Holding

The Committee erred in rejecting the caste certificate application as it failed to consider an important document and did not apply its mind to the evidence, rendering the rejection invalid.

Summary

Gayatrilaxmi Bapurau Nagpure, a medical course aspirant, claimed membership in the Halba Scheduled Tribe and applied to the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee for a caste certificate. She submitted 17 documents, including school certificates, caste certificates of her father, and a 1981 government order granting a caste certificate to her first cousin. The Committee rejected her application without considering the crucial 1981 order and without adequately evaluating other documents, a decision upheld by the Bombay High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the Committee failed to apply its mind to material evidence and that greater care is required in granting or denying caste certificates, as wrongful denial deprives a genuine candidate of constitutional privileges. Consequently, the Court set aside the Committee’s and High Court’s orders and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee correctly rejected the appellant's claim for a caste certificate.
Whether the Committee considered all relevant documents, particularly the 1981 government order concerning the appellant's first cousin.
What is the burden of proof in caste certificate applications and the role of authorities in assisting the Committee.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 15(4)

Subjects

caste certificateScheduled Tribereservationburden of proofconstitutional equalitymedical admissionMaharashtra

Judgment

A GAYATRILAXMI BAPURAO NAGPURE
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

MARCH 15, 1996

B [M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.]

Constitution of India :

Articles 14 and 15(4)-Reservation-Scheduled T1ibe-Caste Certifi-
•
C cate-Appellant, a candidate for admission to Medical Course, applying to
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee for Caste Certifi-
cate-Documents issued by school authorities and other State authorities in
support of claim ftanished-Committee rejecting documents and refusing
certificate--Held, Committee en-ed in rejecting the claim and failed to apply
its mind to important documents-Greater care must be taken before granting
D or rejecting any claim for caste certificate.

The appellant, a candidate for admission to the Medical Course,
claiming herself to be a member of 'Halba' community, applied to the
scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Community, respondent No. 2
E for issue of the requisite caste certificate. In support of her claim she
furnished various documents including School Leaving Certificate,
domicile and nationality certificate issued to her father, caste certificates
issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Executive Magistrate and
an order dated 1.9.1981 passed by the State Government in favour of her
first cousin certifying that he belonged to 'Halba' community. The respon-
F dent-Committee rejected the documents and declined to grant the certifi-
cate. The writ petition filed by the appellant before the High Court was
also dismissed. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present ap11eal.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

G HELD: 1.1. The respondent-Committee was not justified in rejecting
the certificates furnished by the appellant in the absence of any attempt
on the side of the Government to suspect the correctness/genuineness of
the documents produced by the appellant. The Committee failed to con-
sider all the relevant materials placed before it and did not apply its mind
H to an important document, namely, the order dated 1.9.1981 passed by the
466
\

t
I

GAYATRILAXMIBAPURAO NAGPUREv. STATE [K. VENKATASWAMJ,J.]467

Government certifying that the first cousin of the appellant belongs to A
'Halba 'community. (471-C; 472-G; 472-B]
., 1.2. Greater care must be taken before granting or rejecting any
claim for caste certificate. By a wrongful denial of the caste certificate, the
genuine candidate will be deprived of the privileges conferred upon
him/her by the Constitution. [472-H; 473-A; 472-G] B

1.3. Though in cases of claim for a caste certificate, the burden
heavily lies on the applicant who seeks such a certificate, that 4oes not
mean that the authorities have no role to play in finding out the correct·
ness or otherwise of the claim for issue of a caste certificate. The C
authorities concerned must also play a role in assisting the Committee to
arrive at a correct decision. In the instant case, except the documents
produced by the appellant, nothing has been produced by the authorities
concerned to arrive at a different conclusion. (473-B-C]

Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. v. Additional Commissioner Tribal D
Development & Ors., (1994] 6 SCC 241, Director of Tribal Welfare, Govern-
ment of A.P. v. Leveti Giri & An1:, [1995] 4 SCC 32, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4377 of
1996.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.6.1995 of the Bombay High
Court in W.P. No. 2773 of 1995.

V.A. Mohta and A.K. Sanghi for the Appellant.
1 V.N. Ganpule, S.M. Jadhav for D.M. Nargolkar for the State 1, 2 F
and 4.

Pallav Sishodia, D.N. Misra for J.B.D. & Co. for the Respondent
Nos. 3 and 5.
G
The judgment of the Court was delivered by

• }I. K. VENKATASWAMI, J. Leave granted .

This appeal is directed against the Division Bench judgment of the
Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 2773/95 dated 22.6.95. H
468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] 3 S.C.R.

A At the time of arguments before us, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant has confined his contention to the claim of the appellant that
she belongs to "Halba" Scheduled Tribe.

Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant with a view to apply for
B admission to the Medical Course, approached the second respondent, the
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee (for Short "Com-
mittee") for the issue of a caste certificate to the effect that she belongs to
"Halba" Scheduled Tribe to enable her to apply for admission to the
Medical Course under that category. In support of her claim, apart from
appearing before the Committee and furnishing certain information, the
C appellant has filed 17 documents consisting of certificates issued by Execu-
tive Magistrate and School Certificate issued to her and Caste Certificate
issued to her father.

