SLP(C)3314/10 +2 1

          REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SLP(CIVIL) No(s).3314 OF 2010

  DATTU S/O NAMDEV THAKUR                           Petitioner(s)

                VERSUS

  STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.                     Respondent(s)

            WITH  

SLP(C) NO. 3370 of 2010   

SLP(C) NO. 3365 of 2010   

J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.  Special Leave Petition(C)Nos. 3314, 3365 and  

3370, all of 2010, which are on board today, all  

arise out of the judgment  and final order dated  

14th December, 2009, passed by the Aurangabad Bench  

of the Bombay High Court  in Writ Petition Nos.7813  

of 2009, 8048 of 2009 and 7289 of 2009.     

2. The petitioner in SLP(C)No.3314 of 2010, is  

the  father  of  the  petitioners  in  the  other  two  

Special Leave Petitions, one being the son and the  

other being the daughter of the petitioner, Dattu  

Thakur, son of Namdev Thakur.   In all these cases,

SLP(C)3314/10 +2 2

the  grievance  is  common  since  the  'Caste  

Certificates' granted to them on 7th June, 2001, by  

the competent authorities were invalidated by the  

Caste Scrutiny Committee by  its  orders  dated  4th  

September, 2009 and 24th September, 2009.

3. The  Caste  Certificates  issued  to  the  

petitioners were invalidated mainly on the ground  

that  they  were  unable  to  satisfy  the   Caste  

Scrutiny Committee that they belong to the 'Thakur'  

tribe, which is recorded as a Scheduled Tribe at  

Serial No.44 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes  

List.   The Caste Scrutiny Committee also came to  

the finding that the School Leaving Certificate of  

the father of the petitioner in SLP(C)No.3314 of  

2010,  did  not  really  support  the  case  of  the  

petitioners who, in any event,  had also failed in  

the affinity test.   It was submitted that the  

documents tendered by them did not conform to their  

claim.  Furthermore,  the  petitioners  were  also  

unable to prove by way of affinity test that they  

belong to the Thakur Scheduled Tribe.

4. Cancellation  of  the  'Caste  Certificates'  

issued  to  the  petitioners  on  the  basis  of  the

SLP(C)3314/10 +2 3

report  of  the   Caste  Scrutiny  Committee,  was  

challenged by the petitioners in the aforesaid writ  

petitions,  in  which  the  High  Court  upheld  the  

findings of the  Caste Scrutiny Committee.

5. As  indicated  hereinabove,  the  Special  Leave  

Petitions have been filed  against the said order  

of the High Court.

6. Having  heard  learned  counsel  for  the  

petitioner(s), as well as the State of Maharashtra,  

we are of the view that even if we are to accept  

the findings of the  Caste Scrutiny Committee, as  

also that of the High Court, we cannot ignore the  

various circumstances that have intervened between  

the issuance of the 'Caste Certificates' and the  

cancellation thereof.   In fact, reference was made  

to  the   Caste  Scrutiny  Committee in 2009, i.e.  

nine years after the certificates had been issued,  

and there is no proper explanation for such delay.  

On the other hand, the petitioner in the first writ  

petition has  been allowed by the respondents to  

continue in service and also by virtue of orders  

passed  by  the  High  Court.   Similarly,  the  

petitioners in the other two writ petitions have

SLP(C)3314/10 +2 4

continued  their  studies  after  having   obtained  

certain benefits from their 'Caste Certificates'.  

We are now informed by Mr. Kanade,  learned senior  

advocate, appearing for the petitioner(s), that the  

petitioner in the second Special Leave Petition,  

Amol, who is the son of Dattu Thakur, who is the  

petitioner in the main Special Leave Petition,  has  

in  the  meantime,  appeared  for  the  B.Pharmacy  

examination but his results have not been declared.  

Similarly,  Pratibha, daughter of Dattu Thakur, who  

is  the  petitioner  in  the  other  Special  Leave  

Petition, has appeared for the B.Ed.examination and  

her result is also to be declared.

7. In support of the case of the petitioner(s),  

an order passed by another Bench of this Court in  

C.A.No.7411 of 2010 (Swati Vs. State of Maharashtra  

& Ors.),  on 6th September, 2010, was brought to  

our notice, wherein in similar circumstances, the  

Court while dismissing the civil appeal, directed  

that the benefits  that had already been enjoyed by  

the candidate, and the degree obtained by her  in  

the  BDS  course,  which  she  had  completed,  would  

continue.    The Court further directed that she

SLP(C)3314/10 +2 5

would not be entitled to any further benefits under  

the 'Caste Certificates' issued to her and that  

whatever advantage she may have obtained by way of  

payment of fees at a reduced rate, were to be made  

up by her by paying the difference.

8. We are of the view that this being a case of a  

similar nature, the decision of the said Bench may  

also be applied to the facts of this case.

9. Accordingly,  while  dismissing  all  the  three  

Special Leave Petitions, we direct that whatever  

advantage  the  three  petitioners  in  the  three  

Special Leave Petitions, may have derived on the  

basis of their 'Caste Certificates', shall not   be  

disturbed and the cancellation of their respective  

'Caste Certificates' will not deprive them of the  

benefits  which  they  have  already  enjoyed.  

However, we also make it clear that none of the  

three petitioners in the three respective Special  

Leave  Petitions,  will  be  entitled  to  take  any  

further advantage of reservation in future, either  

for studies or for employment.    Following the  

judgment in Swati's case, we also direct that if  

the  petitioners  in  the  2nd and 3rd Special  Leave

SLP(C)3314/10 +2 6

Petition, have obtained any concession   by way of  

reduction in fees, as a reserved candidate, they  

will have to make  good  the same by paying the  

difference in fees that is being paid by  general  

candidates.   Such payment has to be made within a  

period  of  six  months  and  in  default  of  such  

payment, this order will cease to have any effect.

10. The  results  of  the  2nd and  3rd petitioners  

shall,  therefore,  be  published  in  view  of  this  

judgment.

      11.  There will be no orders as to costs.     

             ........................J.    (ALTAMAS KABIR)

    .........................J.                 (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)

                                 .........................J.                              (J.CHELAMESWAR)   

        NEW DELHI;          December 07, 2011.