Bombay High Court: The petition challenged the order passed by respondent 5- the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur (“Committee”), that invalidated the petitioner’s claim of belonging to the ‘Halba’ Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner further prayed for the protection of her education, pursued as a scheduled tribe candidate, on an undertaking that she would not claim any benefit of belonging to a scheduled tribe. The Division Bench comprising of Nitin W. Sambre* and Abhay J. Mantri, JJ., found that since the very inception, the petitioner case was very doubtful, and due to her forfeiture to the reservation claim, the Court held that the order of the Committee did not require any interference, and that the petitioner’s education could not be protected.
Background
In 1993, the petitioner, upon application, was issued a caste certificate of the ‘Halba’ Scheduled Tribe, based on which she secured admission to pursue medical education against a seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe category at a College. The College forwarded the petitioner’s reservation claim to the Committee for verification, that invalidated the claim through its order (“Committee order”). The Committee order was set aside in the Writ Petition No. 1866 of 1998, in 2010. During the pendency of the 1998 petition, the instant Court had permitted the petitioner to secure provisional admission to the College, against a seat reserved for the Scheduled Tribe (‘ST’) category. The petitioner completed her MBBS and through an interim order, she was provisionally permitted to take admission to a MD Anaesthesia course, that the petitioner had now completed. The Committee again invalidated petitioner’s ST claim, that led to the filing of the instant petition.
During the pendency of the present petition, she was appointed as a Medical Officer with the Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital. An interim direction protected the education of the petitioner and directed for her results to be declared. Since the degree certificate of her MBBS and MD courses had not been released till-date, the petitioner sought their release, and challenged the Committee order on its merits, while also willingly forfeiting her claim of ST reservation.
Court’s analysis and judgment
The Court perused the findings of the Committee, and the submissions made by the parties, and found that since the very inception, the petitioner intended to draw undeserving advantage of ST reservation, and that her claim was doubtful.
The Court referred to Food Corporation of India v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira, (2017) 8 SCC 670, wherein the Supreme Court observed that the protection of service or admission of the candidate who falsely claimed a reservation, substantially encroaches upon the legal right of a genuine candidate.
Further, the Court referred to State of Maharashtra v. Milind, (2001) 1 SCC 4, wherein, the Supreme Court found that the benefits drawn by a candidate not belonging to a scheduled tribe, must be considered to having been drawn on the basis of a false caste certificate; such benefits are required to be withdrawn.
In the light of the above-stated, the Court viewed that despite the completion of her education, the petitioner was not entitled to the protection of education. Therefore, the impugned order was found unwarranted of an interference, since the petitioner had voluntarily forfeited the claim of belonging to the ‘Halba’ Scheduled Tribe.
The Court dismissed the writ petition; however, it stayed the operation of the judgment for a period of four weeks from the date of judgment.
[Samata Wamanrao Warudkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2219, decided on 15-05-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Nitin W. Sambre
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: S.R. Narnaware, Advocate
For the respondents: N.S. Rao, Assistant Government Pleader; J.B. Jaiswal, Advocate
