Priyanka Omprakash Panwar v. State Of Maharashtra And Others

Dr. D.Y Chandrachud, J.:— The petitioner appeared for the Common Entrance Test conducted by the State Government for admission to Medical Colleges in the State in May, 2002 and sought admission to the M.B.B.S Degree Course on the basis of a claim to belong to the Khatik Community which is notified as a Scheduled Caste in the State of Maharashtra. On 24th June, 2002, the petitioner was granted admission to the Mahatma Gandhi Mission Medical College at Navi Mumbai on a reserved seat on the basis of a Caste Certificate granted by the Deputy Collector, Thane. The Caste Certificate was forwarded to the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Division, Mumbai for verification. By an order dated 27th February, 2004, the claim of the petitioner to belong to the Khatik Community was invalidated. The decision of the Scrutiny Committee was challenged by the petitioner in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. By an order dated 7th March 2005, a Division Bench of this Court confirmed the order of the Scrutiny Committee, invalidating the claim of the petitioner to belong to the Khatik Community. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before the Division Bench that the petitioner was prosecuting her studies for the third year of the MBBS Degree Course and, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind, 2001 (1) Mh. L.J (S.C) 1 : (2001) 1 SCC 4 a direction was sought for the protection of the admission granted to the petitioner. The Division Bench while disposing of the petition directed the Government to consider any representation that may be made by the petitioner and observed that it would be open to the management of the Medical College, “if they can adjust the petitioner to do so”.

2. The petitioner filed a representation dated 21st March, 2005 with the Competent Authority and Director of Medical Education and Research as well as with the Educational Institution in which the petitioner was admitted. On 28th December, 2005, the Dean of the Third respondent informed the petitioner that the admission which was granted to the petitioner during the Academic Year 2002–2003 to the MBBS Course in a reserved category, namely as a member of a Scheduled Caste, was cancelled. The petitioner was informed that following the rejection of the Writ Petition by this Court, the Director of Medical Education and Research had directed the College by a communication dated 21st December, 2005 to cancel the admission of the petitioner with immediate effect. The petitioner impugned the communication of the second respondent dated 21st December, 2005. A consequential direction has also been sought for the continuance of the admission of the petitioner.

3. During the pendency of the Petition, a Motion for interim relief (N.M 96 of 2006) was taken out with a prayer that the result of the petitioner for the First Semester examination of the third MBBS be declared. The result was produced before the Court in a sealed cover and upon perusing it, the Division Bench recorded that “the petitioner has passed this examination with good marks”. The Motion was accordingly made absolute by directing that the result of the petitioner be declared and since the petitioner is “otherwise eligible” admission may be granted to the subsequent Semester.

4. On behalf of the petitioner it has been urged that in the interests of justice, the cancellation of the admission of the petitioner on the ground of the invalidation of the caste claim of belonging to a Scheduled Caste be quashed and set aside and the admission be regularised. In support, it has been urged that though the petitioner obtained admission to the MBBS Degree Course on the strength of a claim of belonging to a Scheduled Caste and the invalidation of the claim has attained finality, in view of the circumstance that the petitioner has completed the course of study, it would be in the interests of justice if the impugned communications are quashed and set aside and an order for regularization is issued. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind (supra) and Sandeep S. Parate v. State of Maharashtra, 2006 (6) Mh. L.J (SC) 720 : (2006) 7 SCC 501

5. On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the State that the Legislature has enacted the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulations of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificate) Act, 2000. Section 10(3) of the Act provides that any educational qualification acquired by a person after securing admission in an educational institution on the basis of a Caste Certificate which is subsequently proved to be false shall also stand cancelled on cancellation of the Caste Certificate by the Scrutiny Committee. Consequently, it was urged that the Legislature, as a matter of public policy, has enacted both in the matter of employment and education that the benefit which is secured on the basis of a caste claim which is found to be false, stands invalidated. In the circumstances, this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would not be justified in issuing directions contrary to the law which has been enacted by the State Legislature. Moreover, it was urged that the constitutional validity of the Act has been upheld by a judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in 2004 (3) Mh. L.J (F.B) 1109 : 2004 (5) BCR 497. Reliance is also placed on judgments of Division Benches of this Court.

