JUDGMENT - KANTHARIA H.H., J.: - A common question which we are called upon to consider in these two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the controversy concerning the caste-claim made by the petitioners. Petitioners No. 1, Devidas Baburao Hajare is the father of petitioner No. 2 Sangita, in Writ Petition No. 261 of 1987 and petitioner No. 2 Kavita, in Writ Petition No. 887 of 1987. Petitioners claim that they belong to Gadi-Lohar community which is included in the list of the Nomadic Tribes. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in both the writ petitions controvert the petitioners' claim. 2. The core and conscience of the Constitution of India is to ensure justice, social, economic and political to the people of this vast and great country among whom millions and millions are the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes who are the legitimate beneficiaries of an elaborate system of “compensatory discrimination” which gives them special and preferential treatment, among other things, in the field of education so that they may meaningfully participate in the mainstream of national life. 3. Article 15(4) of the Constitution lays down that nothing shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally Backward Classes or the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Article 46 provides that State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. The Presidential Order 1950, made under Articles 341 and 342 by public notification specify Castes and Tribes which shall for the purposes of the constitution be deemed to be the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the said list any Caste or Tribe. By Government circular, Education and Social Welfare Department No. CBC-1470/10269-J, dated 14th August, 1970, a community known as Gadi-Lohar was included in the list of the Nomadic Tribes in so far as it related to the State of Maharashtra. 4. But there are some unscrupulous and dishonest persons in this country who never fail to defeat these massive and far-reaching endeavours made by a democratic nation to integrate an oppressed, depressed and excluded population into the mainstream of national life. 4. But there are some unscrupulous and dishonest persons in this country who never fail to defeat these massive and far-reaching endeavours made by a democratic nation to integrate an oppressed, depressed and excluded population into the mainstream of national life. The means adopted by them are too mean to be over-emphasised. They indulge in various kinds of deceitful and fraudulent methods for obtaining bogus caste certificates on the basis of which they get admissions in educational institutions, and more particularly for much sought after medical and engineering courses, in the reserved category thus depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes students of their fundamental right to education which was denied to them for thousands of years. The instant case is one such eloquent example. 5. Kavita was studying in 10th Standard in a school at Kalyan, Thane District, in the year 1982-83. In the School Register her caste was shown as Lohar. Her father obtained a caste certificate from the Tahsildar of Dhule District on the basis of which he got a correction made in her school leaving certificate in the year 1983 there by changing her caste from Hindu Non-Backward Class to Gadi-Lohar. And on the basis of such corrected school leaving certificate, she got admission for the medical course in the reserved category for Nomadic Tribe in the year 1985, after passing her 12th Standard examination. She appeared for the first M.B.B.S. examination in November 1986. However, in the meanwhile, the Cast Verification Committee constituted by the Government of Maharashtra under the directorate of Social Welfare, Pune, examined her caste certificate and invalidated the same. Therefore, her first M.B.B.S. results were withheld in January 1987. 6. Petitioner No. 1 also got changes made in the school records of his younger daughter Sangita changing her caste from Lohar to Gadi-Lohar in the school leaving certificate. After Sangita passed her 12th standard examination in June 1986, she applied for admission to the medical course in one of the reserved seats for the Nomadic Tribe. She submitted school leaving certificate to the college authorities as a proof of her caste as Gadi-Lohar. Her caste certificate, however, was forwarded to the Caste Verification Committee. After Sangita passed her 12th standard examination in June 1986, she applied for admission to the medical course in one of the reserved seats for the Nomadic Tribe. She submitted school leaving certificate to the college authorities as a proof of her caste as Gadi-Lohar. Her caste certificate, however, was forwarded to the Caste Verification Committee. The said Committee called Sangita and her father for interview and on the basis of the information gathered at the interview and from the documents, the said Committee by a well-reasoned and well-considered speaking order dated 4th June, 1986, invalidated her claim as belonging to Gadi-Lohar community. Sangita, therefore, preferred an appeal to the Commissioner, Konkan Division, Konkan Bhuvan, New Bombay. The Commissioner dismissed her appeal by an order dated 17th October, 1986. 