http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  6055 of 2005

PETITIONER: Geeta

RESPONDENT: State of M.P & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/05/2007

BENCH: H.K. SEMA & V.S. SIRPURKAR

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

H.K.SEMA,J.

1.              The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated  25-8-2004 passed by the High Court in W.P.No. 28707 of  2003, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.       2.              The short question arises for determination in this  appeal is, as to whether the appellant Geeta belongs to Majhi  Tribe, which is Scheduled Tribe or Nishad/Mallah, which is  not Scheduled Tribe. 3.              We have heard the parties.

4.              The appellant was granted Scheduled Tribe  Certificate dated 29.8.1986 by the District Magistrate  Lucknow.  The order reads:- FORM OF CASTE CERTIFICATE        This is to certify that Kumari Geeta  daughter of M.S. Nishad of village/town D-72,  Nirala Nagar in District/Division Lucknow of  the State Uttar Pradesh belong to the Majhi  Tribe which is recognized as a Scheduled  Tribe.

Under:-

The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order,  1950 (as amended by the Scheduled Castes &  Scheduled Tribes lists (Modification) Order,  1956) 2.  This certificate is issued on the basis of the  Scheduled/Tribe certificate issued to Shri M.S.  Nishad father of Kumari Geeta of Village/Town  Kripalpur in District Satna of the State  Madhya Pradesh, who belong to the  Majhi/tribe which is recognized as a  Scheduled Tribe in the State Madhya Pradesh  issued in the Distt. Magistrate Satna (name of  prescribed authority vide Letter No.87114  dated 03.11.77.                                                         Signature C.S.Singh                                        Designation on Officer Incharge (Certificate)                                                            (with seal of office)                                            District Magistrate, Lucknow

Place: Lucknow Date: 29.08.1986

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

5.              It would appear from the order itself that she was  given Scheduled Tribe Certificate on the basis of Scheduled  Tribe Certificate issued to the father of the appellant Shri M.S.  Nishad by the District Magistrate, Satna in the State of M.P.  by an order dated 3.11.1977 6.              At this stage, we may point out that the said  Scheduled Tribe Certificate dated 3.11.1977 issued to the  father of the appellant Shri M.S. Nishad has also been  cancelled subsequently.  The appellant’s father was also  placed under suspension.  It is brought to our notice that the  order dated 28.2.1995 has been challenged in W.P. No.192(SB)  of 1995 in the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court  and the same is still pending.     7.              Be that as it may, it is clear that the Scheduled  Tribe Certificate issued in favour of the appellant on  29.8.1986, that the appellant belongs to Majhi Tribe, which is  recognized as Scheduled Tribe in the State of M.P., was issued  by the District Magistrate, Lucknow, on the basis of the  Scheduled Tribe Certificate issued by the District Magistrate,  Satna, in favour of her father by an order dated 3.11.1977. 8.              On the strength of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate,  the appellant applied for the post of Deputy Superintendent of  Police from the reserved quota of Scheduled Tribes.  She was  selected from the reserved quota and included in the merit list.   Thereafter, by an order dated 28.3.2001 she was appointed as  Deputy Superintendent of Police and is still continuing in the  said post.  9.              An inquiry was initiated against the appellant  preceded by a complaint.  On the basis of the Inquiry Report,  the services of the appellant was sought to be terminated by  an order dated 9.4.2001 inter alia on the ground that the  caste certificate issued to her father has been cancelled by the  Collector, Satna in 1995.  Aggrieved thereby, the appellant  filed O.A.No.1426 of 2001 before the Madhya Pradesh  Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed in limine by an  order dated 26.4.2001.  Aggrieved thereby, the appellant  preferred Writ Petition No. 2237 of 2001 before the High  Court, which was dismissed on 13.5.2002, with the direction  to conduct an inquiry whether the appellant belongs to Majhi  Tribe or not.  10.             Pursuant to the direction of the High Court, show  cause notice was issued to the appellant, by the Scheduled  Tribe Certificate Investigating Committee, Madhya Pradesh. 11.             After show cause notice, the High Level Caste  Screening Committee was constituted in the light of the  decision of this Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil      vs.  Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC  241 with the following Members: (i)     Principal Secretary/Secretary, Government Of Madhya Pradesh, Adhim Jhathi Kalyan Vibhagh.                                                    ..Adhyaksh

(ii)    Commissioner, Tribal Development            Member Madhya Pradesh                                        Secretary                                              (iii)    Secretary, Madhya Pradesh State              Scheduled Tribes Commission, Bhopal.     Member     (iv)    Member/Representative, Adhim Jhathi      Member              Anusandhan Sansthan.                           12.     After giving an opportunity and hearing the appellant  and after examining the documents, the High Level Caste  Screening Committee, by its order dated 18.9.2003 came to  the following findings:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

