Holding

The Court held that despite the invalidation of the caste certificate and alleged fraud, the appellant, acting in good faith, is entitled to receive his degree subject to payment of Rs.1 lakh to the State, and his caste certificate remains cancelled.

Summary

The appellant, a student, claimed membership in the Halba Scheduled Tribe to obtain admission to a Bachelor of Engineering program, but the Caste Scrutiny Committee later invalidated his caste certificate. He continued his studies under interim orders of the High Court, completed the course, and sought his degree after the High Court dismissed his writ petition. The principal issue was whether a person who obtained admission based on a subsequently invalidated caste certificate, and whose claim of belonging to a Scheduled Tribe was later found to be false, could be granted the degree, considering his alleged bonafide belief and the doctrine of proportionality. The Supreme Court examined prior decisions, the significance of the interim order, and the appellant’s lack of fraudulent intent, concluding that equity and proportionality warranted relief. Accordingly, the Court ordered the university to issue the degree on condition that the appellant pay Rs.1 lakh to the State, while his caste certificate remained cancelled.

Issues considered

Whether a student whose caste certificate is invalidated but who completed his studies under interim court orders is entitled to be awarded the degree.
Whether the appellant’s alleged good faith belief in belonging to a Scheduled Tribe precludes a finding of fraud and bars equitable relief.
Whether the doctrine of proportionality and Article 142 of the Constitution permit the Supreme Court to grant the degree subject to a monetary condition.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 142

Subjects

Scheduled TribeCaste certificateUniversity admissionDegree issuanceDoctrine of proportionalityBonafide beliefEquitable reliefArticle 142FraudReservation

Judgment

A SANDEEP SUBHASH PARA TE
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

AUGUST 24, 2006

B [S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.)

Constitution of India-Article I 42-Application by student for a
Bachelor course of a University by claiming himself to be a member of
C 'Halba' community, a Scheduled Tribe community-Caste Scrutiny Committee
invalidated the caste certificate of the student-High Court, by an interim
order in Writ Petition, directed the University to grant admission to the
student-High Court remitted the matter back to the Committee for fresh
scrunity-Committee rejected the claim of the student-Another Writ Petition
filed by the student was admitted by the High Court-Student, in the mean
D time, completed his course and appeared for the examination-High Court
dismissed the Writ Petition-Withholding of the degree and the marksheet of
the student by the University-Held, on/acts, student appliedfor the admission
in the University under a bona fide belief that the belongs to Scheduled Tribe
community-Sllident is allowed to obtain his degree from the University
E subject to payment of Rs. I lakh to the State-Doctrine of proportionality
applied

Appellant applied for admission for a Bachelor degree course in
respondent no. 4 University by claiming himself to be a member of'Halba'
community, a Scheduled Tribe community, A Caste Scrutiny Committee
F invalidated the caste certificate granted in favour of the appellant. The
appellant filed a Writ Petition before High Court. The High Court passed an
interim order directing the University to grant admission to the appellant.
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition and remitted the matter back to

G
the Scrutiny Committe. The Scrutiny Committee rejected the claim of the
appellant. The appellant filed another Writ Petition challenging the rejection
of his claim by the Scrutiny Committee. The High Court admitted the Writ
-
Petition without granting any interim relief. In the meantime, the appellant
continued with his studies and appeared for the examination. The appellant
filed an application before the High Court for a direction to the University to
supply him the degree and the marksheet. The Writ Petition was dismissed

H 282
SANDEEP SUBHASH PARATb. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 283

on merits and no order was passed on the application. The review application A .
filed by the appellant was also dismissed by the High Court.

In appeal to this Court, the appellant prayed the Court to give a direction

- to the University to grant him the degree since he has completed his course
in the meantime.
B
The respondents contended that the appellant has not made out any case
for obtaining any relief from the High Court having failed to show his
bonajide; and that the ap.µellant is not entitled to any equitable relief since
he has played fraud on the statutory authorities.

