LexAYAAUBKHAN NOORKHAN PATHAN versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012) 10 S.C.R. 994 AYMUBKHAN NOORKHAN PATHAN v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 7728 of 2012) NOVEMBER 8, 2012 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De- c Notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000: Caste certificate - Appellant given employment on the 0 basis of a caste certificate showing that he belonged to Bhil Tadvi (Scheduled Tribe) - Validity certificate issued by Caste Scrutinity Committee - Complaint by respondent no. 5 that appellant obtained employment by misrepresentation - High Court, in writ petition, directing Scrutinity Committee to hold E de novo inquiry with respect to appellant's caste certificate - Held: Caste certificates issued by holding proper enquiry, in accordance with duly prescribed procedure, would not require any further verification by the Scrutiny Committee - However, in the instant case, considering the seriousness of the allegations, as the Scrutiny Committee has already F conducted an inquiry and the only grievance of the appellant is that there has been non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, it is directed that before the submission of any report by the Scrutiny Committee, application of appellant for calling the witnesses for cross-examination must be disposed G of, and he must be given a fair opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, who have been examined before the Committee - Further, as respondent no. 5 has not been pursuing the matter in a bonafide manner, and has not raised any public H 994 AYAAUBKHAN NOORKHAN PATHAN v. STATE OF 995 MAHARASHTRA & ORS. interest, rather he abused the process of the court only to A harass the appellant, he is restrained from intervening in the matter any further, and also from remaining a party to it, and he is also liable to pay costs to the tune of Rs. one lakh - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.114, l/ustration(e) - Maxim "Omnia praesumuntur rite esse actan. B Constitution of India, 1950: Art. 226 - Writ petition in public interest - Maintainaility of - Held: There must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction C is resorted to - The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the petitioner himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the co,urt - Whenever any public interest is invoked, the court must examine the case to ensure that there is, in fact, genuine D public interest involved - Court must maintain strict vigHance to ensure that there is no abuse of the process of court - Supreme Court has consistently held that filing· of public interest litigation is not permissible so far as service matters are concerned - In the instant case, respondent no.5 does E not belong to Scheduled Tribes category, but he has been pursuing the matter from one court to another - His conduct is found to be reprehensible, and without any sense of responsibility - Therefore, the Court is highly doubtful as regards his bonafides - He has, therefore, disentitled himself F from appearing before any court, or Committee, so far as the instant matter is concerned - Locus standi - Party - "Person aggrieved"- Public interest litigation - Service law. Evidence Act, 1872: s.3 - 'Evidence' - Affidavit - Held: An affidavit is not evidence within the meaning of s. 3 and the same can be used G as "evidence" only if, for sufficient reasons, court passes an order undar 0. 19 CPC- Thus, the filing of an affidavit of one's own statement, in one's own favour, cannot be regarded as H 996 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 10 S.C.R. A sufficient evidence for any court or tribunal, on the basis of which it can come to a conclusion as regards a particular fact- situation - Code of Civil Procedure," 1908 - 0.19 and 0. 18, n: 4 and 5 - Affidavits. 8 Natural Justice: Cross-examination - Held: Is part of principles of natural justice - Not only should the opportunity of cross-examination be made available, but it should be one of effective cross- examination, so as to meet the requirement of principles of C natural justice. The appellant was appointed in 1990 as a Senior Clerk in the Municipal Corporation against the vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribes, on the basis of a caste 0 certificate issued by the co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.