The second respondent Committee while considering the claim of
D the appellant and evaluating the probative value of the documents
produced, did not appear to have dealt with one important document,
namely, Certificate No. 9 in the Order of the second respondent which
related to an Order passed by the Government on appeal by the first cousin
of the appellant in the matter of issue of Caste Certificate to him. That
Order of the Government dated 1.9.81 overruling the Order of a Commit-
E tee, granted a Caste Certificate holding that the first cousin of the appel-
lant, by name, Abinash Prabhakar Nagpure belonged to "Halba"
Community, a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Maharashtra. Likewise,
while brushing aside the Caste Certificate issued in favour of the
appellant's father, the scrutiny Committee merely observed that it was
p issued in a casual manner without proper verification.

In the course of the argument before us, learned counsel for the
appellant contended that in the light of the Instructions issued by the
Government of Maharashtra's that if a close relative is already given a
Caste Certificate, that must be given due weight, has not been followed by
G the Committee. He also submitted that the Certificate issued on 26.8.71 by
the appropriate authority after verification was the basis for the issue of
the caste Certificate to the father of the appellant, was not noticed by the ~ •
Committee. However, the Certificate dated 26.8.71 was not produced
before the Committee. From the Order passed by the Committee, we find
H that the failure of the appellant to produce her father's Primary School
I

!~
GAYATRILAXMIBAPURAO NAGPUREv. STATE[K. VENKATASWAMI, J.]469

Certificate was taken serious note of to reject the appellant's claim. A
1 Before the High Court also, it is claimed, reliance was placed on the
Caste Certificate issued to the first cousin and also the Death Certificate
issued on the death of the appellant's grandmother but those were not
discussed by the High Court.
B
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supporting the Order
of the second-respondent Committee submitted that in view of the judg-
ments of this Court in Kuma1i Madhuri Patil and Anr. v. Additional Com-
missioner, Tribal Development & Ors., [1994] 6 SCC 241, Director of Tribal
Welfare, Govt. of A.P. v. Laveti Gin· & Anr.. [1995] 4 SCC 32 the conclusion
recorded by the second-respondent Committee does not call for any inter- C
ference.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the order of
the second-respondent Committee and also that of High Court.

We have noticed earlier that before the second-respondent Commit- D
tee, 17 documents were produced by the appellant to support the claim
that she belonged to "Halba" Scheduled Tribe. The second-respondent
Committee while appreciating the probative value of almost all the docu-
ments, did not refer to and consider an important document, namely, an
order passed by the Government on appeal at the instance of Abinash
Prabhakar Nagpure for identical relief. It is not disputed before us that E
Abinash Prabhakar Nagpure is the first cousin of the appellant. The
Government by the said order dated 1.9.81 reversing the order of the
Committee recognised the claim of Abinash Prabhakar Nagpure that he
belonged to "Halba" Scheduled Tribe.

The documents placed before the Committee are the following :
F

1. Copy of the caste certificate issued by Principal, G.N. Khalsa
College, Bombay dated 5.7.94. ·

2. Zerox copy of school leaning certificate issued by Principal G
AFAC. English School, Chembur, Bombay vide Reg. No.
3032.

3. Zerox copy of school leaving certificate issued by Head
Master, St. Sabastian's High School, Chembur Bombay vide,
Reg. No. 4768. H
470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A 4. Zerox copy of school leaving certificate issued by Principal,
St. Jude's High School, Kalyan vide Reg. No. 2185.

5. Zerox copy of caste certificate issued by Sub Divisional •
Magistrate, Nashik Dn. Nashik vide No.; EON/POL
Il/STSC.Sr./129/92 dated 31.11.92.
B
6. Zerox copy of certificate issued by Chairman, Halba Samaj
Seva Manda), Naushik Dated. 14.6.94.

7. Zerox copy of caste certificate issued by Executive
Magistrate, Nagpure vide No. 3583/MRC-87/92-93 date
c 13.4.93.

8. Zerox copy of certificate issued by Chief P & A Manager,
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Bombay dated 2.3.94.

9. Zerox copy of order passed by Assistant Secretary to Govern-
D ment, Social Welfare and Sports Dept!. dated 1.9.81 in
respect of Abinash Prabhakar Nagpure.

10. Zerox copy of ca"ste certificate issued by Executive
Magi,trate. Kopargaon dated 28.2.81 in respect of Abinash
Prabhakar Nagpure.
E
11. Zerox copy of certificate marriage in respect of Abinash
Prabhakar Nagpure.

12. Zerox copy of order passed by Divisional Commissioner,
Konkan & Bombay Division vide No. SO/POL/AP-
F
PEAL/ST/15/82 in respect of Miss Versha Laxmikant
Belekar.

