http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  89 of 2004

PETITIONER: R. Vishwanatha Pillai                                            

RESPONDENT: State of Kerala & Ors.                                           

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/01/2004

BENCH: CJI,Ashok Bhan & Dr.AR. Lakshmanan.

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

(arising out of SLP (C) No.   18503 of 2000)

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO.90 OF 2004   (arising out of SLP (C) No. 12261 of 2001)

Vimal Ghosh V.                                                  \005Appellant

Versus

State of Kerala & Ors.                                          \005Respondents

BHAN, J.

       Leave granted.

       This judgment shall dispose of both the Civil Appeals bearing Civil  No.89 of 2004 (arising out of SLP ) No. 18503 of 2000) and Civil  Appeal No.90 of 2004 (arising out of SLP) No.  12261 of 2001), arisen  from a common order dated 28.7.2000 passed by the High Court of Kerala.   The former has been filed by R. Vishwanatha Pillai challenging the order of  the High Court wherein the High Court has set aside the order of the Central  Administrative Tribunal in which a direction was issued to the State not to  remove the appellant from service without complying with the provisions of  Article 311 of the Constitution and the rules framed thereunder.  High Court  held that the appellant was not entitled to the protection provided under  Article 311 of the Constitution  and the Rules framed thereunder as the  appellant had obtained appointment on the basis of false caste certificate and  would be deemed not to have been appointed to the service validly ever.   The second appeal has been filed by his son Vimal Ghosh V. whose  admission to the Regional Engineering College, Calicut has  been cancelled  on the basis that he obtained admission to the College against the seat  reserved for a Scheduled Caste on the basis of false caste certificate.  After  the passing of the order by the High Court, an order removing the appellant  from service was passed on 11.10.2000 by the appointing authority.  

We shall take up the Civil Appeal No.89 of 2004 (arising from the  SLP) No. 18503 of 2000) first and shall deal with the other appeal  separately.

       In the school record the caste of R. Vishwanatha Pillai (hereinafter  referred to as "the appellant") was recorded as "Veduvar Pillai". His father  was  one Radhakrishna Pillai.  He was a "Nair" by caste.  His mother’s caste  was "Veduvar Pillai".  "Nair" as well as "Veduvar Pillai"  are forward

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

castes.   The caste of his brother and other two sisters in the school record  was also recorded as belonging to forward caste.  Appellant obtained a  community certificate on 14.10.1969 from the Tahsildar, Ambalappuzha  stating that he was a member of the "Vettuvan" community. On the basis of  this certificate he was able to get an appointment as Assistant in the  Legislative  Secretariat in the year 1973 against a post reserved for  Scheduled Caste.  In the year 1977 he was selected as direct recruit to the  post of Deputy Superintend of Police against a seat reserved  for Scheduled  Caste on the basis of caste certificate obtained by him.  He was subsequently  promoted and included in the cadre of Indian Police Service (IPS).   The  Government of Kerala on the basis of a complaint received, ordered a full  fledged anthropological enquiry into the caste status of the appellant.  It was  alleged that the appellant did not belong to the Scheduled Caste and had  usurped the  post meant for Scheduled Caste.   The preliminary investigation  was conducted by the Kerala Institute for Research, Training &  Development Studies of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (for short  "KIRTADS")  which is a department under SC/ST Development  Department which conducts anthropological investigation into the caste  status of individual, whenever it is doubted.    The appellant was served   with a notice.  He participated in the enquiry conducted by the KIRTADS  and during the enquiry (1992) the appellant claimed that he belonged to  "Kuruvan" community which is also a Scheduled Caste community as per  the Scheduled Caste order of Kerala.  KIRTADS after examining both the  oral and documentary evidence submitted a report stating that the appellant  did not belong to Scheduled Caste community, as claimed.

       Pursuant to the judgment of this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs.  Additional Commissioner, 1994 (6) SCC 241, the Government of Kerala  constituted a Scrutiny Committee  by a notification dated 8.5.1995.  The  enquiry  into the caste status was referred to the said Scrutiny Committee.   The appellant was duly notified by the said Scrutiny Committee.  Initially,  the appellant challenged the authority of the Scrutiny Committee before the  High Court but subsequently participated in the proceedings and entered  appearance through counsel and submitted  the documentary evidence in  support of his claim of being Scheduled Caste before the Committee.  The  appellant submitted 117 documents.  The Scrutiny Committee by an order  dated 18.11.1995 rejected the claim of the appellant in a well considered and  elaborate order.  The appellant challenged the order of the Scrutiny  Committee in the High Court of Kerala in O.P. No. 963 of 1996.  The  petition was dismissed by the Division Bench on 26.2.1997 by a reasoned  order.  The order of the Scrutiny Committee was upheld.  The special leave  petition bearing No. 11199 of 1997 filed against the order of the High Court  was dismissed on 1.5.1998.  The review petition in the order of the SLP was  also dismissed on  12.8.1998.