6. In Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241 Supreme Court took notice of the tendency of unscrupulous individuals seeking to obtain admissions to educational institutions by lodging false claim of belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe:

“The Union of India and the State Governments have prescribed the procedure and have entrusted duty and responsibility to Revenue Officers of gazetted cadre to issue social status certificate, after due verification. It is common knowledge that endeavour of States to fulfil constitutional mandate of upliftment of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by providing for reservation of seats in educational institutions and for reservation of posts and appointments, are sought to be denied to them by unscrupulous persons who come forward to obtain the benefit of such reservations posing themselves as persons entitled to such status while in fact disentitled to such status. The case in hand is a clear instance of such pseudo-status.”

7. The Supreme Court observed that the grave danger that was posed by false claims made by persons who did not belong to one of the reserved categories was that admission to an educational institution on a job in public employment granted to such a person would deprive a genuine member of a reserved community to the benefit to which such a person was truly entitled. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil therefore, laid down directions to ensure that Caste Certificates were scrutinized with utmost expedition and promptitude. The Supreme Court observed as follows:

“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 are 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 scrutinized at the earliest and with utmost expedition and promptitude.”

8. The Supreme Court observed that no claim on the ground of equity or estoppel should be countenanced at the behest of a person who had made a claim to belong to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe when such a claim is invalidated:

“Often the plea of equities or promissory estoppel would be put forth for continuance and completion of further course of studies and usually would be found favour with the Courts. The Courts have constitutional duty and responsibility, in exercise of the power of its judicial review, to see that constitutional goals set down in the Preamble, the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of the Constitution, are achieved. A party that seeks equity, must come with clean hands. He who comes to the Court with false claim, cannot plead equity nor the Court would be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour. There is no estoppel as no promise of the social status is made by the State when a false plea was put forth for the social status recognised and declared by the Presidential Order under the Constitution as amended by the SC & ST (Amendment) Act, 1976, which is later found to be false. Therefore, the plea of promissory estoppel or equity have no application. When it is found to be a case of fraud played by the concerned, no sympathy and equitable considerations can come to his rescue. Nor the plea of estoppel is germane to the beneficial constitutional concessions and opportunities given to the genuine tribes or castes. Courts would be circumspect and wary in considering such cases.”

9. In the State of Maharashtra, the State Legislature enacted the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulations of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificate) Act, 2000. The Act as its long title states, “provides for the regulation of the issuance and verification of the Caste Certificates … and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”. Section 3 of the Act provides for an application for a Caste Certificate, section 4 for the issuance of a Caste Certificate and section 6 for the verification of Caste Certificates by the Scrutiny Committee. Under sub-section (1) of section 7, the Scrutiny Committee is empowered suo motu or otherwise to enter into the correctness of the certificate where before or after commencement of the Act, a person not belonging to a reserved category has obtained a false Caste Certificate of belonging to a Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribe (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special Backward Category and the Committee is of the opinion that the certificate was obtained fraudulently. Under section 8, the burden of proving a claim of belonging to a reserved category is on the claimant-applicant. Section 10 of the Act provides that the benefit which was secured on the basis of a false Caste Certificate shall be withdrawn. Section 10 provides as follows:

“10. (1) Whoever not being a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category secures admission in any educational institution against a seat reserved for such Castes, Tribes or Classes, or secures any appointment in the Government local authority or in any other Company or Corporation, owned or controlled by the Government or in any Government aided institution or Co-operative Society against a post reserved for such Castes, Tribes or Classes by producing a false Caste Certificate shall, on cancellation of the Caste Certificate by the Scrutiny Committee be liable to be debarred from the concerned educational institution, or as the case may be, discharged from the said employment forthwith and any other benefits enjoyed or derived by virtue of such admission or appointment by such person as aforesaid shall be withdrawn forthwith.