Allowing the appeal, the Court c
HELD: 1.1. A person is not entitled to a reliefonly because an interim
order was passed in his favour but the premise on which such an interim
order was passed would assume some significance in the instant case in so
far as a presumption may be drawn that primafacie the appellant was not D
considered guilty of commission of fraud and the possibility that the question
in regard to his status as a member of Scheduled Tribe as the isue as to
whether 'Koshti-Halbas' were members of Scheduled Tribe had not been
finally determined, was in the mind of the court. He might have deprived a
genuine student of reserved category from obtaining admission, but, in a case
of this nature, what is necessary to bear in mind is the bonafide or otherwise E
of the appellant He might have been under a bonafide belief that Koshti-Halbas
were members of a Scheduled Tribe. 1288-E-H]

State of Maharashtra v. Mi/ind and Ors., [2001] 1 SCC 4; Kumari
Madhuri Patil and Anr. v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and
Ors., [1994] 6 SCC 241; Bank of India and Anr. v. Avinash Mandivikar and F
Ors., [2005] 7 SCC 690; Ram Saran v. /.G. ofPolice, C.R.P.F. and Ors., [2006]
2 SCALE 131; R. Vishwanath Pillai etc. v. State of Kera/a and Ors., [2004] 2
SCC 105; Bank of India and Anr. v. Avinash D. Mandivikar and Ors., [2005)
7 SCC 690; L/C of India v. Sushi/, [2006] 2 SCC 471 and Employees State
Insurance Corporation v. Distilleries and Chemical Mazdoor Union and Ors., G
[2006] 7 SCALE 171, referred to.

1.2. 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. The doctrine of proportionality in H
284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A preference to the doctrine of Wednesbury unreasonableness is also a factor
which weighs with this Court. 1289-B, Cl

Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U. T, Chandigarh and Ors .. 120041 2 SCC
130 and A. Sudhakar v. Post Alaster General, Hyderabad and Anr., (2006) 3
SCALE 524, referred to.
B
1.3. There is no lack of bonajlde on the part of the appellant. In the
peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is not inclined to go
into the question as regards purported commission of fraud by the appellant,
particularly, when the University admitted him without any demur whatsoever.
C This is being done having regard to the doctrine of proportionality. The
appellant has suffered a lot. He might not be entirely responsible therefor.
He might have been under a bonajlde belief that he comes within the purview
of notified category. The appellant is allowed to obtain the degree. The same
shall, however, be subject to payment of Rs. I lakh in favour of the respondent-
State so as to recompense the State to some extent the amount spent on him
D for imparting education as a reserved category candidate. The appellant shall
not claim any benefit flowing from the caste certificate obtained by him, which
shall stand cancelled. In future, for all purpose he will be treated to be a High
person belonging to the general category. (289-D-H; 290-Al

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3633 of2006.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.4.2005ofthe Court of Judicature
at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Review Application No.40/2005 in
W.P.No. 4589/2002.

P.C. Madkholkar, Manish Pitale and Chander Shekhar Ashri for the
F Appellants.

Makarand D. Adkar, Vijay Kumar, Vishwajit Singh, Ravindra Kumar
Adsure and V.N. Raghupathy for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.

The appellant claims himself to be a member of 'Halba' community.
'Halba' is a Scheduled Tribe. He obtained admission in the courses of
Bachelor of Engineering (Instrumentation Engineering) in Pune University,
H (Respondent No.4), claiming himself to be belonging to 'Halba' a Scheduled
SANDEEPSUBHASHPARATE1·.STATEOFMAHARASHTRA[S.B.SINHA,l.] 285
Tribe community. According to the appellant, the question as to whether A
'Koshti-Halbas' are members of Scheduled Tribe or not had been authoritatively
decided for the first time in Stat.:: ofMoharashtra v. Mi/ind and Ors., [200 I]
•
l sec 4 and in that view of the matter, lie had represented himself to be a
member of Scheduled Tribe. Drawing our attention to the fact that even in
· Milind (supra), this Court directed that those, who have completed their
courses from the universities, should be allowed to obtain degrees and get B
the benefit thereof as general candidates, the appellant was also entitled to
a similar relief.

Indisputably, the Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted in terms of the
decision of this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. v. Additional C
Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors., [1994] 6 SCC 241 invalidated the
caste certificate granted in favour of the appellant. In the writ petition filed
by him thereagainst, an interim order was passed in his favour, in terms
whereof he obtained admission in the· course of Bachelor of Engineering
(Instrumentation Engineering) in the Government Engineering College, Pune,
which is affiliated to the respondent No.4-University. The High Court allowed D
the writ petition and remitted the matter back to the Scrutiny Committee. His
claim was rejected by the Scrutiny Committee by an order dated 30th September,
2002. In a writ petition filed by him before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay
High Court questioning the said order of 30th September, 2002, no interim
relief was granted, but, the appellant continued with his studies. The said E
writ petition was dismissed for default, but, it was restored. He completed
his studies in the year 2004. He appeared at the examination. An application
was filed by him for a direction to respondent No.4-University to supply him
the degree along with the marksheet. However, in the meantime, the writ
petition itself was dismissed on merits. Thus, no order was also passed on
the said application. The review application filed by the appellant herein has F
been dismissed by the High Court by reason of the impugned order.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant merely urged
that this Court may issue a direction to the University to grant him the degree
as he has completed his courses of studies in the meantime.
G
Mr. Ravindra Kumar Adsure, learned counsel appearing on beh~Jf of the
State and Mr. Makrand D. Adkar, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.4-University, however, submitted that the appellant has not made out any
case for obtaining any relief from the High Court having failed to show his
bonafide.
H
286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

