IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.   6253  OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 1774 of 2007)

Sayanna ... Appellant

Versus

State of Maharashtra and Others          ...Respondents

J U D G M E N T

J.M. PANCHAL, J.

Leave granted.

2. The  instant  appeal  is  directed  against  judgment  

dated December 5, 2006, rendered by the Division  

Bench  of  High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Bombay,  

Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 6583 of  

2005 by which the decision dated August 19, 2005  

of  the  Scheduled  Tribe  Certificate  Scrutiny  

Committee,  Aurangabad  Division,  (‘the  Scrutiny

Committee’ for short) to cancel and confiscate the  

caste  certificated  dated  May 17,  1972,  issued to  

the  appellant  by  Tehsildar,  Biloli,  Distt.  Nanded,  

indicating  that  he  belongs  to  Mannervarlu  

Scheduled Tribe, is affirmed.

3. The facts emerging from the record of the case are  

as under: -

The appellant was born on January 1, 1951.  

A  copy  of  page  No.  9  of  the  register  of  admission  of  

students  of  Zilla  Parishad  High  School,  Kundalwadi,  

Taluka Biloli, Distt. Nanded, produced by the appellant,  

shows  that  he  was  admitted  to  primary  school,  Zilla  

Parishad Kundalwadi,  Taluka Biloli  on September  14,  

1962 and his caste was shown to be “Mannerawarlu”.  

He  had  applied  to  the  Tehsildar,  Biloli  to  issue  

certificate  indicating  that  he  belongs  to  sub-caste  

Mannerawarlu.  On the basis of the certificate issued by  

the President of Kundalwadi Municipality, the Tehsildar  

issued certificate dated May 17, 1972 mentioning that  

the appellant belongs to Mannerawarlu sub-caste.

2

4. Mr. Anup, son of the appellant, had completed his  

primary  and  secondary  education  from  Milind  

Primary School, Kundalwadi and in school records,  

his caste was recorded as Mannerwarlu.  The son  

of  the appellant had also applied to Tehsildar to  

issue certificate to him mentioning that he belongs  

to “Mannerwarlu” caste.  The Tehsildar, Biloli had  

issued  certificate  dated  October  5,  1989  

mentioning  that  Anup  was  belonging  to  

Mannerwarlu caste.  Pursuant to an advertisement  

issued  by  the  Maharashtra  Public  Service  

Commission, Anup had applied for one of the posts  

notified  and  claimed  benefit  as  a  candidate  

belonging to Scheduled Tribes, by producing above  

mentioned  certificate.   The  said  certificate  was  

forwarded  to  the  Vigilence  Cell,  Office  of  the  

Deputy  Director,  Scheduled  Tribes  Scrutiny  

Committee, Aurugabad for verification.  The officer  

of the said committee had recorded statements of  

the appellant and his father and after making due  

enquiry, reported on May 17, 2001 to the Deputy  

3

Director,  Scheduled  Tribes  Scrutiny  Committee,  

that  Anup,  son  of  the  appellant,  belongs  to  

Mannerwarlu  caste.   After  considering  the  

documents and associated facts, the Committee for  

Scrutiny  and  verification  of  Tribe  Claims,  

Aurangabad had issued certificate of validity dated  

October 10, 2001 stating that Anup belongs to the  

Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe by birth.

5. In the year 2002, the appellant wanted to contest  

the  election  for  the  post  of  the  President  of  

Kundalwadi Municipal Council which was reserved  

for  candidate  belonging  to  the  Scheduled  Tribes  

upto the year 2002.  The appellant contested the  

said election and got  elected as President  of  the  

said Municipal Council on January 1, 2002.  On  

January 30, 2003, the Scheduled Tribes Certificate  

Scrutiny  Committee  asked  the  Collector,  Distt.  

Nanded to forward the caste claims of the elected  

candidates  of  Kundalwadi  Municipal  Council  for  

verification.  Accordingly the appellant was called  

upon by the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council  

4

to  submit  the  caste  certificate  with  necessary  

evidence, for verification.  On March 28, 2003, the  

appellant submitted documents in support of his  

claim that he belongs to Mannerwarlu Scheduled  

Tribe.   The  Police  Inspector,  Vigilence  Cell,  

Scheduled  Tribes  Verification  Committee,  

Aurangabad, conducted enquiry.  He submitted a  

report dated December 1, 2003 stating that in the  

column of caste mentioned in the school records,  

the word “lu” was subsequently added.  In view of  

the  above  mentioned  report,  the  Scrutiny  

Committee sought explanation from the appellant  

which was given asserting inter alia that the said  

document  was  in  the  custody  of  the  school  

authorities  and  there  was  no  possibility  of  

interpolation  having  been  made  in  the  said  

certificate by him.

6. The Scrutiny Committee by order dated August 19,  

2005  cancelled  and  confiscated  certificate  dated  

May 17, 1972, issued to the appellant indicating  

that he belongs to “Mannerwarlu” Scheduled Tribe.  

5

Feeling  aggrieved,  the  appellant  invoked  

extraordinary  jurisdiction  of  High  Court  of  

Judicature  at  Bombay,  Bench  at  Aurangabad  

under Article 226 of the Constitution by filing writ  

petition No. 6583 of 2005.  The Division Bench of  

the High Court has dismissed the petition, giving  

rise to the instant appeal.

7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the  

parties  and  considered  the  documents  forming  

part of the appeal.

8. As  is  evident  from  the  record  of  the  case,  the  

certificate  dated  May  17,  1972  issued  to  the  

appellant  mentioning  that  he  belongs  to  

Mannerwarlu  Scheduled  Tribe,  was  forwarded  to  

the  Scrutiny  Committee  for  verification.   The  

Scheduled  Tribes  Verification  Committee,  

Aurangabad  had  asked  the  Police  Inspector,  

Vigilence  Cell,  Scheduled  Tribes  Verification  

Committee, Aurangabad to conduct enquiry as to  

6

whether the claim of the appellant that he belongs  

to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe, was correct.

