Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2050 (BOM)

PRAJAKTA SAHEBRAO BIRHARE v. State of Maharashtra

2006-12-19

NARESH H.PATIL, R.M.BORDE

body2006
ORDER R. M. BORDE, J.:- Heard the learned Counsel for respective parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court raising challenge to the order dated 30th December, 2005, passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3. The petitioner claims that she belongs to "Koli Malhar", a Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner is a student and it has been informed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that she has secured admission to medical course as against a seat reserved for scheduled tribe category candidate. The tribe claim of the petitioner came to be referred to the respondent No. 2- Committee for verification. It appears that as a part of the prescribed procedure, vigilance cell inquiry was conducted and the report was submitted to the Committee. The petitioner was also afforded an opportunity of being heard by the Committee. The petitioner submitted number of documents before the Committee. On consideration of the documentary evidence tendered by the petitioner before the Committee as well as after holding the personal interview of the petitioner, respondent No. 2- Committee arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner has failed to establish her claim and as such by order dated 30-12-2005, invalidated the tribe certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. 4. We have perused the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner has submitted copies of school record in the form of school leaving certificate, school admission extract pertaining to herself as well as her sisters Yogita and Jayashree and brother Madhukar. The petitioner has also produced on record the tribe certificates issued in favour of her brother and sisters as well as her father. The petitioner has also placed on record the copy of the school admission extract pertaining to her father wherein his caste is recorded as, "Koli". There are other documents placed on record before the Committee, which are mentioned in para 18 of the order at Sr. Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10. Those are the extracts of the documents pertaining to the relatives of the petitioner wherein their caste is recorded as "Koli". The Committee has turned down the, claim of the petitioner mainly on the ground that the documents placed on record, in order to support her claim, are of recent origin. There is an entry in the school record of petitioner's father to the effect that he belongs to "Koli" caste. The Committee has turned down the, claim of the petitioner mainly on the ground that the documents placed on record, in order to support her claim, are of recent origin. There is an entry in the school record of petitioner's father to the effect that he belongs to "Koli" caste. The Committee was of the opinion that there is no basic document placed on record to arrive at a finding as regards tribe claim of the petitioner that she belongs to "Koli Malhar", a scheduled tribe. The Committee also found that the petitioner has failed to prove her affinity and ethnic linkage towards "Koli Malhar", a scheduled tribe. 5. We do not find that the Committee has committed any error in appreciating the evidence placed on record by the petitioner before the Committee. There does not appear any error on the face of the record committed by the Scrutiny Committee in arriving at a finding which needs interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has made a grievance that the vigilance enquiry is vitiated on the ground that as per the mandate of the Supreme Court in the case of Kum. Madhuri Patil and another vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development. Thane and others, reported in 1997 (5) SCC 437 . one Research Officer/Tribal Development or Social Welfare Officer was not accompanying Vigilance Officer during the conduct of the Vigilance Cell enquiry. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that the matter is required to be reconsidered in view of the deficiencies in conduct of the Vigilance Cell enquiry. It is further contended that the impugned order passed by the Committee which, in turn, relied upon the findings of the Vigilance Cell enquiry, is vitiated because of the fact that the said enquiry conducted by the Vigilance Cell was not conducted in the manner prescribed by the Apex Court. 7. We may refer to the directives issued by the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another vs. Additional Commissioner Tribal Development and others, (first) reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 . In the said decision, the Apex Court, while observing that, it is necessary to streamline the procedure for issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval, issued 15 point directives. In the said decision, the Apex Court, while observing that, it is necessary to streamline the procedure for issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval, issued 15 point directives. Direction No.5, issued by the Apex Court, reads thus: (5) "Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in over-all charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in the pro forma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies, etc. by the castes or tribes or tribal communities concerned etc." 8. In a subsequent judgment in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Thane and others (Second), reported in 1997 (5) SCC 437 , which came up before the Apex Court on an application filed for recalling the judgment giving various directions and substitute in their place the directions sought for in the prayer clause of the application, the Apex Court while dealing with prayer clause (d) of the said application, has observed: "With regard to prayer (d), along with the Vigilance Cell, one Research Officer/Tribal Development or Social Welfare Officer would be associated in finding the social status of eligibility of the officers." 