RAIWAD MANOJKUMAR NIVRUTTIRAOversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

                        [2011) 12 S.C.R. 986


A             RAIWAD MANOJKUMAR NIVRUTTIRAO
                                  v.
                STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 7857 of 2004)
                        OCTOBER 13, 2011
B
         [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.]

       Social status certificate - Issuance of caste certificate to
  appellant certifying that he belongs to 'Kofi Mahadeo',
C recognized as a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Maharashtra
  - Selection and appointment of appellant to a vacancy of clerk
  in Bank, reserved for Scheduled Tribe - Verification and
  scrutiny as to the caste status of the appellant - Order passed
  by the Caste Scrutiny Committee that appellant did not
D belong to 'Kofi Mahadeo', Scheduled Tribe - Said order
  upheld by the High Court - On appeal, held: On facts,
  appellant belongs to Kofi tribe which is not a Scheduled Tribe
  - However, since appellant had been a, 'Pointed in the service
  of NABARD for nineteen years, his initial appointment in the
E service of NABARD not disturbed but he would not be granted
  any benefit as a member of the Scheduled Tribe -
  Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142.

      Appellant was issued a caste certificate by the
F Tehsildar and Executive Magistrate certifying that he
  belongs to 'Koli Mahadeo', which was recognized as a
  Scheduled Tribe in the State of Maharashtra. The
  appellant was selected and appointed to a vacancy of
  Clerk in the National Bank of Agricultural and Rural
  Development (NABARD) in a vacancy reserved for
G Scheduled Tribe in the year 1992. The General Manager
  of the Bank referred the claim of the appellant as
  Scheduled Tribe for verification and scrutiny. The report
  was submitted in the year 2000. Thereafter, the Scrutiny
  Committee passed an order that the appellant did not
H                            986
RAIWAD MANOJKUMAR NIVRUTTIRAO v. STATE OF 987
          MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
belong to 'Koli Mahadeo', Scheduled Tribe; Aggrieved,         A
the appellant filed a writ petition. The High Court
dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, the appellant filed
the instant appeal.

      Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
                                                              B
     HELD: In the facts of the instant case, the appellant
belongs to 'Koli'tribe and it was in *Kumari Madhuri Patil
 & Anr. v. Additional Commissioner,· Tribal Development
& Ors. that it was held that 'Mahadeo Koli' and 'Koli' were
not one or the same tribe and that 'Koli' tribe is not a C
Scheduled Tribe. Before the decision of this Court in
•Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. v. Additional Commissioner,
Tribal Development & Ors. the appellant had been
appointed in the service of NABARD on 28.02.1992 and
since 1992 for long nineteen years, he has been in D
service. Invoking the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
Constitution, the initial appointment of the appellant in
the service of NABARD will not be disturbed, but the
appellant will not be granted any benefit as a member of
the Scheduled Tribe including any promotional benefit E
and promotional benefit, if any, granted to the ~ppellant
as a member of the Scheduled Tribe shall be cancelled.
[Para 7] [990-E-H; 991-A]

    *Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. v. Additional
Commissioner, Triba/Development and Ors. AIR 1995 SC          F
94: 1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 50 - relied on.

    Raju Ramsing Vasave v. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar
and Ors. (2008) 9 sec 54: 2008 (12) SCR 992 - referred
~.                                                            G
                    Case Law Reference:
     . 2008 (12) SCR 992       Referred to       Para 5
     1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 50    Relied on         Para 7       H
    988       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    7857 of 2004.

       From the Judgment and Order dated 05.08.2003 of the
  High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in
B Writ Petition No. 2146 of 2003.

         M.S. Nargolkar, D.M. Nargolkar and Amey Nargolkar for
    the appellant.

          Asha Gopalan Nair for the Respondents.
c         The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          A. K. PATNAIK, J. 1. This is an appeal against the order
    dated 05.082003 of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition
    No.2146 of 2003.
D
        2. The facts very briefly are that on 07.06.1990 the
  Tehsildar and Executive Magistrate issued a caste certificate
  to the appellant certifying that he belongs to 'Kofi Mahadeo',
  which was recognized as a Scheduled Tribe in the State of
E Maharashtra. On 28.02.1992, the appellant was selected and
  appointed to a vacancy of Clerk Grade-II in the National Bank
  of Agricultural and Rural Development (NABARD) in a vacancy
  reserved for Scheduled Tribe. The General Manager of
  NABARD referred the claim of the appellant as Scheduled
F Tribe for verification and scrutiny. The Vigilance Cell submitted
  its report on 19.09.2000. The Scrutiny Committee then called
  the appellant for interview and when the appellant did not
  appear on several dates fixed for the interview, it finally
  submitted its order on 27.01.2003 that the appellant did not
G belong to 'Koli Mahadeo', Scheduled Tribe.

