to take his degree

with the condition he will not be treated as a Scheduled Caste candidate in

future either in obtaining service or for any other benefits flowing from the

caste certificate obtained by him. His caste certificate has been ordered to

be cancelled. Henceforth, he will be treated as a person belonging to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10

general category for all purposes.

For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed and the

impugned order dated 15.3.2002 passed by the High Court of Kerala is set

aside.