       Thereafter, the appellant filed O.A. No. 340 of 1997 before the  Central Administrative Tribunal (Ernakulam Bench) seeking direction  against the respondents not to terminate the service of the appellant based on  the proceedings of the Scrutiny Committee, and also not to terminate the  service without satisfying the conditions laid down in Article 311 of the  Constitution of India along with the provisions of All India Service  (Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the  Rules").  The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the O.A. on  24.4.1997 and directed that the service of the appellant be not terminated  without following the procedure laid down in Article 311 and also under the  Rules.  The said decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal was  challenged before the High Court of Kerala by the State of Kerala in O.P.  No. 10840 of 1997.

       The High Court by the impugned order accepted the writ petition and  reversed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal.  It was held that  the question regarding the caste status of the appellant stood settled in the  earlier proceedings upto this Court and was no longer debatable.  The  competent authority had found that the appellant did not belong to  Scheduled Caste.   The very basis of his appointment was taken away.  Since

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

his appointment was no appointment in the eye of law, the appellant could  not claim any right to the post to which he was appointed on the basis of a  false caste certificate thereby usurping the post meant for a Scheduled Caste.   It was held that the appellant would not be entitled  to the protection  provided under Article 311 of the Constitution of India as well as the Rules  framed thereunder.    The  High  Court relied upon the judgment of this  Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case (supra).  After the judgment of the  High Court the appellant was removed from service by an order dated  12.10.2000.    Aggrieved against the said order the present appeal has been  filed.

       At the admission stage notice was issued on the contention raised by  the counsel for the appellant that the decision of this Court in Kumari  Madhuri Patil’s case (supra) required reconsideration in so far as it directs  that  "admission or appointment can be cancelled without notice to the  candidate" being contrary to the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution  of India.  Later on 19.2.2002 it was suggested to the Court that the order of  dismissal be substituted by an order of compulsorily retiring the appellant or  an order of removal from service to protect the pensionery benefits as he had  rendered about 27 years of service.   This was not accepted by the  respondents.

       Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant  fairly conceded that the question regarding the validity of the caste  certificate has become final after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition  No. 11199 of 1997 and is no longer debatable.

       It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the decision of this  Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case (supra) directed that "admission or  appointment can be cancelled without notice to the candidate" requires to be  reconsidered.  According to him the protection under Article 311 of the  Constitution of India and the Rules made thereunder cannot be taken away  by a judicial pronouncement and the appellant would be entitled to the  constitutional protection provided to him under Article 311 of the  Constitution and the Government was required to comply with the All India  Service (Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1969 before terminating his  services.   

In Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case (supra) the admissions were taken  by two sisters to the professional courses  on the basis of false caste  certificate produced by them, which were cancelled after the report  submitted by the Verification Committee to the effect that the certificates  produced by the appellants therein were false and that the appellants did not  belong to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes.  The Court observed that  all citizens were to be treated equally.   That the Constitution guaranteed to  the citizens equality before law and the equal protection of law.  Though  Articles 14 and 15 (1) prohibit discrimination among citizens but Article 15  (4) empowers the State to make special provisions for advancement of  Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.  Article 16(1) requires equality of  opportunity to all citizens in the matters of appointment to an office or a post  under the Union or a State Government or a public undertakings etc.  But  Article 16(4) empowers the State to make provision for reservation of  appointments or posts in favour of castes not adequately represented in the  services under the State. That the admission wrongly gained or appointment  wrongly obtained on the basis of false social status certificate necessarily has  the effect of depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or  OBC candidates as enjoined in the Constitution of the benefits conferred on  them by the Constitution.  Thereafter the Court laid down the procedure for  the grant of social status certificate, its due verification and  the examination  by the Scrutiny committee of its genuineness. If the certificate was found to  be genuine then no further action was required to be taken but if the caste  certificate produced was found to be false or fraudulently obtained then  immediate action  was required to be taken.  The findings recorded by the  Scrutiny Committee were made final and conclusive which could not be  challenged in any suit or any proceedings except in the High Court under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

