LexDATTU S/O NAMDEV THAKUR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 475 DATIU S/O NAMDEV THAKUR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. (Special Leave Petition (C) 3314 of 2010) DECEMBER 07, 2011 [ALTAMAS KABIR, SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] Social status certificate: Scheduled tribe certificate issued A B to petitioner-father and petitioners-son and daughter - C Cancellation of, by the Caste Scrutiny Committee - High Court upheld the decision of Committee - On appeal, held: The decision of Caste Scrutiny Committee and High Court is not disturbed - However, whatever advantage the petitioners had derived on the basis of their 'Caste D Certificates', may not be disturbed and the cancellation of their respective 'Caste Certificates' would not deprive them of the benefits which they have already enjoyed - However, none of the petitioners would be entitled to take any further advantage of reservation in future, either for studies or for E employment - If the petitioners have obtained any concession by way of reduction in fees, as a reserved candidate, they would have to make good the same by paying the difference in fees that is being paid by general candidates - The results of the petitioners would be published. F The case of the petitioners was that the Caste Certificates granted to them on 7th June, 2001 by the competent authorities were invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee mainly on the ground that they were unable to satisfy the Committee that they belonged to the G 'Thakur' tribe recorded as a Scheduled Tribe at Serial no.44 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes list and that the petitioners were also unable to prove by way of affinity test that they belonged to the Thakur Scheduled 475 H 476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A Tribe. The petitioners filed the writ petitions challenging the cancellation of the 'Caste Certificates'. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions. The Special Leave Petitions were filed challenging the order of the High Court. B Dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, the Court HELD: 1. The findings of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, as also that of the High Court is accepted. However, the fact is that reference was made to the Caste Scrutiny Committee in 2009, i.e. nine years after the c certificates had been issued, and there is no proper explanation for such delay. The petitioner in the first writ petition was 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 0 petitions have continued their studies after having obtained certain benefits from their 'Caste Certificates'. The petitioner in the second Special Leave Petition who is the son of the petitioner in the main Special Leave Petition, has in the meantime, appeared for the E B.Pharmacy examination but his results have not been declared. Similarly, daughter of the petitioner in the main Special Leave Petition, 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. Whatever advantage the three petitioners in the three F Special Leave Petitions, might have derived on the basis of their 'Caste Certificates', would not be disturbed and the cancellation of their respective 'Caste Certificates' would not deprive them of the benefits which they have already enjoyed. However, none of the three petitioners G in the three respective Special Leave Petitions, would be entitled to take any further advantage of reservation in future, either for studies or for employment. However, if the petitioners in the 2nd and 3rd Special Leave Petition, . have obtained any concession by way of reduction in H fees, as a reserved candidate, they will have to make good DATIU S/O NAMDEV THAKUR v. STATE OF 477 MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. the same by paying the difference in fees that is being A 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. The results of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners shall, therefore, be published in view of this judgment. [Para 9, 10] [479-F-H; B 480-A-C] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: SLP (Civil) No. 3314 of 2010. From the Judgment & Order dated 14.12.2009 of the Hgih C Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 7813 of 2009. WITH SLP (C) Nos. 3370 & 3365
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.