High CourtDivision Bench2015-07-29Appeal dismissed.

RAJESHWAR BABURAO BONE v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal No. 5778 of 2015

Neutral Citation:[2015] 8 S.C.R. 745

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: M. Y. Eqbal
C. Nagappan
Judgment Date: 2015-07-29
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

RAJESHWAR BABURAO BONE

Respondents

The State of Maharashtra
Another

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Meenakshi Arora (Senior Counsel)

Counsels for Respondents

• Arun R. Pedneker
• Nishant R. Katneshwarkar

Case Synopsis & Summary

Rajeswar Baburao Bone claimed membership of the Kali Mahadev Scheduled Tribe and sought to uphold a tribal validity certificate issued by a Scrutiny Committee after 18 years from his appointment in a reserved post. The Committee initially granted the certificate on 19 June 2010 after a thorough process including vigilance verification and documentary scrutiny. Later, it emerged that the certificate in favour of Bone’s brother had been invalidated in 2004 and, upon reconsideration on 24 February 2012, the Committee recalled its earlier order and invalidated Bone’s certificate on grounds of fraudulent statements and affidavits furnished by Bone. The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, dismissed Bone’s writ petition, holding that Bone willfully misled the Committee and that the earlier order could be recalled in the absence of a specific provision for review when fraud is involved. The appellant challenged this, relying on decisions like Dattu s/o Namdev Thakur and Shalini. The Supreme Court, after examining the ratio of cited precedents, upheld the High Court’s dismissal but held that the benefit of the certificate already availed would not be disturbed due to inordinate delay in processing, and that Bone would not be entitled to any further reservation benefits. The appeal was dismissed.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that he belongs to the Kali Mahadev scheduled tribe and that the tribe certificate issued in his favour was based on documents submitted after full verification. He argues that the Scrutiny Committee’s 2010 validity certificate was issued following due process and that the subsequent recall in 2012—on grounds of alleged fraud—was improper, especially since the certificate had already facilitated his employment in a reserved category. He relies on earlier Supreme Court decisions (notably Dattu s/o Namdev Thakur and Shalini) to contend that once a valid certificate has been issued, benefits should not be disturbed for long-standing purposes and that any review or recall must be properly constrained, particularly in the context of delay. He asserts that the High Court’s ruling should stand to protect his past benefits and service rights.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contends that Bone willfully misrepresented facts and submitted false affidavits to obtain the tribal certificate. Because of fraud, the Scrutiny Committee correctly recalled its earlier order. The State emphasizes that the 18-year delay in verification cannot immunize Bone from the consequences of false statements and that the Committee acted within its powers by recalling the certificate. It contends the High Court correctly dismissed the writ petition and that allowing continued reservation benefits based on a fraudulent certificate would undermine the integrity of the process and the reservation system.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Dattu s/o Namdev Thakur v. State of Maharashtra & Others	2012 (1) SCC 549	Positive	Cited as a controlling precedent to address issues of verification, fraud, and recall of orders in the context of tribal certificates; the Court affirms its relevance to allow recall in fraud circumstances.
Dattu s/o Namdev Thakur v. State of Maharashtra & Others	2011 (13) SCR 475	Positive	Cited in relation to the ratio on the verification process and presumptions surrounding tribal certificates; treated as supportive authority.
Shalini G v. New English High School Association & Ors.	2013 (12) SCR 807	Positive	Cited for its ratio on the validity and scope of verification/recall in cases involving fraud or misrepresentation; treated as supportive authority.
Shalini G v. New English High School Association & Ors.	(2013) 16 SCC 526	Positive	Also cited for its principles on contesting certificates and ensuring the integrity of the reservation process; treated as supportive authority.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against RAJESHWAR BABURAO BONE v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2015] 8 S.C.R. 745 A ## RAJESHWAR BABURAO BONE v. **THE** STATE OF MAHARASHTRAANDANOTHER (Civil Appeal No.5778 of 2015) JULY29,2015 B **[M.Y. EQBALAND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]** - - - _Social status Tribe certificate Validity of Appointment of appellant on the basis of his claim to be_ - _member of scheduled tribe Verification of tribe certificate_ C _by Scrutiny Committee after 18 years of his appointment_ - _Issuance of validity certificate by the Scrutiny Committee_ - _on consideration of all the documents Subsequently, Scrutiny Committee invalidated tribe certificate issueq in_ 0 _favour of appellant's brother and said order attaining finality upto this Court_ - _Thereafter, on reconsideration by the Scrutiny Committee, tribe certificate issued in favour of the_ - - _appellant invalidated Challenge to High Court upheld the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee holding that_ E _the appellant willfully misled the Scrutiny Committee for_ - - _securing validity certificate wrongfully Interference with_ - _Held: Not called for However, on account of inordinate delay in considering the certificate of the appellant, the benefit of the certificate already availed by appellant not_ **F** - _to be disturbed Appellant not entitled to any further benefit of reservation._ _Dattu slo Namdev Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra_ & _Others_ **2011 (13) SCR 475: (2012) 1 SCC 549;** _Shalini_ G _vs. New English High School Association_ & _Ors._ **2013 (12) SCR 807: (2013) 16 SCC 526 - referred to.** 745 **H** 746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R. ## A ## **Case Law Reference** **2011(13)SCR475 referredto. Para12 2013 (12) SCR 807 referred to. Para 12** **B** CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5778 of 2015. · From the Judgment and Order dated 17.12.2013 of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench atAurangabad in C Writ Petition No. 5160 of2012. Meenakshi Arora, Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Rana Sandeep Bussa for the Appellant. Arun R. Pedneker and Nishant R. Katneshwarkar for the D Respondents. The Order of the Court was delivered by **M. Y. EQBAL, J.** 1. Leave granted. E 2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order dated 17.12.2013 passed by the High Court of Bombay, Bench atAurangabad, whereby the High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. F 3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. 