Article 226 of the Constitution of India.  The Scrutiny Committee was  required to communicate its report under a registered cover to the  educational institution as well as the appointing authority.  The educational  institution or the appointing authority on receipt of the said report was  required to cancel the admission/appointment without any further notice to  the candidate and debar the candidate from the further study or continue in  office in a post.  This was done to simplify the procedure for grant of the  social status certificate as well as its scrutiny, and, if found to be false the  follow-up action to be taken.  It was done primarily for quick disposal of  such matters so that the genuine Schedules Castes and Scheduled Tribes  persons are not deprived of the benefits conferred on them under the  Constitution of India and to debar the non genuine Scheduled Castes and  Scheduled Tribes from taking advantage of the benefit conferred under the  Constitution on the basis of false caste certificate obtained by them by  committing a fraud.  The persons who had obtained admission or got the  appointment on the basis of false caste certificate thereby usurping the  seat/post reserved for the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes were required  to be weeded out by prompt action.  It was held:

"13. The Admission wrongly gained or  appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of false  social status certificate necessarily has the effect of  depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes or  Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined  in the Constitution of the benefits conferred on  them by the Constitution. The genuine candidates  ate also denied admission to educational  institutions or appointments to office or posts  under a State for want of social status certificate.  The ineligible or spurious persons who falsely  gained entry resort to dilatory tactics and create  hurdles in completion of the inquiries by the  Scrutiny Committee. It is true that the applications  for admission to educational institutions are  generally made by a parent, since on that date  many a time the student may be a minor. It is the  parent or the guardian who may play fraud  claiming false status certificate. It is, therefore,  necessary that the certificates issued are scrutinised  at the earliest and with utmost expedition and  promptitude."

       Article 311 provides that a member of a civil service of the Union or  the State shall not be dismissed or removed by any authority subordinate to  that by which he was  appointed.   That the employee shall not be dismissed  or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry, in which he has been  informed of the charges against him and a give a reasonable opportunity of  being heard in respect of those charges.  In exercise of the power conferred  by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the All India Services Act, 1951, the  Central Government, in consultation with the Governments of the States  concerned, framed the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,  1969.  These Rules lay down the detailed procedure as to the manner in  which the action is required to be taken against a delinquent public servant.   Relying upon the Article 311 and provisions of the Rules, it was contended  by Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellant, that the  service of the appellant could not be terminated without following the  procedure laid therein.   

We do not find any substance in this submission.  The misconduct  alleged against the appellant is that he entered the service against reserved  post meant for the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe on the basis of a false  caste certificate.  While appointing the appellant as Deputy Superintendent  of Police in the year 1977, he was considered as belonging to the Scheduled  Caste.  This was found to be wrong and his appointment is to be treated as  cancelled. This action has been taken not for any misconduct of the appellant

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

during his tenure as civil servant but on the finding that he does not belong  to the Scheduled Caste as claimed by him before his appointment to the post.   As to whether the certificate produced by him was genuine or not was  examined in detail by the KIRTADS and the Scrutiny Committee constituted  under the orders of this Court.  Appellant was given due opportunity to  defend himself.  The order passed by the Scrutiny Committee was upheld by  the High Court and later on by this Court.  On close scrutiny of facts we find  that the safeguards provided in Article 311 of the Constitution  that the  Government servant should not be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank  without holding an inquiry in which he has been given an opportunity to  defend himself stands complied with.  Instead of departmental inquiry the  inquiry has been conducted by the Scrutiny Committee consisting of  three  officers, namely, (1) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in  rank of the Director of the department concerned, (II) The Director, Social  Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be, and  (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer having intimate  knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certifies, who  were better equipped to examine the question regarding the validity or  otherwise of the caste certificate.  Due opportunity was given to the  appellant to put-forth his point of view and defend himself.  The issuance of  a fresh notice under the Rules for proving the same misconduct which has  already been examined by an independent body constituted under the  direction of this Court, the decision of which has already been upheld upto  this Court would be repetitive as well as futile.  The second safeguard in  Article 311 that the order of dismissal, removal and reduction in rank should  not be passed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed  has also been met with.  The impugned order terminating the services of the  appellant has been passed by his appointing authority.

