2008 (8) TMI 796 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether a co-employee of the respondent No. 1 who was working as a Field Officer with the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board can maintain an independent special leave questioning the judgment of a High Court setting aside an order of the Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee? Held that - Appeal allowed. Invoking our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, keeping in view the long history of the case and its backdrop, we are of the opinion that whereas it would not be proper for us to disturb the very appointment of the appellant but it must be declared that his appointment shall be treated to be that of a general category in the matter of promotion or otherwise. He shall not be eligible to get any benefit as a member of a Scheduled Tribe.

Issues Involved:

1. Maintainability of an independent special leave petition by a co-employee.
2. Determination of caste status and validity of Scheduled Tribe (ST) certificates.
3. Application of the principle of res judicata.
4. Role and jurisdiction of Caste Scrutiny Committees.
5. Fraud on the Constitution and its implications on ST claims.
6. Locus standi of the appellant in challenging the High Court's decision.
7. Relief and remedies under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of an Independent Special Leave Petition by a Co-employee:

The Supreme Court considered whether a co-employee of the respondent, who was working as a Field Officer with the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, could maintain an independent special leave petition questioning the High Court's judgment. The Court noted the significance of the issue and allowed the leave.

2. Determination of Caste Status and Validity of Scheduled Tribe (ST) Certificates:

The respondent claimed to belong to the "Halba" tribe, a recognized Scheduled Tribe under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. The respondent's caste status was scrutinized by various committees and authorities, including the Schedule Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee and the Ferriera Committee. The Scrutiny Committee and other authorities found discrepancies in the respondent's claim, noting that his father's caste was recorded as "Koshti" in old school records, which carried more evidential value. The Committee concluded that the respondent did not belong to the Halba Scheduled Tribe but to the Koshti caste, which falls under Other Backward Classes (OBC).

3. Application of the Principle of Res Judicata:

The High Court's earlier decision in 1988, which declared the respondent as belonging to the Halba tribe, was challenged. The Supreme Court examined whether this decision could operate as res judicata. It was determined that res judicata would not apply if the judgment was passed without jurisdiction or if it involved a pure question of law. Additionally, if a judgment was obtained by fraud, it would not be binding.

4. Role and Jurisdiction of Caste Scrutiny Committees:

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of Caste Scrutiny Committees, constituted following the decision in Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development. These committees have statutory recognition and are responsible for verifying caste certificates. The Court noted that the Scrutiny Committee's findings, based on thorough investigations, should be given due weight.

5. Fraud on the Constitution and Its Implications on ST Claims:

The Court highlighted that obtaining benefits reserved for Scheduled Tribes through false claims constitutes a fraud on the Constitution. Such actions deprive legitimate candidates of their rightful opportunities. The Supreme Court reiterated that the constitutional scheme must be upheld, and individuals must genuinely belong to a tribe to claim ST benefits.

6. Locus Standi of the Appellant in Challenging the High Court's Decision:

The appellant, a co-employee, challenged the High Court's decision on the grounds that it was contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Milind and other related judgments. The Supreme Court acknowledged the appellant's locus standi, given the broader implications of the case on public interest and constitutional integrity.

7. Relief and Remedies under Article 142 of the Constitution of India:

Invoking its jurisdiction under Article 142, the Supreme Court decided not to disturb the respondent's appointment due to the long history of the case and the respondent's service tenure. However, it was declared that the respondent's appointment would be treated as that of a general category candidate, and he would not be eligible for any benefits as a member of a Scheduled Tribe.

Conclusion:

The appeal was allowed with specific directions, ensuring that the respondent's appointment would be treated under the general category, and he would not receive any further benefits as a Scheduled Tribe member. The Supreme Court's decision aimed to uphold constitutional principles and prevent misuse of ST reservations.

← Previous Next →