(2) Any amount paid to such person by the Government or any other agency by way of scholarship, grant, allowance or other financial benefit shall be recovered from such person as an arrears of land revenue.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any Act for the time being in force, any Degree, Diploma or any other educational qualification acquired by such person after securing admission in any educational institution on the basis of a Caste Certificate which is subsequently proved to be false shall also stand cancelled, on cancellation of such Caste Certificate, by the Scrutiny Committee.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any Act for the time being in force, a person shall be disqualified for being a member of any statutory body if he has contested the election for local authority, Co-operative Society or any statutory body on the seat reserved for any of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category by procuring a false Caste Certificate as belonging to such Caste, Tribe or Class on such false Caste Certificate, and any benefits obtained by such person shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue and the election of such person shall be deemed to have been terminated retrospectively.”

10. The Legislature has created offences in section 11 and provided penalties. section 11 provides as follows:

“11.(1) Whoever—

(a) obtains a false Caste Certificate by furnishing false information or filing false statement or documents or by any other fraudulent means; or

(b) not being a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category secures any benefits or appointments exclusively reserved for such Castes, Tribes or Classes in the Government, Local authority or any other company or corporation owned controlled by the Government or in any Government aided institution, or secures admission in any educational institution against a seat exclusively reserved for such Castes, Tribes or Classes or is elected to any of the elective offices of any local authority or Co-operative Society against the office reserved for such Castes, Tribes or Classes by producing a false Caste Certificate; shall, on conviction, be punished, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend upto two years or with fine which shall not be less than two thousand rupees, but which may extend upto twenty thousand rupees or both.

(2) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this section except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the Scrutiny Committee or by any other officer duly authorised by the Scrutiny Committee for this purpose.”

11. The provisions of sub-section (1) of section 10 inter alia are to the effect that where a person who does not belong to a reserved category secures admission in an educational institution against a reserved seat by producing a false Caste Certificate, he or she shall, on cancellation of the Caste Certificate by the Scrutiny Committee, be liable to be debarred from the educational institution. Similarly, where employment has been secured in the Government, a local authority, a Company owned or controlled by Government, in a Government aided institution or a Co-operative Society against a reserved post, on a false Caste Certificate, such a person is liable to be discharged and any other benefits enjoyed or derived shall be withdrawn forthwith. Similarly, any other benefits enjoyed or derived by virtue of admission to an educational institution shall be withdrawn forthwith. By sub-section (2), an amount paid by way of scholarship, grant or allowance or other financial benefit shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Sub-section (3) of section 10 begins with a non-obstante provision and lays down that any degree, diploma or other educational qualification acquired by a person after securing admission to an educational institution on the basis of a Caste Certificate which is subsequently proved to be false shall also stand cancelled.