.A It was urged that as the appellant has played fraud on the statutory
authorities, he is not entitled to any equitable relief. Reliance has been placed
on Bank of India and Anr. v. Avinash Mandivikar and Ors., [2005] 7 SCC 690
and Ram Saran v. l.G. of Police, C.R.P.F. and Ors., (2006) 2 SCALE 131.

It now stands admitted that the appellant did not belong to 'Halba'
B community. He was a Koshti. On verification of his caste certificate the
Vigilance Cell found that his school records clearly showed that the appellant
belonged to the Koshti community.

The question as regards invalidation of caste certificate came up
C consideration before this Court in Kumari Madhuri (supra), wherein this
Court directed the Central Government and the State Governments to constitute
Caste Scrutiny Committees to go into such issues as and when they arise for
consideration. Indisputably, a finding of fact has been arrived at by the Caste
Scrutiny Committee against the appellant negativing his claim that he is a
member of Scheduled Tribes. However, the fact remains that he got himself
D admitted in v!ew of an interim order passed by the High Court. Indisputably,
the question as to whether 'Koshti-Halbas' are members of Scheduled Tribe
or not was authoritatively answered only in Mi/ind (supra}, which was decided
on 28th November, 2000, wherein it was observed :

"Respondent I joined the medical course for the year 1985-86.
E Almost 15 years have passed by now. We are told he has already
completed the course and may be he is practising as a doctor. In this
view and at this length of time it is for nobody's benefit to annul his
admission. Huge amount is spent on each candidate for completion
of medical course. No doubt, one Scheduled Tribe candidate was
deprived of joining medical course by the admission given to
F Respondent I. If any action is taken against Respondent I, it may
lead to depriving the service of a doctor to the society on whom
public money has already been spent. In these circumstances, this
judgment shall not affect the degree obtained by him and his practising
as a doctor. But we make it clear that he cannot claim to belong to
G the Scheduled Tribe covered by the Scheduled Tribes Order. In other
words, he cannot take advantage of the Scheduled Tribes Order any
further or for c;ny other constitutional purpose."

Yet again in R. Vishwanatha Pillai etc. v. State of Kera/a & Ors. etc.,
[2004] 2 SCC I05, a Three Judge Bench of this Court had the occasion to deal ,_
H with a similar issue. Following Mi/ind (supra}, this Court held:
SAN DEEP SUB HASH PARATE 1·. STATE OF MAHARA.SHTRA [S.B. SINHA, J.] 287
"In this case we find that the appellant had joined Regional A
Engineering College in the year 1992. He completed the course of his
studies in the year 1996 under the interim orders of (sic the High)
Court which were subject to the final orders to be passed in the writ
petition. No purpose would be served in withholding the declaration
of the result on the basis of the examination already taken by him or B
depriving him of the degree in case he passes the examination. In
terms of the orders passed by the Constitution Bench of this Court
in State of Maharashtra v. Mi/ind we direct that his result be declared
and he be allowed to take his degree with the condition that he will
not be treated as a Scheduled Caste candidate in future either in
obtaining service or for any other benefits flowing from the caste C
certificate obtained by him. His caste .:ertificate has been ordered to
be cancelled. Henceforth, he will be treated as a person belonging to
the general category for all purposes."

A different opinion, however, was struck in Bank of India and Anr. v.
Avinash D. Mandivikar and Ors., (2005] 7 SCC 690, wherein a Two Judge D
Bench of this Court distinguished Mi/ind (supra) and R. Vishwanatha Pillai
(supra) stating that protection given therein cannot be extended to an employee
of a Bank and, thus, the factors which weighed with this Court cannot be
applied to the respondent therein. The Court observed that in any event, if
Respondent No. I had played fraud, he should not be allowed to get the E
benefits thereof. The same learned Judge in Ram Saran (supra) held that
leniency should not be shown to a person who admittedly committed forgery.