13. Zerox copy of caste certificate issued by District Magistrate,
Greater Bombay in respect of Versha Laxmikant Belekar.
G
14. Zerox copy of certificate of validity issued by Tribal Research
& Training Institute, Pune dated 29 .3.94 in respect of
Virendra Laxmikant Relekar.

15. Zerox copy of caste certificate issued by Executive Magistrate,
H Nagpur in respect of Prabhakar Nagpure dated 2.9.82.
I

t
GAYATRILAXMIBAPURAO NAGPUREv. SfATE!K. VENKATASWAMl,J.]471

16. Zerox copy of death certificate in respect of Taramati Shan- A
taram Nagpure issued by Gramvikas Adhikari Kopargaon.

17. Zerox copy of affidavit of Shri Abinash Prabhakar Nagpure.

The second-respondent Committee ignored SL Nos. 1-4, 6, 8, 16 &
17 though they relate to school records of the appellant, her relatives B
wherein the appellant's caste is recorded as "Halba" by simply stating that
"they were issued in a very casual manner without verifying the guidelines
given by the Government from time to time to issue such certificates".
Again while rejecting SI. Nos. 5, 7, 10, 13 & 14 the Committee has
+ commented that "there is no room for the presumption that the certificate
has been correctly issued". We are not able to appreciate this approach of c
the Committee in rejecting the certificates in the absence of any attempt
on the side of the Government to suspect the correctness/genuineness of
the documents produced by the appellant. We find from the copies of
Certificates included in the paper book that the Domicile and Nationality
certificate issued to the appellant's father (Annexure "C" at page 28 of D
paper book) was issued on the basis of particulars of proof given as u.nder:

(A) Answer given by the Applicant on the prescribed of the
questionnaire.

(B) Birth or School Leaving or a like Certificate issued by Shri E
Sainath Madhyamik Vidyalaya Shirdi.

(C) Affidavits or Declaration of Birth Place & Caste.

(D) (other proof) : Nil.
F
" Likewise the caste certificate issued to the appellant was not issued
in a casual manner but after verification of relevant records. Similarly, the
caste certificate issued to the father of the appellant was not casual one
but based on the following particulars :-

(1) Age, Domicile, Nationality certificate. G
(2) Brother S.L.C.
)<

~. (3) Nephew S.L.C.

(4) Son, Bona fide Certificate. H
472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A (5) Brothers Caste Certificate,

(6) Samaj Dakhala.

(7) Ration Card.

B (8) Affidavit and Application.

Taking into consideration these certificates and also the order of the
Government dated 1.9.81 certifying that Abinash Prabhakar Nagpure, first
cousin of the appellant belongs to "Halba" community, we are of the view
that the rejection of the appellant's claim especially when there is no other
C evidence placed contra to suspect the proof produced by the appellant and
without appreciating the vital document placed before the Committee, is
not correct.

It is true that this Court in Kitmari Madlmri Patil's ease (supra) has
observed:-
D
"The Committee which is empowered to evaluate the evidence
placed before it when records a finding of fact, it ought to prevail
unless found vitiated by judicial review of any High Court subject
to limitations of interference with findings of fact. The Committee
E when considers all the material facts and records a finding, though
another view, as a court of appeal may be possible, it is not a
ground to reverse the findings. The court has to see whether the
Committee considered all the relevant material placed before it or
has not applied its mind to relevant facts which have led the
committee ultimately recorded the finding. Each case must be
F considered in the backdrop of its own facts."

The same view has been reiterated in Director of Tribal Welfare, Govt.
of A.P. v. Laveti Giri & Anr., [1955] 4 SCC 32.

Applying the above test to the facts of the present case, we are
G satisfied that the Committee failed to consider all the relevant materials
placed before it and did not apply its mind to an important document "SI.
No. 9" which led the Committee ultimately record a finding against the
appellant. By a wrongful denial of the caste certificate, the genuine can-
didate, he/she will be deprived of the privileges conferred upon him/her by
H the Constitution. Therefore greater care must be taken before granting or
r GAYATRILAXMIBAPURAO NAGPUREv. STATE [K VENKATASWAMI, J.]473

rejecting any claim for caste certificate. A
The High Court without appreciating the probative value of the
documents placed before it has dismissed the writ petition filed by the
appellant by simply accepting the conclusions reached by the second·
respondent Committee. Undoubtedly, in cases of this type, the burden
heavily lies on the applicant who seeks such a certificate. That does not B
mean that the authorities have no role to play in finding out the correctness
or otherwise of the claim for issue of a caste certificate. We are of the view
that the concerned authorities must also play a role in assisting the Com-
mittee to arrive at a correct decision. In this case, except the documents
produced by the appellant, nothing has been produced by the concerned C
authorities to arrive at a different conclusion.

On the facts of this case, we are of the view that the second-
respondent Committee was not right in rejecting the claim of the appellant
and for the same reason the order of the High Court cannot be sustained.
In the resul~ the appeal succeeds and is allowed accordingly. However, D
there will be no order as to costs.

R.P. Appeal allowed.