4. The appellant herein claims to be belonging to 'Kali Mahadev' a scheduled tribe community. According to the appellant he separated from his family as there was dispute in G respect of the property with his father and for quite some time, the appellant have no relationship or communication with his father and other family members. 5. Since the appellant has secured employment with Zilla **H** Parishad, Beed, on the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe RAJESHWAR BABURAO BONE v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[M. Y EQBAL, J.] 747 category, the tribe certificate issued in his favour was referred A to the Scrutiny Committee for verification after 18 years from the date of appointment The appellant submitted several documents in support of his claim including the oldest record of 1348 fasali pertaining to his grandfather namely Gundaji Narsingh Bone wherein his caste is recorded as Mahadev Koli. B 6. The claim of the appellant was referred to vigilance ·cell and vigilance officer has conducted the home and school enquiry. On consideration of all the documents furnished by the appellant including affidav~s as well as forms filled in by C the appellant, the Scrutiny Committee proceeded to i~sue validity certificate by reasoned order dated 19.06.2010. 7. It was later on revealed that tribe certificate issued in favour of appellant's brother by name Sharadkumar Baburao D Bone has been invalidated by the Committee by order dated 20.10.2004 and said order was communicated to him on 27 .10.2004. The writ petition challenging the order passed by the Committee invalidating tribe claim of the brother of the appellant, being Writ Petition No. 6934 of 2004, has been E dismissed by the High Court. The SLP filed against that order of the High Court has been dismissed by this Court. 8. The Scrutiny Committee, as such, decided to reconsider the matter concerning issuance of validity certificate F in favour of the appellant The appellant was duly noticed by the Committee and after extending opportunity of hearing to the appellant, the Scrutiny Committee by order dated 24.2.2012 recalled its earlier order and directed invalidation of tribe certificate of the appellant In paragraph nos. 7,8,9, G and 10, the Scrutiny Committee has observed thus:- " Applicant has submitted in Form 'E' in which column No.17(a) it is specifically asked that whether any family member from your family members previously verified? H 748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 8 S.C.R. - A Applicant answered that, 'No'. - Applicant filed affidavit, notorised before notary on 13.1.2009 in format 'F' in which he specially made statement on oath, "No scheduled tribe certificate of any - B of _my_ relatives from paternal side is ever held invalid by the Scrutiny Committee. - Applicant also submitted another affidavit dated • 16.3.2009 in which he again made fake statement that - c 'Any of my sister and brother or blood relatives bears . surname as Bone whose claim never invalidated by the Committee or no any petition pending before any Court. - The Police inspector of vigilance cell recorded statement on 9.4.2009 of applicant's father namely Shri Baburao - D Gundaji Bone. He also again made statement that "in _my_ family, in Bone surnames or in my relatives whose claim never invalidated by the committee or no any petition pending before any Court." - E 9. The appellant challenged the aforesaid order dated 24.2.2012 passed by the Scrutiny Committee by filing a writ petition being writ petition No.5160 of 2012 in the High Court of Bombay atAurangabad Bench. The High Court after hearing F the appellant dismissed the writ petition and observed as under:- - "In our opinion, petitioner has willfully misled the Scrutiny Committee for securing validity certificate wrongfully. The petitioner is guilty of making false statements on oath - G before the Scrutiny Committee. As a result of misrepresentation made by the petitioner earlier, the Scrutiny Committee had issued validity certificate in his favour. However, after realizing fraudulent act of the petitioner, the Committee proceeded to recall its earlier - H RAJESHWAR BABURAO BONE v. THE STATE OF 749 MAHARASHTRA[M.Y. EQBAL, J.] order. Since the petitioner has played fraud by filing false A affidavits on record before the Committee, the Committee was justified in recalling its earlier order of granting validity certificate in favour of the petitioner. It is well established that in the event of occurrence of fraud, Scrutiny Committee can recall its earlier order even in the absence B of specific provision enabling the Committee to exercise powers of review." ## 10. Hence the present Appeal by Special Leave. c 11. We have heard Mrs. MeenakshiArora learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Arun R. Pedneker, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State. 12. Mrs. Meenakshi Arora, put heavy reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Dattu s/o Namdev D Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra & , Others (2012) 1 SCC 549 and Shalini vs. New English High School Association & Ors. (2013) 16 SCC 526. We have carefully examined the ratio decided by this Court in the decisions referred to E hereinabove. 13. In the instant case, the appellant claimed to be a member of scheduled tribe on the basis of false statements and false affidavits submitted by him. At the same time F indisputably in the year 1991, the appellant got employment on the basis of his claim to be a member of scheduled tribe. After 18 years of his employment, the matter was referred to a Scrutiny Committee for verification. On consideration of all the documents, the enquiry conducted by vigilance cell, a G validity certificate was issued by the Scrutiny Committee on 19.06.2010. However the matter was reconsidered by the Scrutiny Committee for the reason that the tribe certificate issued in favour of his brother was invalidated by the Committee in 2004 and the order attained finality up to this H 750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 8 S.C.R. - A Court. The Scrutiny Committee after giving opportunity recalled its earlier order dated 19.6.2010, whereby validity certificate was issued in favour of the appellant. 14. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of - B the opinion that the impugned order passed by the High Court needs no interference and this appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, we hold that because of inordinate delay in considering the certificate of the appellant, the benefit of the certificate already availed by the appellant shall not be - C disturbed making it clear that the appellant shall not be entitled to take any further benefit of reservation in future including the benefit of continuing in service. 15. In the result, this appe<!I is dismissed with the D observation made hereinabove. NidhiJain Appeal dismissed.