7. Aggrieved by the order dated 4th June, 1986 of the Caste Verification Committee and the order dated 17th October, 1986 passed by the Commissioner in Appeal No. Appeal Desk/NT/50/86 invalidating her caste-claim, Sangita filed Writ Petition No. 261 of 1987. Kavita did not prefer an appeal to the Commissioner but directly filed Writ Petition No. 887 of 1987 in this Court because she felt that it was no use preferring an appeal before the same Commissioner who had rejected the caste-claim of her younger sister. 8. This Court while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution does not review each and every piece of evidence like an Appellate Court. However, we carefully went through the entire record and the impugned orders and gave our anxious though to the issues involved in the matter as the educational career to two young girls was at stake. Our thorough scrutiny of the entire record leaves no doubt in our minds that petitioner No.1 obtained bogus caste certificates in favour of his daughters Kavita and Sangita to enable them to seek entry in the medical college. 9. The following are our reasons and conclusions as a result of examination of the material on record. a) The caste certificate issued in favour of Sangita by the Executive Magistrate Kalyan showing her caste as Gadi-Lohar is not valid firstly because it is not in the prescribed form as per para 3 of the Government Resolution dated 21st March, 1979 and secondly because it does not indicate the Government Order under which the caste in question was notified as Nomadic Tribe. Sangita, at the relevant time, was ordinarily the resident of village Dondaicha in Dhule District and, therefore, the Executive Magistrate, Kalyan, had no jurisdiction to issue a caste certificate in her favour. It appears that the Executive Magistrate, Kalyan, issued the caste certificate most mechanically and with total non-application of mind as the only basis on which he had issued the said certificate was the school leaving certificate issued by the Headmaster of Mohane Colony School, Mohane on 23rd July, 1984, which was not enough proof to issue a caste certificate. The certificate was not even dated by the Executive Magistrate. It seems that some sort of a “form” of caste certificate was made available to the Executive Magistrate on which format he issued the caste certificate. (b) The birth extract from Sahada Nagar Palika showing caste of petitioner No. 1 as Gadi-Lohar appears to be a clear case of manipulation. The date of birth of petitioner No. 1 is 3-11-1939 but the entry regarding his birth date was made as late as on 3rd September, 1985 on the basis of an order passed by an Executive Magistrate and an affidavit. The surname of the father of petitioner No. 1 mentioned in the birth register is “Mistry” (Hajare). Normally, a carpenter (Sutar) or a blacksmith (Lohar) is addressed as “Mistry” in Maharashtra but a Gadi-Lohar who carries on his tiny occupation of blacksmithy in small huts or on the outskirts of the villages is not addressed as “Mistry”. This goes to show that petitioner No.1's father was Lohar by caste and not Gadi-Lohar. (c) The Caste Verification Committee granted 10 days time to Sangita and her father to produce their primary school leaving certificates to show that they belong to Gadi-Lohar community but neither Sangita's not her father's certificate was produced for the perusal of the Committee. d) Although Sangita claims to be belonging to Nomadic Tribe, the record does not show that she had at any time during her school career availed of any of the concessions such as tuition fees, free studentships and scholarships granted to the students belonging to Nomadic Tribes. (e) The surnames of the relatives of the petitioners as stood revealed in the questionnaire were Bagul, Jadhav, Khele, Kale etc. which are usually the surnames of Lohars notified as Other Backward Classes. (e) The surnames of the relatives of the petitioners as stood revealed in the questionnaire were Bagul, Jadhav, Khele, Kale etc. which are usually the surnames of Lohars notified as Other Backward Classes. (f) Sangita and her father miserably failed at the interview before the Caste Verification Committee in pointing out the differences in the occupations of Lohars and Gadi-Lohars. (g) The family occupation of the petitioners was stated to be carpentry work which normally is not the occupation of Gadi-Lohars who are a wandering tribe and work as polishers, tinkers and knife sharpeners. (h) According to the petitioners, their month-tongue is mixed Gujarati-Marathi but they speak Ahirani Marathi. They are unable to speak mixed Gujarati-Marathi. In fact, Gadi-Lohars speak mixed Gujarati-Marathi which the petitioners do not and cannot speak. (i) The petitioners are unable to explain the traits and characteristics of Gadi-Lohars. (j) The deities worshipped by the petitioners are