       "5.  After scrutiny of inquiry report of  Superintendent of Police, Satna, report of  Additional District Magistrate (Administration),  Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, order of Collector  Satna, Caste (Nirjatiya) information,  statements, statement of other persons,  educational qualifications and other  documents, the Screening Committee has  arrived at following conclusions:

(i)     She has not made available any such  authentic documents or facts to the  Committee on the basis of which it could  be proved that she belongs to Majhi  caste. (ii)    On a special examination of caste issues  also, it was found that she does not  belong to Majhi caste because the gothras  stated by her are not found in this caste  and she did not narrate any tribal  language.  The occupations stated like  fishing, labouring, farming are also not  characteristics of Majhi.   6.  On scrutiny of aforesaid facts, the  Committee found that the original caste of Ku.  Geeta Nishad "Mallah" confirms backward  caste."  

13.      The aforesaid finding recorded by the High Level Caste  Screening Committee was assailed by the appellant before the  Madhya Pradesh High Court in W.P. No. 28707 of 2003. which  was dismissed by the impugned order.  Hence the present  appeal.  14.           The forceful contention urged before us by the  counsel for the appellant is that no opportunity was afforded  to prove her caste before the High Level Caste Screening  Committee and as such the finding recorded by the High Level  Screening Committee is vitiated for non-observance of  principles of natural justice.  We do not agree. 15.        Show cause notice was issued on 28.7.2003.  It is not  the case of the appellant that she has not received the show  cause notice.     16.           She was asked to appear at 11.30 A.M. on 14.8.2003  along with all necessary documents to prove her caste before  the Committee.  Paragraph 6 of the show cause notice reads:- "6. In this regard, the certificates/documents  which you wish to produce alongwith your  response should be properly verified  necessarily.  In case of non-appearance on the  fixed date, it will be deemed that you have  nothing to say regarding your doubtful caste  certificate and Investigation Committee will be  free to take final decision in your matter on the  basis of available records."  

17.       The next date fixed for hearing was 18.9.2003 on  which date the impugned order was passed.  In our view,  therefore, adequate opportunity has been afforded to the  appellant of personal hearing as well as to produce documents  in support of her caste.  In our view, it is sufficient compliance  of principles of natural justice. 18.             We may notice that both her father and the  appellant are well educated.  The appellant’s father was said to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

have been born on 1.1.1947.  No birth certificate was  produced.   No documents whatsoever were produced prior to  3.11.1977 to prove that they belong to Majhi Tribe, which is  Scheduled Tribe. 19.             Counsel for the appellant invited our attention to  Anthropological Survey of India prepared by one Majumdar  D.N.,  ’The Racial Basis of Indian Social Structure’, Eastern  Anthropologist published in Oxford University Press 1994.  He  particularly referred to the "term Majhi" means boatman.  He  has also observed that Majhi take part in agricultural  operations, fetch water, and also take part in social and  religious activities.  He has also referred to the observation  that the major economic resource of the Majhi is land.  Their  traditional occupation was fishing, some worked as boatmen.   By this learned counsel would like to show that the finding  recorded by the High Level Caste Screening Committee is  erroneous.  In our view, these are not authenticated  documents.  It is not prepared by the competent authority.  No  such reliance can be placed for deciding the Tribal status of  the appellant. 20.             Counsel also brought to our notice the Urban and  Non-urban Region Mutation Register in which the family tree  of Marakahn alias Mulu Majhi is shown.  It is clear that Aaraji  No.607, area 33 D. Village Madhavgarh is recorded in the  name of Lessee Bisheshar, s/o Marakhan Mallah, Atma Ram.   This would also show that she belongs to Mallah/Nishad.   21.            Even in the midst of hearing of this appeal, we  granted more time to the appellant, to produce any document,  which will establish her tribe as Majhi, which is Scheduled  Tribe, prior to 3.11.1977, but she utterly failed.  This would  clearly show that the Tribe Certificate showing the appellant  as Majhi Tribe obtained on 29.8.1986 on the basis of Tribe  Certificate of her father obtained on 3.11.1977 are without any  documentary proof and manufactured documents.      22.             Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention  to the decision of this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil  vs   Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development,  (1994) 6 SCC  241.  In that case the Scheduled Tribe Certificate was  fraudulently obtained and admission was secured in Medical  College.  The candidate completed her course of study and  sought permission to appear only in the final examination.  In  the particular facts and circumstances of that case the  Principal of the college was directed to allow her to appear in  the examination as a special case without making it a  precedent.  Therefore the decision in Madhuri (supra) was in  particular facts and circumstances of that case.  Secondly,  here is the case where an undeserved candidate occupies the  post of deserving candidate in the reserved quota meant for  them.  In such a situation, the deserving candidate is pushed  out of the queue and the constitutional guarantee reserving  the post for the deserving candidate is frustrated.  This must  be stopped with a strong hand. 23.             In the result, there is no merit in this appeal and is,  accordingly, dismissed.  Parties are asked to bear their own  costs.