9. The report dated December 1, 2003, forwarded by  

the  Police  Inspector,  Vigilance  Cell,  nowhere  

mentions that the certificate dated May 17, 1972,  

produced  by  the  appellant  to  establish  that  he  

belongs to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe is forged  

one.  The contents of the certificate dated May 17,  

1972 show that the said certificate was issued on  

the basis of the certificate issued by the President  

of  Kundalwadi  Municipality.   The  report  dated  

December  1,  2003  of  Police  Inspector  does  not  

indicate whether the Police Inspector had recorded  

the statement of the President of the Municipality  

to  find out  whether  the  certificate  issued by the  

President was genuine or not.  What is relevant to  

notice is that in the report dated December 1, 2003  

the Police Inspector has merely stated as a matter  

of fact that the word “lu” was subsequently added  

while  recording  the  caste  of  the  appellant  as  

Mannerwarlu  in  the  school  register.   The  Police  

7

Inspector  has not  stated  that  the  word “lu”  was  

interpolated  by  the  appellant.   There  is  every  

possibility that the word “lu” was not mentioned at  

the time of recording of the caste of the appellant  

and on being pointed  out  the  correct  spelling  of  

caste, the word “lu” was added.  Addition of word  

“lu” subsequently would not lead to an irresistible  

conclusion that the said word was added by the  

appellant or at his behest.  It is difficult for this  

Court  to  understand  as  to  on  which  basis  the  

Scrutiny Committee  came to the  conclusion that  

the word “lu” was interpolated in the register of the  

school more particularly when it was not so opined  

by  the  Police  Inspector  who  had  conducted  the  

enquiry.   Whether  interpolation  by  addition  has  

taken place can be stated by a handwriting expert  

or by comparison of admitted letters of a person  

with this disputed one.  It is an admitted position  

that the Scrutiny Committee had never attempted  

to get an expert’s opinion nor itself had compared  

the  disputed  letters  with  admitted  one  of  the  

8

appellant.   Under the circumstances,  the finding  

recorded by the Scrutiny Committee that the word  

“lu” was interpolated will  have to be regarded as  

not  based  on  any  credible  evidence.   The  Police  

Inspector had never taken care to find out whether  

the  word  “lu”  was  subsequently  added  by  the  

school  authorities  or  by  the  appellant.   It  was  

necessary for the said officer to undertake such an  

exercise  in  view  of  the  specific  defence  of  the  

appellant that the school record was lying with the  

school  authorities  and  he  had  no  opportunity  

whatsoever to tamper with the same.   

10. In  support  of  his  claim  that  he  belongs  to  

Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribes, the appellant had  

produced  before  the  Scrutiny  Committee  four  

Xerox  copies  of  the  Caste  Certificate  issued  by  

Talathi  of  the  Village  and  (C)  Certificate  dated  

November  25,  2002  issued  by  C.E.O.,  Nagar  

Parishad.   The perusal  of  the record shows that  

these  documents  were  arbitrarily  and  lightly  

brushed  aside  by  the  Scrutiny  Committee  by  

9

observing  that  the  documents  were  issued  in  a  

casual  manner  and  that  too  on  the  personal  

knowledge  without  verifying  the  facts.   It  is  an  

admitted  position  that  none  of  the  officers,  who  

had  issued  the  certificate  concerned,  was  either  

summoned  or  examined  by  the  Scrutiny  

Committee.  The affidavit filed by Dr. L.N. Datte,  

nephew of the appellant, and the caste certificate  

issued to the son of the appellant would indicate  

that  near  relatives  of  the  appellant  have  been  

always treated by the authorities as belonging to  

Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe.   The claim of  the  

appellant  that  he  belongs  to  Mannerwarlu  

Scheduled Tribe could not have been negatived on  

the  ground  that  he  had  no  basic  knowledge  of  

traits, characteristics, customs and culture, etc. of  

Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe or that he failed to  

prove  his  affinity  and  ethnic  linkage  to  

Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe.  On the facts and  

in the circumstances of the case this Court is of  

the  opinion  that  the  decision  of  the  Scrutiny  

10

Committee  to  cancel  and  confiscate  the  caste  

certificate  issued  to  the  appellant  is  based  on  

irrelevant considerations and suffers from the vice  

of non-consideration of relevant factors.  Therefore,  

the  said  decision  as  well  as  the  decision  of  the  

High Court, confirming the said decision, are liable  

to be set aside.

11. For the reasons stated in the judgment the appeal  

succeeds.   The  decision  dated August  19,  2005,  

taken by the Scheduled Tribes Certificate Scrutiny  

Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, to  

cancel  and  confiscate  the  caste  certificate  dated  

May  17,  1972,  issued  to  the  appellant  by  the  

Tehsildar,  Biloli,  Distt.  Nanded,  stating  that  the  

appellant  belongs  to  Mannerwarlu  Scheduled  

Tribe, as confirmed by the Division Bench of the  

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad  

Bench in Writ Petition No. 6583 of 2005, decided  

on December 5,  2006,  is  set  aside.   The appeal  

accordingly stands allowed.   

11

12. As the appeal is allowed, I.A. No. 3 of 2008 to recall  

order dated July 9, 2008, refusing to grant time to  

the appellant to file rejoinder affidavit and to allow  

the appellant to file the rejoinder does not survive  

and it is accordingly disposed of.

13. There shall be no order as to costs.

…………………………J. [R.V. Raveendran]

…………………………J. [J.M. Panchal]

New Delhi; September 15, 2009.

12