9. Relying upon the aforesaid decision, the learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the procedure adopted by the Committee in dealing with the matter is not strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Apex Court and as such, the decision rendered by the Committee is liable to be quashed. 10. Relying upon the aforesaid decision, the learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the procedure adopted by the Committee in dealing with the matter is not strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Apex Court and as such, the decision rendered by the Committee is liable to be quashed. 10. We may, at this stage, refer to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of A. P. vs. Laveti Giri and another, reported in (1995) 4 SCC 32 . The Apex Court, while reiterating the guidelines laid down in Madhuri Patil's case, has observed in para 8 that: "While reiterating the above guidelines to be workable principles, it is high time that the Government of India should have the matter examined in greater detail and bring about a uniform legislation with necessary guidelines and rules prescribing penal consequences on persons who flout the Constitution and corner the benefits reserved for the real tribals, etc. etc., so that the menace of fabricating the false records and to gain unconstitutional advantages by plain/spurious persons could be prevented." (emphasis supplied) 11. It thus be borne in mind that the guidelines issued by the Apex Court are in the nature of "workable principles". The Government of Maharashtra has issued various Government Resolutions on 7-3-1996, 15-3-1996 and 14-7-1997. On 14-7-1997, in the light of modifications suggested by the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil, the Government of Maharashtra issued a fresh Resolution reconstituting the Committees for verification and scrutiny of caste/tribe certificates. The State Government has prescribed the procedure for the Committee, to be followed in the matters of scrutiny of tribe certificates. The decisions rendered by the Scrutiny Committee by adopting the procedure as prescribed in the Government Resolutions, so also the decisions rendered on the basis of Vigilance Cell enquiry, which was conducted in accordance with the procedure set out by the State Government in view of the Government Resolutions, were the subject-matter of challenge before this Court. The main thrust of challenge was that the direction No. 5 issued in the case of Kum. Madhuri Patil (first) as well as the directions given in the case of Madhuri Patil (second) were not followed strictly while conducting the vigilance cell enquiry. The main thrust of challenge was that the direction No. 5 issued in the case of Kum. Madhuri Patil (first) as well as the directions given in the case of Madhuri Patil (second) were not followed strictly while conducting the vigilance cell enquiry. This Court has considered the directions given by the Apex Court as well as the procedure prescribed by the State Government in view of the Government Resolutions and has arrived at a conclusion that the vigilance cell investigation and the report were clearly to be meant for the internal aid of the Scrutiny Committee, which can be considered by the Scrutiny Committee while deciding the appeal. The Court has also considered observations of the Apex Court in the case of Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of A. P. vs. Laveti Giri and another (supra), wherein it has been observed that the guidelines are in the nature of "workable principles". We may quote the observations made by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs No. 25 to 29 in the case of Chhaya Namdeorao Binekar vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2003 (3) Mh.L.J. 339 . "It appears that while giving effect to the later portion of direction No.5 which deals with the exact manner in which the investigation is required to be carried out by a Police Inspector and Vigilance Officer. The relevant words in direction No. 5 as given by the Apex Court were as under: The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in the pro forma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies, etc. by the castes or tribes or tribal communities concerned etc." In my view, since the State of Maharashtra has not specifically given effect to this part of direction No.5 of the Supreme Court in its Government Resolutions, as reproduced hereinabove and in its wisdom, it has left the manner of its investigation to be carried out by the vigilance cell to be an open question. The manner of investigation need not be strictly in accordance with the exact words of the Supreme Court as reproduced hereinabove and that merely because the investigation is not carried out strictly in accordance with the wordings of the Supreme Court referred to hereinabove, that by itself would not vitiate the final order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, which would be subsequently passed after giving full opportunity to a claimant the petitioner to put forward his case regarding his caste, to receive the copy of the vigilance cell report with all annexures and even to point out the lacuna, if any, in the vigilance cell report and its enclosures, before the Scrutiny Committee. This, however, would not mean that the vigilance cell has a licence to carry out an investigation which is slipshod, negligent or unfair. I feel that the vigilance cell investigation and its report were clearly mean to be an internal aid for the benefit of the Scrutiny Committee and that direction No.6, which has in fact being given effect to by the State of Maharashtra as mentioned hereinabove, clearly and full safeguards the interest of any candidate who appears before the Scrutiny Committee in a proceeding relating to the establishment of his caste. To further elaborate the point, it will not be open to any person to contend that the ultimate