http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2079 of 2008

PETITIONER: Yogesh Ramchandra Naikwadi

RESPONDENT: State of Maharashtra & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/03/2008

BENCH: CJI K. G. Balakrishnan & R. V. Raveendran

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R

CIVIL APPEAL NO 2079 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP [C] No.8241 of 2006)

K. G. Balakrishnan, CJI.,  

       Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.      The appellant sought admission to Engineering course claiming the  benefit of reservation alleging that he belonged to ’Mahadeo Koli’ - a  scheduled tribe. The Scrutiny Committee which verified the validity of his  caste certificate, made an order dated 29.3.1995 rejecting his claim that he  belonged to a Scheduled Tribe. The appellant challenged the order of the  scrutiny committee in W.P. No.2667/1995. In the said petition, the Bombay  High Court issued an interim order directing the third respondent (Director  of Technical Education, State of Maharashtra) to accept the application of  Appellant for admission to BE course and process the same and give  admission by treating him as a candidate belonging to a scheduled tribe,  with a condition that the admission, if granted, will be provisional and  subject to the final decision. In pursuance of it, the appellant was admitted to  the BE course by extending the benefit of reservation under the quota for  Scheduled Tribes. Eventually he completed the Engineering course and was  conferred a degree by the University of Pune on 31.3.2004.  

3.      The writ petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed by order  dated 28.3.2006, upholding the order of the Scrutiny Committee, with a  direction to the third Respondent to take appropriate steps for recall of the  degree granted to the appellant. The said order of the High Court is  challenged in this appeal by special leave. The only contention urged by the  appellant is that even if his scheduled tribe claim was rejected, he should not  have been denied the benefit of the degree obtained by him. In support of  this contention, he relied on the decisions of this Court in State of  Maharashtra v. Milind \026 (2001) 1 SCC 4 and R.Vishwanatha Pillai v. State  of Kerala \026 (2004) 2 SCC 105.  

4.      In Milind,  a Constitution Bench of this Court while rejecting the  caste claim of first Respondent therein, extended the benefit of retention of  degree to him on the following reasoning :- "Respondent 1 joined the medical course for the year 1985-86. Almost 15  years have passed by now. We are told he has already completed the course  and may be he is practicing as a doctor. In this view and at this length of  time it is for nobody’s benefit to annul his admission. Hege amount is spent  on each candidate for completion of medical course. No doubt, one  Scheduled Tribe candidate was deprived of joining medical course by the  admission given to Respondent 1. If any action is taken against Respondent

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

1, it may lead to depriving the service of a doctor to the society on whom  public money has already been spent. In these circumstances, this judgment  shall not affect the degree obtained by him and his practicing as a doctor.  But we make it clear that he cannot claim to belong to the Scheduled Tribe  covered by the Scheduled Tribes Order. In other words, he cannot take  advantage of the Scheduled Tribes Order any further or for any other  constitutional purpose."

In Vishwanatha Pillai, this Court, following Milind, permitted one of the  appellants therein, who had been admitted to an Engineering Degree College  against a seat reserved for a scheduled caste and whose caste claim was  negatived, to be allowed to take his degree with the condition that he will not  be treated as a Scheduled Caste candidate in future either for securing  employment or other benefits on the basis of the cancelled caste certificate.  

5.      In Milind, the question was whether the first respondent who  belonged to ’Koshti’ caste could claim the benefit of ST reservation on the  ground that it was a sub-tribe of ’Halba’ [Entry No.19 in Part IX of the  Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order 1950]. This Court held that ’Koshti’  was not a part of the Scheduled Tribe of Halba and that the entries in the  Scheduled Tribes Order could not be amended or expanded by any  Authority. As a consequence, the State’s appeal was allowed and the claim  of first respondent therein that he belonged to a scheduled tribe was rejected.  Having allowed the State’s appeal, this Court moulded the relief in exercise  of its power under Article 142 by permitting the first Respondent therein to  retain the benefit of his degree (for the reasons extracted above).  Vishwanatha Pillai merely followed Milind. In Milind, there was a bona  fide doubt as to whether ’Halba-Koshti’ could be considered as ’Halba’. In  Vishwanatha Pillai, the candidate’s caste certificate was cancelled merely as  a consequence of cancellation of his father’s caste certificate. Thus in Milind  and Vishwanatha Pillai, the candidates apparently believed that they  belonged to a scheduled tribe/caste when they sought admission and were  admitted. Further, their caste certificates showing them as belonging to a  scheduled tribe/caste had not been invalidated when they were admitted to  the course. The direction in both cases permitting retention of degree was in  exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution.  