       3. Aggrieved by the findings- of the Caste Scrutiny
  Committee, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.2146 of 2003
  in the High Court challenging the order of the Caste Scrutiny
  Committee. By the impugned order dated 05.08.2003, the High
H Court dismissed the Writ Petition. In the impugned order, the
 RAIWAD MANOJKUMAR NIVRUTTIRAO v. STATE OF 989
     MAHARASHTRA & ANR. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

High Court held that the Caste Scrutiny Committee had found            A
from the documents on record that the father of the appellant
belonged to caste 'Koli' and 'Koli' and 'Kali Mahadeo' are
different tribes as has been decided by this Court in Kumari
Madhuri Patil & Anr. v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal
Development & Ors. [AIR 1995 SC 94]. The High Court also               B
found that despite several notices issued to the appellant, he
did not appear before the Caste Scrutiny Committee to attend
the hearing and that the appellant had failed to discharge the
burden to prove by producing cogent and reliable evidence that
he belonged to the 'Koli Mahadeo' tribe and not to 'Koli' tribe.       c
      4. Learned counsel for the appellant made efforts to
persuade us to set aside the findings of the High Court and the
Caste Scrutiny Committee, but on perusal of the order of the
Caste Scrutiny Committee and the High Court, we are not
inclined to do so as we find that there is no infirmity in the order   D
of either the Caste Scrutiny Committee or the High Court.,

      5. Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that
the appellant had been in service since 1992, almost for
nineteen years and if the appellant is removed from service on         E
the basis of the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, he will
suffer immense hardship. He cited the decision in Raju
Ramsing Vasave v. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar & Ors.
[(2008) 9 SCC 54] in which this Court invoking its jurisdiction
under Article 142 of the Constitution, directed that the               F
appointment of the respondent no.1 in that case, who had put
in a long years of service, should not be disturbed even though
he was found not to be belong to the Scheduled Tribe. He
submitted that a similar relief may be granted to the appellant
under Article 142 of the Constitution.                                 G
    6. We find on reading of the judgment of this Court in Raju
Ramsing Vasave v. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar & Ors.
(supra) that the respondent no.1 in that case claimed to be a
member of the Scheduled Tribe, namely, the 'Halba' tribe. The
caste of his father in school record was shown as 'Koshti'.            H
    990       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A whereas the caste of his Uncle and his Cousins were shown
  as 'Halba'. After his MBBS course, he was appointed as a
  Field Officer in the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board against
  a vacancy meant for Scheduled Tribe subject to validity
  certificate. He filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court and
B the Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition in 1988. The
  Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in its judgment dated
  11.08.1988 held that the respondent no.1 should be declared
  as belonging to 'Halba' tribe as his other relatives have been
  declared as such. Thereafter, a co-employee of respondent
c no.1 questioned the caste certificate granted in favour of the
  respondent no.1 and this Court held that the respondent no.1
  did not belong to 'Halba' tribe and was not a Scheduled Tribe.
  In Para 49 of the judgment, however, this Court held invoking
  the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution that it would
  not be proper to disturb the very appointment of the respondent
0
  no.1 in that case, but observed that he shall not be eligible for
  grant of any benefit as a member of Scheduled Tribe.

         7. In the facts of the present case, we find that the appellant
    belongs to 'Koli' tribe and it was in Kumari Madhuri Patil &
E   Anr. v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors.
    (supra) that it was held that 'Mahadeo Koli' and 'Koli' were not
    one or the same tribe and that 'Koli' tribe is not a Scheduled
    Tribe and the decision of this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil &
    Anr. v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors.
F   (supra) has been relied upon by the High Court in the impugned
    judgment in this case to hold that the appellant did not belong
    to 'Mahadeo Koli' tribe. Before the decision of this Court in
    Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. v. Additional Commissioner,
    Tribal Development & Ors. (supra), the appellant had been
G   appointed in the service of NABARD on 28.02.1992 and since
    1992 for long nineteen years, he has been in service. Invoking
    our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, we order
    that the initial appointment of the appellant in the service of
    NABARD will not be disturbed, but the appellant will not be
H   granted any benefit as a member of the Scheduled Tribe
 RAIWAD MANOJKUMAR NIVRUTTIRAO v. STATE OF 991
     MAHARASHTRA & ANR. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
  including any promotional benefit and promotional benefit, if any,   A
  granted to the appellant as a member of the Scheduled Tribe
  shall be cancelled. We make it clear that the relief extended is
· not intended to be precedent and shall not be relied upon to
  grant similar relief.
                                                                       B
        8. The appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs.

        The application for impleadment is dismissed.

 N.J.                                      Appeal Partly allowed.