RAJESHWAR BABURAO BONE Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Bench: M.Y. EQBAL,C. NAGAPPAN
Case number: C.A. No.-005778-005778 / 2015
Diary number: 6244 / 2014
Advocates: SHASHIBHUSHAN P. ADGAONKAR Vs
Page 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No.5778 of 2015 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No. 10430 of 2014]
Rajeshwar Baburao Bone …..Appellant(s)
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Another …..Respondent(s)
ORDER M. Y. EQBAL, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order
dated 17.12.2013 passed by the High Court of Bombay, Bench
at Aurangabad, whereby the High Court has dismissed the writ
petition filed by the appellant herein.
3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.
1
Page 2
4. The appellant herein claims to be belonging to ‘Koli
Mahadev’ a scheduled tribe community. According to the
appellant he separated from his family as there was dispute in
respect of the property with his father and for quite some time,
the appellant have no relationship or communication with his
father and other family members.
5. Since the appellant has secured employment with Zilla
Parishad, Beed, on the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe
category, the tribe certificate issued in his favour was referred
to the Scrutiny Committee for verification after 18 years from
the date of appointment. The appellant submitted several
documents in support of his claim including the oldest record of
1348 fasali pertaining to his grandfather namely Gundaji
Narsingh Bone wherein his caste is recorded as Mahadev Koli.
6. The claim of the appellant was referred to vigilance cell and
vigilance officer has conducted the home and school enquiry.
2
Page 3
On consideration of all the documents furnished by the
appellant including affidavits as well as forms filled in by the
appellant, the Scrutiny Committee proceeded to issue validity
certificate by reasoned order dated 19.06.2010.
7. It was later on revealed that tribe certificate issued in
favour of appellant’s brother by name Sharadkumar Baburao
Bone has been invalidated by the Committee by order dated
20.10.2004 and said order was communicated to him on
27.10.2004. The writ petition challenging the order passed by
the Committee invalidating tribe claim of the brother of the
appellant, being Writ Petition No. 6934 of 2004, has been
dismissed by the High Court. The SLP filed against that order of
the High Court has been dismissed by this Court.
8. The Scrutiny Committee, as such, decided to reconsider
the matter concerning issuance of validity certificate in favour
3
Page 4
of the appellant. The appellant was duly noticed by the
Committee and after extending opportunity of hearing to the
appellant, the Scrutiny Committee by order dated 24.2.2012
recalled its earlier order and directed invalidation of tribe
certificate of the appellant. In paragraph nos. 7,8,9, and 10, the
Scrutiny Committee has observed thus:-
“ Applicant has submitted in Form ‘E’ in which column No.17(a) it is specifically asked that whether any family member from your family members previously verified? Applicant answered that, ‘No’.
Applicant filed affidavit, notorised before notary on 13.1.2009 in format ‘F’ in which he specially made statement on oath, “No scheduled tribe certificate of any of my relatives from paternal side is ever held invalid by the Scrutiny Committee.
Applicant also submitted another affidavit dated 16.3.2009 in which he again made fake statement that ‘Any of my sister and brother or blood relatives bears surname as Bone whose claim never invalidated by the Committee or no any petition pending before any Court.
The Police inspector of vigilance cell recorded statement on 9.4.2009 of applicant’s father namely Shri Baburao Gundaji Bone. He also again made statement that “in my family, in Bone surnames or in my relatives whose claim never invalidated by the committee or no any petition pending before any Court.”
4
Page 5
9. The appellant challenged the aforesaid order dated
24.2.2012 passed by the Scrutiny Committee by filing a writ
petition being writ petition No.5160 of 2012 in the High Court of
Bombay at Aurangabad Bench. The High Court after hearing
the appellant dismissed the writ petition and observed as
under:-
“In our opinion, petitioner has willfully misled the Scrutiny Committee for securing validity certificate wrongfully. The petitioner is guilty of making false statements on oath before the Scrutiny Committee. As a result of misrepresentation made by the petitioner earlier, the Scrutiny Committee had issued validity certificate in his favour. However, after realizing fraudulent act of the petitioner, the Committee proceeded to recall its earlier order. Since the petitioner has played fraud by filing false affidavits on record before the Committee, the Committee was justified in recalling its earlier order of granting validity certificate in favour of the petitioner. It is well established that in the event of occurrence of fraud, Scrutiny Committee can recall its earlier order even in the absence of specific provision enabling the Committee to exercise powers of review.”
5
Page 6
10. Hence the present Appeal by Special Leave.
11. We have heard Mrs. Meenakshi Arora learned senior
counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Arun R. Pedneker,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State.
12. Mrs. Meenakshi Arora, put heavy reliance on the decision
of this Court in the case of Dattu s/o Namdev Thakur vs.
State of Maharashtra & Others (2012) 1 SCC 549 and Shalini
vs. New English High School Association & Ors. (2013) 16
SCC 526. We have carefully examined the ratio decided by this
Court in the decisions referred to hereinabove.
13. In the instant case, the appellant claimed to be a member
of scheduled tribe on the basis of false statements and false
affidavits submitted by him. At the same time indisputably in
the year 1991, the appellant got employment on the basis of his
claim to be a member of scheduled tribe. After 18 years of his
6
Page 7
employment, the matter was referred to a Scrutiny Committee
for verification. On consideration of all the documents, the
enquiry conducted by vigilance cell, a validity certificate was
issued by the Scrutiny Committee on 19.06.2010. However the
matter was reconsidered by the Scrutiny Committee for the
reason that the tribe certificate issued in favour of his brother
was invalidated by the Committee in 2004 and the order
attained finality up to this Court. The Scrutiny Committee after
giving opportunity recalled its earlier order dated 19.6.2010,
whereby validity certificate was issued in favour of the
appellant.
14. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the
opinion that the impugned order passed by the High Court
needs no interference and this appeal deserves to be dismissed.
However, we hold that because of inordinate delay in
considering the certificate of the appellant, the benefit of the
certificate already availed by the appellant shall not be
7
Page 8
disturbed making it clear that the appellant shall not be
entitled to take any further benefit of reservation in future
including the benefit of continuing in service.
15. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with the observation
made hereinabove.
…………………………….J. (M.Y. Eqbal)
…………………………….J. (C. Nagappan)
New Delhi July 29, 2015
8
Page 9
9