12. The Legislature has stepped in and enunciated as a matter of high public policy, a statutory provision for the invalidation of all benefits which have been obtained on the basis of a false caste claim to belong to a reserved category. Where a person has been employed on the basis of a false caste claim, the Legislature has provided for discharge from employment. Where a person has been admitted to an educational institution on the basis of a false claim, the Legislature has provided for invalidation of the admission. The Legislature has in Sub-section (3) of section 10 gone further by enacting that the degree, diploma or any other educational qualification “shall also stand cancelled” on the cancellation of the Caste Certificate. An electoral disqualification has been enacted in sub-section (4). These stringent provisions have been enacted by the Legislature in public interest in order to ensure that the benefits which are created for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other reserved categories are truly made available only to those persons who belong to the communities and tribes for whom the reservation exists. There is a tendency for imposters to claim the benefit of reservation by feigning to belong to a reserved community. Once admitted to an educational institution, every effort is made to continue in the educational institution often by recourse to dilatory tactics and over a period of time, a plea is made for the protection of the admission since by the passage of time, the student may have pursued the course of studies even to the conclusion. The Court has often times stepped in to protect admission on equitable considerations particularly having regard to the fact that the student may have substantially completed the course of studies or may have secured a degree on the basis of admission. The balance between the equitable consideration of protecting the interest of a student who has pursued his education and the public interest in protecting the reserved categories against the usurpation of their constitutional entitlements by imposters has now been made by the State Legislature. The Court in the exercise of the power of judicial review has due deference to legislative policy. The Court does not prescribe legislative policy nor does it enact law. The Court must assume that the legislature is cognisant of the needs and welfare of society. The legislature was also cognisant of the outlays publicly made on education and the investment made by the State in equipping students to become doctors, engineers and other professionals. The Legislature has expressly stipulated that a degree or diploma obtained on the basis of a caste claim which is invalidated shall stand cancelled. In the face of an express legislative provision, this Court shall not be justified in exercising its equitable jurisdiction. Considerations of equity that guide the Court in constitutional adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution must be in accordance with the law enacted by the Legislature. So long as the law continues to be valid, the High Court would not be justified in issuing directions which run contrary to the plain intendment of the Legislature. It is the constitutional duty and obligation of this Court to give a purposive meaning and interpretation to the provisions of the enactment made by the State Legislature in 2000. Stringent provisions have been made to protect the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other reserved categories. To dilute those provisions by importing equitable considerations for a candidate who has usurped benefits would be to defeat the law. The legislation was in this case conceived in the interests of protecting the constitutional scheme of reservations from usurpation by those who are not entitled. It is the plain duty of the constitutional Court to enforce the law. The doctrine of the separation of powers in a democracy demands no less.

13. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon directions issued by the Supreme Court and it was urged before us that despite invalidation of the claim of a student to belong to a reserved community, the admission to a professional degree course was protected. In Madhuri Patil (supra), the Supreme Court while upholding the invalidation of the claim of one of the students to belong to the Mahadeo Koli Community directed that the student should be allowed to appear for the final year examination of the MBBS Degree Course. In State of Maharashtra v. Milind (supra), the First respondent joined the medical course in 1985–1986 and 15 years had since passed by which time the student had completed the course and had been practising as a Doctor. The Supreme Court noted that a large amount is spent on each candidate for completing the medical course and if action were to be taken against the First respondent that may lead to Society being deprived of the services of a doctor on whom public money had been spent. The Supreme Court made it clear that while a degree has already been obtained by the First respondent, he would not claim advantage of the Scheduled Tribes' Order. In R. Vishwanath Pillai v. State of Kerala, (2004) 2 SCC 105 the appellant had completed his course of studies towards the Engineering Decree Course in 1996 under the interim order of the High Court. The Supreme Court held that no purpose would be served in withholding the declaration of the result on the basis of the examination already taken by the student. A different view was taken by the Supreme Court in Bank of India v. Avinash D. Mandivikar, 2005 (4) Mh. L.J (SC) 409 : (2005) 7 SCC 690. In Sandeep Subhash Parate v. State of Maharashtra, 2006 (6) Mh. L.J (SC) 720 : (2006) 7 SCC 501 the earlier judgments were considered. The Supreme Court held that in the exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court could issue directions to do complete justice between the parties:

“This Court, while exercising its discretionary jurisdiction and to do complete justice between the parties in terms of Article 142 of the Constitution of India, must consider all relevant aspects of the matter, including the decisions of this Court.”

14. The Supreme Court held that in that case there was no lack of bona fides on the part of the candidate, since the appellant had taken admission prior to the decision in Milind (supra). The issue as to whether ‘Koshti-Halbas’ were members of the Scheduled Tribes had not been finally determined. The Supreme Court also noted that there were various peculiar circumstances in the case which were as follows:

“(1) The Appellant completed his substantial tenure as a student under the interim orders passed by the High Court.

(2) No opportunity of hearing was given to him by the Scrutiny Committee at the first instance and his first writ petition was allowed.

(3) Although, in the second writ petition, he could not obtain any interim order, yet he was allowed to continue his studies without any demur by the State and the University authorities.

(4) He filed an application after completion of his studies that respondent 4 University should be directed to issue to him the degree of Bachelor of Engineering. No order was passed thereupon.

(5) A review application was filed on the basis that the Bench did not take into consideration the decision of this Court in Milind.”

