LexRAJU RAMSING VASAVE versus MAHESH DEORAO BHIVAPURKAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 12 S.C.R. 992 l ' A RAJU RAMSING VASAVE r- II. MAHESH DEORAO BHIVAPURKAR & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5308 of 2008) B AUGUST 29, 2008 [S.B. SINHA AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] \.... ~ Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 342 - Claim of be- longing to 'Ha Iba' tribe - Rejected by Scheduled Tribe Caste :- Scrutiny Committee - Allowed by High Court in writ petition .._ c relying on its decision passed in another case - Employer of the claimant demanding Caste Validity Certificate from the ~ claimant - The Scrutiny Committee refusing grant of the Ger- tificate - Interlocutory application filed in the disposed of writ D petition seeking direction to the Committee to issue the Ger- tificate - High Court allowing the application - Appeal by the colleague of the claimant affected by the order in the app/ica- tion - Held: Decision of High Court is unsustainable - Order of High Court in the writ petition was on a wrong premise with- E out analyzing factual aspects of the case of the claimant - Hence did not operate as res-judicata so as to disable the Committee as well as the employer of the claimant to con- sider the case of the claimant on merits afresh - Advantage obtained in violation of constitutional scheme would be con- sidered as constitutional fraud - The claimant's application F challenging the order of the Committee was not maintainable I as the cause of action therefor arose subsequently - A sepa- !<-- rate Writ Petition should have been filed - Constitution (Sched- uled tribes) C}rder, 1950. G -Locus Standi - Validity of appointment etc. on the basis of Caste Certificate issued by a Committee - Locus to cha/- Jenge - Held: Such matter is a matter between the employer and employee - Challenge to the same by a person having private interest is ordinarily not permissible - But when the \- H 992 RAJU RAMSING VASAVE v. MAHESH DEORAO 993 BHIVAPURKAR & ORS. __, ·, matter is of grave importance, where fraud has been commit- A ted on the Constitution, this Court can interfere treating such petition as 'Public Law Litigation' in exercise of its power under Article 142 of Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950 - Ar- tic/e 142. Respondent No. 1 claimed to be belonging to 'Halba' B ~ ....J Tribe notified in terms of Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950., The claim was adjudicated by Scrutiny Com- mittee and it held the same invalid and cancelled the Caste Certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate. He filed a writ petition claiming the said, benefit. High Court by its. c judgment dated 11.8.1988, allowed his claim relying on the judgment passed in Mi/ind Sharad Ka/ware and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1987 Mah. LJ. 572 wherein it was held by High Court that 'Halba Koshti' is a sub-divi- sion of m.ain tribe 'Halba/Halbi'. In appeal against the or- D der of the High Court in Milind's case this Court has passed .\ a limited order that the benefit of ST was available for ad- mission purpose. Thereafter the matter was referred to scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, which refused to grant a certificate in favour of respon- E dent No. 1 by its order passed in September, 1997. In ·the Select List for the post of Field Officers, on which respon- dent No. 1 was appointed, against the names of ST can- didates it was stated that their services would be contin- ued subject to submission of Caste Validity Certificate. F -.>I, The employer also issued a Circular asking the ST candi- dates to submit the Certificate. In 2006, respondent No. 1 filed an application in his disposed of writ petition, im- • pleading his employer as a party in the application, seek- ing direction to consider him as ST candidate and seek- G ing direction for issuance of Caste Validity Certificate. High Court allowing the application held that respondent No. 1 belongs to Scheduled Tribe-Halba by virtue of the order passed in the order dated 11.8.1988; and that the produc- tion of the Certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate H 994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R. A . would be sufficient compliance with the Circular seeking Caste Validity Certificate. Hence the present appeal by the appellant (the person wt:ro-was placed below respondent No. 1 in the Select list). Appellant alsofiled Special Leave Petition. against the order dated 11.8.1988 which was dis- B missed by this Court on the ground of de~ay. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD·: 1.1 A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.