Ganpati, Suryachandra, Ramdeoji, Shitalamata, Achalamata etc. and their family deity is Suptashringidevi which dieties are normally worshipped by Hindu-Lohars in Maharashtra where as Gadi-Lohar worship Balaji and Bhavnimata and strongly believe in ghosts. (k) The customs and traditions followed by the petitioners do indicate that they are Lohars belonging to Other Backward Classes. (l) The Lohars perform Sradha which the Gadi-Lohars do not do. (m) While verifying the caste-claim of Kavita, the Caste Verification Committee deputed one of its Officers to enquire into her school records when it was revealed that she belongs to Hindu-Lohar community and not Gadi-Lohar. It was found that the entry against the caste of Kavita was showing “Non-Backward Class” which was scored out and the words Gadi-Lohar were subsequently added. It was also noticed that her school leaving certificate dated 16th May, 1974 issued by the New Era English Primary School, Ulhasnagar, showed that she belongs to Hindu-Lohar community whereas the xerox copy of the school leaving certificate dated 14th June, 1983 issued by National Rayons Corporation Colony School, Mohane, Kalyan shows that the entry Gadi-Lohar was made after scoring out the original entry “Non-Backward Class”. The word Gadi is shown to have been prefixed to the word Lohar. (n) The original admission form dated 28th May, 1974 of Sangita shows her caste as Lohar. The school leaving certificate dated 16th May, 1974 issued by New Era K.G. Class also shows her caste as Lohar. The word Gadi is shown to have been prefixed to the word Lohar. (n) The original admission form dated 28th May, 1974 of Sangita shows her caste as Lohar. The school leaving certificate dated 16th May, 1974 issued by New Era K.G. Class also shows her caste as Lohar. However, on the basis of a letter issued by Zilla Parishad, Thane on 30th July, 1983 the school record was corrected so as to indicate her caste as Gadi-Lohar. A letter dated 7th April, 1983 issued by National Rayons Corporation shows that the caste in the school records was changed on the basis of the caste certificate issued to petitioner No.1 and it is not mentioned therein as to on what basis the caste certificate was issued to petitioner No.1. (o) Entry No. 3753 in the General Register of the School in respect of Sangita originally showed her as “Non-Backward Class” but the same was changed to Gadi-Lohar on the basis of a letter dated 30th July, 1983 issued by Zilla Parishad, Thane. And similar is the case in respect of school records of Kavita. Her application for school admission shows her caste as Lohar. And Entry No. 3391 in the General Register of the school shows “Non-Backward Class”. From these facts and circumstances, it is crystal clear that the petitioners belong to Hindu-Lohar caste and not Gadi-Lohar as falsely claimed by them. 10. It was, however, contended on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner No. 1 has two uncles (his father's brothers) viz. Trimbak Krishnaji Hazare and Eknath Krishnaji Hazare. Trimbak Krishnaji Hazare has two sons by name (i) Anil (ii) Sachindra. Anil had obtained admission in Medical College in the year 1979 against a reserved seat for Nomadic Tribe and Sachindra had secured admission in Medical College in the year 1983-84 on the same basis that he belongs to Nomadic Tribe i.e. Gadi-Lohar. It was, therefore, urged that on the basis of the proof as to the caste of the blood relations of the petitioners, Kavita and Sangita should have also been held to be belonging to Gadi-Lohar community of the Nomadic Tribes. However, it was averred in the affidavit of Suhas Radhakrishna Mantri, Naib Tahsildar in the office of the Commissioner, on behalf of respondents Nos. However, it was averred in the affidavit of Suhas Radhakrishna Mantri, Naib Tahsildar in the office of the Commissioner, on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, that Sachindra's case is not applicable in the background of the school records of Kavita and Sangita which show that initially they claimed to belong to Lohar Caste. As regards the caste certificate date 1st July, 1977 in favour of Anil, the same was issued only on the basis of a caste certificate issued by the Special Executive Magistrate, Jalgaon, on 20th July, 1976 and the said certificate was not issued on the basis of original entries in the birth register or school admission register which are generally considered as sound and reliable proof in support of a caste-claim. Then again the caste certificate in favour of Dinanath Hazare, another blood relation of the parties, was also issued on the basis of a caste certificate showing no details relied upon as a proof for issuance of the said caste certificate in favour of Dinanath. 