LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus MILIND AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. MILIND AND ORS. NOVEMBER 28, 2000 [G.B. PATTANAIK, S. RAJENDRA BABU, D.P. MOHAPATRA, DORAi SWAMY RAJU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] A B Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950: Part IX Entry 19. Entries-Genera/ name mentioned in-Holding of enquiry-To determine C whether any tribe or community is include in-Held: ls not permissible even though it is not specifically mentioned therein. Entries-Interpretation of-Held: Must be read as it is-A tribe, sub- tribe part of or group of any tribe or tribal community is not synonymous to D the one mentioned therein unless specifically mentioned so. Scheduled Tribe- "Halba/Halbi "--Scope and ambit of-Held: Halba- Koshti cannot be treated to be a sub-tribe of Ha/ba/Halbi-Doctrine of stare decisis wrongly applied by High Court to take a different view-Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) Act. 1976. E "Halba!Ha/bi-Caste Certificate-Admission to MBBS course in reserved category-On the basis of-Candidate belonging to "Koshti" caste was granted certificate by the concerned authority as belonging to "Halbal Ha/bi" Scheduled Tribe caste-Candidate secured admission on the basis of this certificate-Appellate authority rejected the said certificate-Dispute F regarding correctness of certificate came up before Supreme Court after 15 years-Held; Certificate is illegal-But candidate allowed to practise as a doctor-However, the candidate is not entitled to take any advantage of the Scheduled Tribes Order any further-Moreover, any appointments that have become final will be unaffected-Constitution of India, 1950. Arts. 136 and G 142. "Halba/Ha/bi"--"Koshti"-Whether a sub-tribe of Halba· -Enquiry to determine-Permissibility of-Held: it is not permissible to let in evidence or hold enquiry to decide or declare any tribe or part or group of tribe or tribal community as included in the general name mentioned in the Scheduled H 65 66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. 5 S.C.R . . A Tribes Order-"Koshti" is not a part or "Ha/ba/Ha/bi" and cannot be declared so by any court or tribunal. Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 341, 342 and 366 (24) & (25). Objects of-Held: (i) To provide additional protection to the members B of 'SC and ST having regard to their social and educational backwardness and (ii) to keep away disputes touching whether a caste/tribe is or is not SC/ST for the purpose of the Constitution. c "Castes" and "tribes "-Meaning of-Held: These words have been used as defined in Arts. 366 (24) &(25) and not in the ordinary sense. Scheduled Tribes-Notification specifj;ing Power to amend-Held: Can be amended only by Parliament by law and not by State Governments, any authority, courts and tribunals-State Government Circular amending the ST Order not binding on the Government. Scheduled Tribes-Notification specifj;ing-Power of President-Scope D and ambit of-Held: Is limited to notifj;ing parts or groups within the caste or tribe and to further specifj; castes or tribes thereof in relation to parts of the State and not to the entire State. Scheduled Tribe- "Halba "-Belonging t<>-Proof of-Mode-School E leaving Certificate-State Government issued a Circular declaring School leaving Certificate as valid proof in respect of "Ha/bas" -legality of- Held: is unconstitutional and contrary to Central Government's instructions- Hence, the High Court erred in treating the School leaving Certificate as conclusive proof and in declaring the Circular as binding on the State Government. F Article 227-lnferior Tribunal's Order-Judicial Review of-Power of High Court-Nature of-Held: is supervisory and not appellate-Where the Scrutiny Committee and the Appellate Authority, after holding elaborate enquiry and examining all relevant materials, recorded the finding that a person belonged to "Koshti" caste and not to "Halba/Halbi" , a Scheduled G Tribe under Entry 19 Scheduled Tribes Order, the High Court exceeded its supervisory jurisdiction by examining the materials afresh and arriving at a different conclusion. Precedents-"Stare decisis "-Rule of-Scope-Held: Is not inflexible so as to preclude a departure therefrom in order to give quietus to an H incorrect precedent especially when it runs counter to the Constitution. STATEv. MILIND 67 Subordinate legislation--Circulars/Orders-State Government issued A Circulars contrary to Constitutional provisions-Binding effect of-Held: Not binding even on the St
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.