Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7857 OF 2004

Raiwad Manojkumar Nivruttirao                       …     Appellant

Versus

State of Maharashtra & Anr.         … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

This is an appeal against the order dated 05.082003 of  

the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.2146 of 2003.

2. The  facts  very  briefly  are  that  on 07.06.1990 the  

Tehsildar and Executive Magistrate issued a caste  

certificate to the appellant certifying that he belongs  

to  ‘Koli  Mahadeo’,  which  was  recognized  as  a  

Scheduled  Tribe  in  the  State  of  Maharashtra.  On  

28.02.1992,  the  appellant  was  selected  and  

appointed  to  a  vacancy  of  Clerk  Grade-II  in  the  

National  Bank  of  Agricultural  and  Rural

Development  (NABARD)  in  a  vacancy  reserved for  

Scheduled Tribe. The General Manager of NABARD  

referred  the  claim  of  the  appellant  as  Scheduled  

Tribe  for  verification  and  scrutiny.   The  Vigilance  

Cell  submitted  its  report  on  19.09.2000.   The  

Scrutiny  Committee  then  called  the  appellant  for  

interview and when the appellant did not appear on  

several  dates  fixed  for  the  interview,  it  finally  

submitted  its  order  on  27.01.2003  that  the  

appellant  did  not  belong  to  ‘Koli  Mahadeo’,  

Scheduled Tribe.   

3. Aggrieved  by  the  findings  of  the  Caste  Scrutiny  

Committee, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.2146  

of 2003 in the High Court challenging the order of  

the  Caste  Scrutiny  Committee.   By the  impugned  

order dated 05.08.2003, the High Court dismissed  

the Writ Petition.  In the impugned order, the High  

Court held that the Caste Scrutiny Committee had  

found from the documents on record that the father  

of  the  appellant  belonged to  caste  ‘Koli’  and ‘Koli’  

and ‘Koli Mahadeo’ are different tribes as has been  

2

decided by  this  Court  in  Kumari  Madhuri  Patil  &  

Anr. v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development   

&  Ors.  [AIR  1995  SC  94].   The  High  Court  also  

found  that  despite  several  notices  issued  to  the  

appellant,  he  did  not  appear  before  the  Caste  

Scrutiny Committee to attend the hearing and that  

the appellant had failed to discharge the burden to  

prove by producing cogent and reliable evidence that  

he belonged to the ‘Koli Mahadeo’ tribe and not to  

‘Koli’ tribe.   

4. Learned counsel  for  the  appellant  made efforts  to  

persuade us to set aside the findings of  the High  

Court  and the  Caste  Scrutiny  Committee,  but  on  

perusal  of  the  order  of  the  Caste  Scrutiny  

Committee and the High Court, we are not inclined  

to do so as we find that there is no infirmity in the  

order of either the Caste Scrutiny Committee or the  

High Court.

5. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  next  submitted  

that the appellant had been in service since 1992,  

3

almost  for  nineteen  years  and  if  the  appellant  is  

removed from service on the basis of the order of the  

Caste Scrutiny Committee, he will  suffer immense  

hardship.   He cited the decision in  Raju  Ramsing  

Vasave  v.  Mahesh  Deorao  Bhivapurkar  &  Ors.  

[(2008) 9 SCC 54] in which this Court invoking its  

jurisdiction under  Article  142 of  the  Constitution,  

directed  that  the  appointment  of  the  respondent  

no.1 in that case, who had put in a long years of  

service, should not be disturbed even though he was  

found not to be belong to the Scheduled Tribe.  He  

submitted that a similar relief may be granted to the  

appellant under Article 142 of the Constitution.

6. We find on reading of the judgment of this Court in  

Raju  Ramsing  Vasave  v.  Mahesh  Deorao   

Bhivapurkar & Ors. (supra) that the respondent no.1  

in  that  case  claimed  to  be  a  member  of  the  

Scheduled  Tribe,  namely,  the  ‘Halba’  tribe.   The  

caste of his father in school  record was shown as  

‘Koshti’,  whereas  the  caste  of  his  Uncle  and  his  

Cousins  were  shown as  ‘Halba’.   After  his  MBBS  

4

course, he was appointed as a Field Officer in the  

Maharashtra  Pollution  Control  Board  against  a  

vacancy  meant  for  Scheduled  Tribe  subject  to  

validity  certificate.   He filed a writ  petition in  the  

Bombay  High  Court  and  the  Bombay  High  Court  

allowed  the  writ  petition  in  1988.   The  Division  

Bench of  the Bombay High Court in its  judgment  

dated  11.08.1988  held  that  the  respondent  no.1  

should be declared as belonging to ‘Halba’ tribe as  

his  other  relatives  have  been  declared  as  such.  

Thereafter,  a  co-employee  of  respondent  no.1  

questioned the caste certificate granted in favour of  

the respondent no.1 and this Court held that  the  

respondent no.1 did not belong to ‘Halba’ tribe and  

was  not  a  Scheduled  Tribe.   In  Para  49  of  the  

judgment,  however,  this  Court  held  invoking  the  

jurisdiction  under  Article  142  of  the  Constitution  

that  it  would  not  be  proper  to  disturb  the  very  

appointment  of  the  respondent  no.1  in  that  case,  

but observed that he shall not be eligible for grant of  

any benefit as a member of Scheduled Tribe.

5

7. In the facts  of  the  present case,  we find that  the  

appellant belongs to ‘Koli’ tribe and it was in Kumari   

Madhuri  Patil  &  Anr.  v.  Additional  Commissioner,   

Tribal  Development & Ors. (supra) that it was held  

that ‘Mahadeo Koli’  and ‘Koli’  were not one or the  

same tribe and that ‘Koli’  tribe is not a Scheduled  

Tribe  and  the  decision  of  this  Court  in  Kumari   

Madhuri  Patil  &  Anr.  v.  Additional  Commissioner,   

Tribal  Development & Ors.  (supra)  has been relied  

upon by the High Court in the impugned judgment  

in this case to hold that the appellant did not belong  

to ‘Mahadeo Koli’ tribe.  Before the decision of this  

Court in  Kumari Madhuri Patil  & Anr. v. Additional   

Commissioner,  Tribal  Development  &  Ors.  (supra),  

the appellant had been appointed in the service of  

NABARD on 28.02.1992 and since 1992  for  long  

nineteen years, he has been in service.  Invoking our  

jurisdiction under  Article  142 of  the  Constitution,  

we  order  that  the  initial  appointment  of  the  

appellant  in  the  service  of  NABARD  will  not  be  

disturbed, but the appellant will not be granted any  

6

benefit  as  a  member  of  the  Scheduled  Tribe  

including any promotional benefit and promotional  

benefit, if any, granted to the appellant as a member  

of the Scheduled Tribe shall be cancelled.  We make  

it clear that the relief extended is not intended to be  

precedent  and  shall  not  be  relied  upon  to  grant  

similar relief.

8. The  appeal  is  partly  allowed  with  no  order  as  to  

costs.                 

The application for impleadment is dismissed.

.……………………….J.                                                            (R. V. Raveendran)

………………………..J.                                                            (A. K. Patnaik) New Delhi, October 13, 2011.    

7