Rule 6 of the Rules provides the penalties ’major’ or ’minor’ which  can be awarded to the delinquent officer on being found guilty of  misconduct alleged against him.  Rule 7(1) provides that where a member of  the service has committed any act or omission, either before his appointment  or subsequently, which renders him liable to any penalty specified in Rule 6,  then, the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsorily retirement shall not  be imposed in the case of Central Government employee except by an order  of the Central Government{Rule 7(2)}.  In the present case, the order has  been passed by the Central Government as the appellant was an IPS officer.   The act or omission on the part of the appellant pertains to the period prior to  his joining the service.  There is no non-compliance of Rules 6 or 7 of the  Rules.

       This apart, the appellant obtained the appointment in the service on  the basis that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste community.  When it was  found by the Scrutiny Committee that he did not belong to the Scheduled  Caste community, then the very basis of his appointment was taken away.   His appointment was no appointment in the eyes of law.  He cannot claim a  right to the post as he had usurped the post meant for a reserved candidate by  playing a fraud and producing a false caste certificate.  Unless the appellant  can lay a claim to the post on the basis of his appointment he cannot claim  the constitutional guarantee given under the Article 311 of the Constitution.   As he had obtained the appointment on the basis of  a false caste certificate  he cannot be considered to be a person who holds a post within the meaning  of Article 311 of the Constitution  of India.   Finding recorded by the  Scrutiny Committee that the appellant got the appointment on the basis of  false caste certificate has become final.  The position, therefore, is that the  appellant has usurped the post which should have gone to a member of the  Scheduled Caste.   In view of the finding recorded by the Scrutiny  Committee and upheld upto this Court  he has disqualified himself to hold  the post.   Appointment was void from its inception.  It cannot be said that  the said void appointment would enable the appellant to claim that he was  holding a civil post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of  India.  As appellant had obtained the appointment by playing  a fraud he  cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own fraud in entering the service  and claim that he was holder of the post entitled to be dealt with in terms of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

Article 311 of the Constitution  of India or the Rules framed thereunder.  Where an appointment in a service has been acquired by practising fraud or  deceit such an appointment is no appointment in law, in service and in such  a situation Article 311 of the Constitution is not attracted at all.

       In Ishwar Dayal Sah Vs. State of Bihar,  1987 Lab.I.C. 390, the  Division Bench of the Patna High Court examined the point as to whether a  person who obtained the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate  was entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution.  In the said  case the employee had obtained appointment by producing a caste certificate  that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste community which later on was found  to be false.  His appointment was cancelled.  It was contended by the  employee that the cancellation of his appointment amounted to removal  from service within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution and  therefore void. It was contended that he could not be terminated from service  without holding departmental inquiry as provided under the Rules.  Dealing  with the above contention, the High Court held that if the very appointment  to the civil post is vitiated by fraud, forgery or crime or illegality, it would  necessarily follow that no constitutional rights under Article 311 of the  Constitution can possibly flow.  It was held:  

"If the very appointment to civil post is vitiated by  fraud, forgery or crime or illegality, it would  necessarily follow that no constitutional rights  under Article 311 can possible flow from such a  tainted force.  In such a situation, the question is  whether the person concerned is at all a civil  servant of the Union or the State and if he is not  validly so, then the issue remains outside the  purview of Art. 311.  If the very entry or the  crossing of the threshold into the arena of the civil   service of the State or the Union is put in issue and  door is barred against him, the cloak of protection  under Art. 311 is not attracted."

The point was  again examined by a Full Bench of the Patna High  Court in Rita Mishra Vs. Director, Primary Education, Bihar,  AIR 1988  Patna 26.  The question posed before the Full Bench was whether a public  servant was entitled to payment of salary to him for the work done despite  the fact that his letter of appointment was forged, fraudulent or illegal.  The  Full Bench held:   

"13.  It is manifest from the above that the rights to  salary, pension and other service benefits are  entirely statutory in nature in pubic service.  Therefore, these rights including the right to  salary, spring from a valid and legal appointment  to the post. Once it is found that the very  appointment is illegal and is non est in the eye of  law, no statutory entitlement for salary or  consequential rights of pension and other monetary  benefits can arise. In particular, if the very  appointment is rested on forgery, no statutory right  can flow it."           

       We agree with the view taken by the Patna High Court in the  aforesaid cases.   