11. Mr. Angal, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, brought to our notice a Circular No. CBC-1680/65396(499)/D-V dated 6th September, 1983 issued by the Social Welfare, Cultural Affairs, Sports and Tourism Department of the Government of Maharashtra and vehemently urged that the caste-claims of Kavita and Sangita should have been considered as valid on the basis of the caste-claims of their blood relations viz. Anil and Sachindra. He also relied upon a unreported judgment dated 23rd June, 1983 of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2749 of 1982 in (Bijendra Pratap Patel v. Shri S.L. Dipali and another)1, judgment of a Division Bench in (Abhayshrawanji Parate v. State of Maharashtra and others)2, 1984 Mh.L.J. 289. 12. Now, each case which involves an issue or question of fact must turn on the facts, evidence and circumstances of that case. Lack of materials and evidence in one case may not there in another case. Just as an unfavourable caste decision in one matter cannot by itself affect and pre-empt a favourable order in the matter of another relation if otherwise justified, so also a favourable caste order in one case cannot by itself induce and influence a similar order in a subsequent case, may be of a relation. Just as an unfavourable caste decision in one matter cannot by itself affect and pre-empt a favourable order in the matter of another relation if otherwise justified, so also a favourable caste order in one case cannot by itself induce and influence a similar order in a subsequent case, may be of a relation. Such prior orders one way or the other qua relations would be but one circumstance of even a strong circumstance to be considered in a later caste inquiry of another relation. But the same cannot be per se conclusive either way. Caste certificates of blood relations cannot become conclusive proofs. At the most such caste certificate of blood relations can be used as a guideline and/or a circumstance to be taken into consideration but along with the other evidence on the record. The totality of the evidence should convince the caste certificate issuing authority that a particular applicant belongs or does not belong to a certain caste. There cannot be hard and fast rule for granting or rejecting the caste-claimants of the applicants. The caste certificate issuing authorities have to apply their minds to the facts and circumstances and evidence in every individual case before them. 13. In the face of voluminous evidence on record in this case, it is impossible to hold that the petitioners belong to Gadi-Lohar community. On the contrary, we are more than convinced that they obtained bogus caste certificates and that they really do not belong to Gadi-Lohar community. The caste certificates of Anil and Sachindra would be of no avail to Kavita and Sangita. Had there been some independent satisfactory evidence that Kavita and Sangita belong to Gadi-Lohar community, their claims would have stood strengthened and fortified by the caste-certificates issued in favour of Anil and Sachindra. But the facts and circumstances here clearly establish and have absolutely no doubt in our mind, that Kavita and Sangita do not belong to Gadi-Lohar community. In our judgment, taking advantage of the fact that they belong to Lohar Caste, their father obtained bogus caste certificates in their favour by prefixing the word Gadi to the word Lohar. We strongly feel that the caste certificates obtained by Anil and Sachindra are also bogus. They, however, have been lucky in escaping action and in getting admissions to medical course. 14. We strongly feel that the caste certificates obtained by Anil and Sachindra are also bogus. They, however, have been lucky in escaping action and in getting admissions to medical course. 14. We are very much unhappy to note the way in which the Executive Magistrate, Kalyan, issued the caste certificate in favour of Sangita. We understand that there are umpteen number of cases of issuance of bogus caste certificates and we strongly condemn it. We asked Mr. Gangal, learned Assistance Government Pleader, as on why action should not be taken against such Executive Magistrates who issue false caste certificates. Mr. Gangal submitted that this malady had already come to the notice of the Government and warnings have been given to the Executive Magistrates that strict disciplinary actions would be taken against those who indulge in issuing false caste certificates and as a result thereof there has been considerable reduction in issuance of false caste certificates. We hope and trust that the Government warning will go a long way in educating the Executive Magistrates that they shall not do anything that is unjust improper and illegal. We may add that if this warning has not salutary effect on such erring Magistrates, strong action should be taken against them. We also understand that many a time genuine Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe persons are harassed and/or denied caste certificates by some Executive Magistrates on flimsy grounds that denying and frustrating the rightful claims of the disadvantaged and under-privileged people. We strongly deprecate such tendency which often delays and even defeats the attainment of the goal of social justice. 15. We find no merit in these writ petitions. Both the writ petitions fail. The cases are dismissed. Rule in each of them is discharged with costs. Petitions dismissed. -----