The issue again came of up consideration in LIC of India v. Sushi!,
(2006] 2 SCC 471, wherein this Court remitted the matter back to the High
Court observing that : F
"Before us it was urged on behalf of Responden,t I that in the
State of Maharashtra at the relevant time there were resolutions/
government orders which made the respondent believe that there was
no fraudulent intention in claiming to be Halba. Mr. Lalit, learned
counsel for the respondent submitted that none of these aspects G
(including various GRs) have been considered. The High Court in
the present case proceeded on the basis as if mere filing of an
undertaking in the line suggested by the writ petitioner was sufficient
to bring the case under the umbrella of the decision in Mi/ind case.
That is clearly not so.
H
288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A As the High Court has not considered the matter in its proper
perspective, except relying on Milind case we think it appropriate to
remit the matter to the High Court for a fresh consideration on merits
of the case on the grounds, if any, without being influenced by any
observation in this order."

B Some peculiar characteristics exist in this case:

(I) The appellant competed 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
C 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 University authorities.
D (4) He filed an application after completion of his studies that
,respondent No.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
E not take into consideration the decision of this Court in Milind
(supra).

A person indisputably is not entitled to a relief only because an interim
order was passed in his favour, but the premise on which such an interim
order was passed would assume some significance in the instant case in so
F far as a presumption may be drawn that prima facie the appellant was not
considered guilty of commission of fraud and the possibility that the question
in regard to his status as a member of Scheduled Tribe as the issue as to
whether 'Koshti-Halbas' were members of Scheduled Tribe had not been
finally determined, was in the mind of the court. See for example, Employees
G State Insurance Corporation v. Distilleries & Chemical Ma::.door Union &
Ors., (2006) 7 SCALE 171. The appellant took his admission in the year 1998,
i.e., prior to the decision of this Court in Milind (supra). It is true that he
had obtained his admission in a professional institution not purely on the
basis of his merits but on the basis that he belonged to a reserved category.
It is also true that thereby he might have deprived a genuine student of
H reserved category from obtaining admission, but, in a case of this nature,
SAN DEEP SUBHASH PARATE r. ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA [S.B. SINHA,J.] 289
what is necessary to bear in mind is the bonafide or otherwise of the appellant. A
He might not have semblance of right as was observed by the High Court but
as the learned counsel for the appellant states that he might have been under
a bonafide belief that Koshti-Halbas were members of a Scheduled Tribe.

It is not in dispute that the Bombay High Court held so. However, as
it appears from the decision of this Court in LJC (supra) that the State might B
have also issued some Government orders making such declaration.
Indisputably, the conduct of a party assumes significance in moulding the
relief. This court, while exercising its discretionary jurisdiction and to do
complete justice between the parties in tenns of Article 142 of the Constitution
of India, must consider all relevant aspects of the matter, including the C
decisions of this Court. The doctrine of proportionality emerging from the
recent trend of decisions in preference to the doctrine of Wednesbury
unreasonableness is also a factor which weighs with us. See Teri Oat Estates
(P) Ltd. v. U. T., Chandigarh & Ors., [2004] 2 SCC 130 and A. Sudhakar v.
Post Master General, Hyderabad & Anr., (2006) 3 SCALE 524.
D
We do not find any lack of bonafide on the part of the appellant. He,
it will bear repetition to state, got admission in the professional course as far
back in the year 1998. :::or about last three years, he had not been able to
receive his degree of Engineering, although, he pursued his studies after he
had passed class 12th examination. Just like Medical Education, the State
also incurs a heavy expenditure in imparting other professional education like E
Engineering. We, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, are not
inclined to go into the question as regards purported commission of fraud by
the appellant, particularly, when the University admitted him without any
demur whatsoever. We are doing so having regard to the doctrine of
proportionality. The appellant has suffered a lot. He might not be entirely p
responsible therefor. He might have been under a bonafide belief that he
comes within the purview of notified category. We, therefore, albeit with
much reluctance accept the fervent and impassionate plan 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. I lakh in favour of the
State of Maharashtra so as to recompense the State to some extent the G
·~
amount spent on him for imparting education as a reserved category candidate.
Such payment must be made within three months from this date. On filing
satisfactory proof of the deposit of such an amount, the respondent No.4
shall immediately issue the degree in his favour. The appellant shall not claim
any benefit flowing from the caste certificate obtained by him, which shall H
290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A stand cancelled. In future, for all purposes he will be treated to be a person
belbnging to the general category.

The appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned hereinbefore and on the
aforementioned terms. No costs.

B B.S. Appeal allowed.