It was then contended by Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the  appellant that since the appellant has rendered about 27 years of service the  order of dismissal be substituted by an order of compulsory retirement or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

removal from service to protect the pensionery benefits of the appellant.  We  do not find any substance in this submission, as well.  The rights to salary,  pension and other service benefits are entirely statutory in nature in public  service.  Appellant obtained the appointment against a post meant for a  reserved candidate by producing a false caste certificate and by playing a  fraud.  His appointment to the post was void and non est in the eyes of law.   The right to salary or pension after retirement flow from a valid and legal  appointment.  The consequential right of pension and monetary benefits can  be given only if the appointment was valid and legal.  Such benefits cannot  be given in a case where the appointment was found to have been obtained  fraudulently and rested on false caste certificate.  A person who entered the  service by producing a false caste certificate and obtained appointment for  the post meant for Scheduled Caste thus depriving the genuine Scheduled  Caste of appointment to that post does not deserve any sympathy or  indulgence of this Court.  A person who seeks equity must come with clean  hands.  He, who comes to the Court with false claims, cannot plead equity  nor the Court would be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour.   A person who seeks equity must act in a fair and equitable manner.  Equity  jurisdiction cannot be exercised in the case of a person who got the  appointment on the basis of false caste certificate by playing a fraud.  No  sympathy and equitable consideration can come to his rescue.   We are of the  view that equity or  compassion cannot be allowed to bend the arms of law  in a case where an individual acquired a status by practising fraud.        

       Another point argued by the learned senior counsel for the appellant  was that the law laid down by this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case  (supra) would be operate prospectively  and could not be applied in the case  of the appellant.  We do not find any substance in this submission as well.  The judgment in Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case (supra) was delivered on  2.9.1994.   Inquiry against the appellant had started in the year 1988 by  KIRTADS.  Report of the Inquiry Committee is dated 11.4.1994. Report of  the Scrutiny Committee is dated 18.11.1995.  The order of removal from  service is dated  11.10.2000.  Keeping in view the fact that the order was  passed subsequent to the order of this Court it cannot be held that the law  laid down in Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case (supra) is being applied  retrospectively.  Because of this decision cases which were concluded prior  to the judgment of the Court are not being reopened.  Procedure/Rule laid  down in Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case (supra) is being applied to a case in  which fraud was detected after the judgment.

       For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this appeal  and dismiss the same.

Civil Appeal No.90 of 2004  (arising from the SLP ) No. 12261 of 2001)

       Appellant herein is the son of R. Vishwanatha Pillai, the appellant in  Civil Appeal No.89 of 2004 (arising from the SLP ) No. 18503 of  2000).  He was born on 10.6.1974.  His caste was shown as Scheduled caste  in the school record at the time of admission.  He applied for the admission  to the Regional Engineering College at Calicut against a seat reserved for a  Scheduled caste candidate.  He was given admission on the basis of the caste  certificate dated 22.6.1992.  The Scrutiny Committee constituted under the  orders of this Court on 18.11.1995 held that the appellant’s father did not  belong to the Scheduled caste and cancelled the community certificate  issued to him.   Consequently, the caste certificate issued to the appellant  was cancelled.  On the basis of the KIRTADS report and the findings of the  Scrutiny Committee communicated to the Regional Engineering College,  Calicut the admission of the appellant was cancelled and his name was  removed from the rolls of the College.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

       This order was challenged by the appellant in the High Court by filing  a writ petition being O.P. No. 18774 of 1995.  In the writ petition the  appellant filed an application praying for the issuance of a direction to the  College to permit the appellant to appear for the 6th semester examination  which was to commence on 6.12.1995.  On 15.12.1995 the High Court  allowed the appellant to appear in the 6th semester examination subject to the  condition that result be not published without obtaining further orders from  the Court.  Later on, on a similar application filed by the appellant he was  allowed to continue the studies in the College and sit for the 7th and 8th  semester examinations.  Pursuant to the permission granted by the High  Court the appellant appeared for 6th, 7th and 8th semester examinations but  the result was not declared.  Appellant completed his engineering course in  the year 1996.

       The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Division  Bench on 26.2.1997.  Review Petition No. 174 of 1997 for the review of the  aforesaid order was also dismissed by the Division Bench on 3.7.1997.   Appellant, thereafter, filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.  13524 of 1997  in this Court, which was dismissed on 1.5.1998.  Review Petition filed for  the review of the order dated 1.5.1998 was also dismissed on 12.8.1998.   Thereafter, the appellant filed interlocutory application in this Court seeking  declaration of the results of 6th, 7th and 8th semester examinations taken by  him.  The said interlocutory application was not entertained by the Registry  of this Court and put up before the Court for orders.