6.      There may however be cases where it will not be proper to permit  the student to retain the degree obtained by making a false claim. One  example is where the candidates secure seats by producing forged or fake  caste certificates. There may be cases, where knowing full well that they do  not belong to a scheduled tribe/caste, candidates may make a false claim that  they belong to a scheduled tribe/caste. There may also be cases where even  before the date of admission, the caste certificates of the candidates might  have been invalidated on verification by the Scrutiny Committee. There may  be cases where the admissions may be in pursuance of interim orders  granted by courts subject to final decision making it clear that the candidate  will not be entitled to claim any equities by reason of the admission. The  benefit extended in Milind and Vishwanatha Pillai, cannot obviously be  extended uniformly to all such cases. Each case may have to be considered  on its own merits. Further what has precedential value is the ratio decidendi  of the decision and not the direction issued while moulding the relief in  exercise of power under Article 142 on the special facts and circumstances of  a case. We are therefore of the view that Milind and Vishwanatha Pillai  cannot be considered as laying down a proposition that in every case where a  candidate’s caste claim is rejected by a caste verification committee,  the  candidate should invariably be permitted to retain the benefit of the  admission and the consequential degree, irrespective of the facts.  

7.      We may therefore examine the facts of this case to decide whether  the appellant should be given any benefit and if so whether they should be  similar to relief granted in Milind and Vishwanatha Pillai.  As the caste  claim of the appellant had been rejected by the Scrutiny Committee even  before admission, this case stands on a different footing. But in this case

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

though the scrutiny committee had rejected the appellant’s claim even prior  to his admission to the professional course, the High Court by order dated  22.6.1995 had directed the Director of Technical Education to accept the  admission form of appellant without insisting upon the validation of caste  and to process the same as if appellant belonged to Scheduled Tribe, making  it clear that admission if any made was provisional, and if the appellant  failed in his petition he will not be entitled to the benefit of degree he may  obtain. As observed in Milind, if the appellant’s admission or degree is to be  annulled, it is to nobody’s benefit as his seat cannot be offered to someone  else. There is also no allegation that appellant forged or faked the caste  certificate. His admission to engineering course was nearly thirteen years  back and he secured the degree more than four years back. We are therefore  of the view that the appellant herein should be permitted to retain the benefit  of the degree but subject to terms. The first is that he shall not claim or seek  any further benefit by claiming to belong to a scheduled Tribe. The second is  that if the State has spent or incurred any expenditure on the appellant’s  professional degree education by extending the benefit of exemption from  payment of fee or award of scholarship or by extending the benefit of  concession in fee (that is less than what is charged to general category  students) by treating him as a Scheduled Tribe candidate, the appellant  cannot retain such financial benefits. The third Respondent may, on behalf  of the State Government, take appropriate steps to enquire and assess the  amount, if any spent on the appellant either towards fee, scholarship or by  way of concession in fee and make a demand on appellant for payment  thereof. If the appellant fails to pay the amount so found due within six  months of the demand by the third Respondent, the third Respondent may  take steps for recalling the degree granted to the appellant. If no amount is  found to be due or if the amount determined and demanded is paid by  appellant, he may be permitted to retain the degree obtained by him.   

8.      The appeal is accordingly allowed in part, deleting the direction of  the High Court to the third respondent to take steps to recall the degree  awarded to the appellant.