15. The Supreme Court held that there was no lack of bona fides on the part of the appellant and observed thus:

“We, therefore, albeit with much reluctance accept the fervent and impassionate plea made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that he be allowed to obtain the degree. The same shall, however, be subject to payment of Rs. 1 lakh in favour of the State of Maharashtra so as to recompense the State to some extent the amount spent on him for imparting education as a reserved category candidate.”

16. In a subsequent decision in Additional General Manager, Human Resourse, Bhel Ltd. v. Suresh Ramkrishna Burde, 2007 (4) Mh. L.J 1 the Supreme Court has emphasized that no hard and fast rule can be laid down:

“The principle, which seems to have been followed by this Court is, that, where a person secures an appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate, he cannot be allowed to retain the benefit of the wrong committed by him and his services are liable to be terminated. However, where a person has got admission in a professional course like Engineering or MBBS and has successfully completed the course after studying for the prescribed period and has passed the examination, his case may, on special facts, be considered on a different footing. Normally, huge amount of public money is spent in imparting education in a professional college and the student also acquires the necessary skill in the subjects which he has studies. The skill acquired by him can be gainfully utilized by the society. In such cases the professional degree obtained by the student may be protected though he may have got admission by producing a false caste certificate. Here again no hard and fast rule can be laid down. If the falsehood of the caste certificate submitted by the student is detected within a short period of his getting admission in the professional course, his admission would be liable to be cancelled. However, where he has completed the course and has passed all the examinations and acquired the degree, his case may be treated on a different footing. In such cases only a limited relief of protection of his professional degree may be granted.”

(emphasis supplied)

17. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Milind, Parate and Suresh Ramkrishna (supra) have all dealt with the situation as it emerged in relation to the claim of Koshtis to belong to the Halba Scheduled Tribe. Parate's case makes it clear that an important circumstance which weighed towards the protection of admissions already granted was that the issue as to whether ‘Koshti Halbas’ were members of the Scheduled Tribes had not been finally determined until the decision of the Supreme Court in Milind. The Constitution Bench had resolved the issue on 28th November, 2000. The directions issued by the Supreme Court in certain cases for the protection of admission or, as the case may be, the degree is relatable to the power of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution.

18. An important circumstance that has weighed with Courts is that a considerable degree of expenditure is incurred by the State towards medical education and where a student has substantially progressed in the course of studies or has obtained a degree, the cancellation of the admission will lead to deprivation of the services of a doctor to Society. Insofar as this equitable consideration is concerned, the State legislature has made a specific provision in section 10(3) of Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 and it must be presumed that all matters of contemporary knowledge were present to the mind of the legislature when enacting the law.

19. The exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 has to be structured by a valid statutory enactment, namely, the provisions enacted by the State Legislature in the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulations of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificate) Act, 2000. Section 10(3) of the Act contains a mandatory consequence, that notwithstanding anything contained in any Act for the time being in force, a degree, diploma or educational qualification acquired by a person after securing admission to an educational institution on the basis of a Caste Certificate which is subsequently proved to be false shall also stand cancelled, on cancellation of the Caste Certificate by the Scrutiny Committee. In other words, the cancellation of the degree, diploma or educational qualification follows as a matter of law upon the invalidation of a Caste Certificate. The validity of the Act has been upheld in a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Dattatraya R. Thorat v. State of Maharashtra, 2003 (5) Mh. L.J 539 : 2003 (Supp) Bom. C.R 110. In an unreported judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Yogesh Ramchandra Naikwadi v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition 2667 of 1995, decided on 28th March, 2006 [since reported in 2006 (3) Mh. L.J 726], the Division Bench has inter alia taken into account, the provisions of the maharashtra act 23 of 2001 and declined to grant protection to a B.E Degree obtained by a candidate whose claim to belong to the Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe was rejected.

20. In conclusion, therefore, we held that in view of the provisions of section 10(3) of the Maharashtra Act 23 of 2001, this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot accede to the prayers. The Petition shall accordingly stand dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.