       Thereafter, the appellant filed Civil Misc. Petition No. 30521 of 2000  in O.P. No. 18774 of 1995 in the High Court for direction to the respondents  to publish the results of the    6th, 7th and 8th semester examinations of the  appellant on whatever condition the Court imposed.  He moved the  application as he had completed his course in the year 1996 and had  appeared in all the examinations though under the orders of the Court.  It  was pleaded by him that he had become ineligible to apply for admission to  any other professional college as he had become over age.  It was further  stated by him that he did not make any false claim as to his caste.  Because  of his father is declared caste at that time he was issued the caste certificate.  That the withholding of the appellant’s result and consequently his degree  would not give any material advantage to the respondent but on the other  hand the same would cause grave and irreparable loss and hardship to the  appellant and would gravely affect his future career.  He relied upon two  judgments of this Court, namely, Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case (supra) as  well as a Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in State of  Maharashtra Vs. Milind & Ors.,  2001 (1) SCC 4 in which in spite of fact  that caste certificate produced by the candidate was found to be false, the  result of the candidate was directed to be declared with the stipulation that in  future the candidate shall not take any benefit/advantage on the basis of false  caste certificate obtained by him/her.

       We have heard learned counsel for the parties.  In Kumari Madhuri  Patil’s case (supra) the Court while upholding the cancellation of the social  status fraudulently obtained by the candidate allowed her to appear in the  final year examination of the MBBS course with the rider that she would not  be entitled to take any benefit in future on the basis of the social caste  certificate obtained by her.  It was observed:   

"18. The Delay in the process is inevitable but that  factor should neither be considered to be relevant  nor be an aid to complete the course of study. But  for the fact that she has completed the entire  course except to appear for the final examination,  we would have directed to debar her from  prosecuting the studies and appearing in the  examination. In this factual situation no useful  purpose would be served to debar her from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

appearing for the examination of final year MBBS.  Therefore, we uphold the cancellation of the social  status as Mahadeo Koli fraudulently obtained by  Km Suchita Laxman Patil, but she be allowed to  appear for the final year examination of MBBS  course. She will not, however be entitled in future  for any benefits on the basis of the fraudulent  social status as Mahadeo Koli. However, this  direction should not be treated and used as a  precedent in future cases to give any similar  direction since the same defeats constitutional  goals."   

                       [Emphasis supplied]

In State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind & Ors., (supra), a Constitution Bench  of this Court while permitting the candidate to retain the degree obtained by  him even though his claim as member of the Scheduled Tribe was rejected  observed:  

"Respondent 1 joined the medical course for the  year 1985 \02686. Almost 15 years have passed by  now. We are told he has already completed the  course and may be he is practising as a doctor. In  this view and at this length of time it is for  nobody’s benefit to annul his admission. Huge  amount is spent on each candidate for completion  of joining of medical course. Bo doubt, one  Scheduled Tribe candidate was deprived of joining  medical course by the admission given to  Respondent 1. If nay action is taken against  Respondent 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 practising 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. Having regard to the  passage of time, in the given circumstances,  including interim orders passed by this Court in  SLP (C) No. 16372 of 1985 and other related  affairs, we make it clear that the admissions and  appointments that have become final, shall remain  unaffected by this judgment."                                         [Emphasis supplied]

       In this case we find that the appellant had joined the Regional  Engineering College in the year 1992.  He completed the course of his  studies in the year 1996 under the interim orders of this Court which were  subject to the final orders to be passed in the writ petition.   No purpose  would be served in withholding the declaration of the result on the basis of  the examination already taken by him or depriving him of the degree in case  he passes the examination.  In terms of the orders passed by the Constitution  Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind & Ors.,  (Supra)  we direct that his result be declared and he be allowed to take his degree  with the condition he will not be treated as a Scheduled Caste candidate in  future either in obtaining  service or for any other benefits flowing from the  caste certificate obtained by him.  His caste certificate has been ordered to  be cancelled.  Henceforth, he will be treated as a person belonging to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

general category for all purposes.

               For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed and the  impugned order dated 15.3.2002 passed by the High Court of Kerala  is set  aside.