order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee is vitiated merely because the investigation has not been carried out strictly in accordance with the relevant wording given in direction No. 5 as reproduced hereinabove. If there is any lacuna in the vigilance cell report or in the documents enclosed therewith, it is always open to the concerned person to bring this to the notice of the Scrutiny Committee in the enquiry contemplated under the direction No.6. The aforesaid wordings of the Supreme Court pertaining to the manner in which the investigation is required to be carried out cannot be read as if they are a part of a statute. . The aforesaid wordings of the Supreme Court pertaining to the manner in which the investigation is required to be carried out cannot be read as if they are a part of a statute. . Thus, in my opinion, the ultimate order of the Scrutiny Committee would not be vitiated: (a) If the Research Officer did not accompany the Police Officer to the actual field of investigation. In fact this is not even contemplated in direction No.5. All that was required in para 5 of the clarificatory judgment of the Supreme Court was that one Research Officer/Tribal Development or Social Development Officer would be associated in finding the social status of the eligibility of the claimant. To my mind the emergies of the Research Officer would be better utilised by analysing the material collected in the field by the Police Inspector/Vigilance Officer. (b) That the investigation of the vigilance cell need not be strictly in accordance with the relevant words as contained in direction No.5 and as reproduced above. (c) There can be flexibility in the manner in which the investigation should be carried out as long as the investigation is not slipshod, negligent or unfair. 12. The aforesaid observations of the learned Single Judge received stamp of approval in a case decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Sangeeta Balayya Bhurewar vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2003(5) Mh.L.J. 645 , wherein the Division Bench has observed: "Though the learned Single Judge was dealing with the situation regarding non-compliance of direction No.5, whereby the investigation in the social status of the candidate was not done, the learned Single Judge found that such non-compliance cannot vitiate the finding recorded by the Committee. We respectfully concur with the view taken by both the Single Judges in the judgments referred to above." The same view of reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 193012003, decided on 8-7-2003. 13. We also do not find any reason to take any contrary view in the matter. We respectfully concur with the view taken by both the Single Judges in the judgments referred to above." The same view of reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 193012003, decided on 8-7-2003. 13. We also do not find any reason to take any contrary view in the matter. The arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the Research Officer was not accompanying Vigilance Officer during the vigilance cell investigation and, therefore, the whole inquiry of the vigilance cell and consequent decision of the Scrutiny Committee, which relied upon the report of the Vigilance Cell, is vitiated and is required to be quashed, is not acceptable. As has been held by the learned Single Judge in Chhaya Namdeo Bhurewar's case (supra), which has been approved by the Division Bench of this Court, the Vigilance Cell inquiry need not be strictly in accordance with the exact words contained in Direction No.5 issued in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case. There can be flexibility in the manner in which the vigilance cell investigation can be carried out. 14. We may also note here that the directives issued in Madhuri Patil's case are in the nature of "workable principles". The whole inquiry conducted by the Vigilance Cell and the consequent decision rendered by the Scrutiny Committee cannot be vitiated only on the count that the Research Officer was not associated during the course of vigilance cell inquiry. It also has to be taken into consideration at this stage that the Research Officer is one of the members of the Committee before whom the report of the vigilance cell is placed for consideration. Therefore, the directions issued by the Apex Court can be said to have been followed as an Officer, who is conversant with the traits and peculiar characteristics of the tribe was associated during the process of scrutiny of scheduled tribe certificate, who has considered the vigilance cell report so also the petitioner was given an opportunity to present herself before the Committee for personal interview. The Committee, however, found that the petitioner could not establish her ethnic linkage with "Koli Malhar", a scheduled tribe. The Committee, however, found that the petitioner could not establish her ethnic linkage with "Koli Malhar", a scheduled tribe. The Committee, which consists of one of the member having special knowledge of the traits and characteristics of the tribe, being a Research Officer, has scrutinised all the record and on considering the performance of the petitioner during personal interview, has recorded a clear finding that the petitioner has failed to prove her tribe status. 15. In view of the reasons enumerated above, we do not find any substance in the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is vitiated on the count of failure on the part of the Committee to associate a Research Officer during the conduct of vigilance officer's field inquiry· 16. We may also note here that the vigilance cell inquiry was conducted in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the State contained in various Government Resolutions. It may also be taken into consideration that now there is a legislation, namely 'Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2000), governing the field and as such the inquiries in respect of status claims are required to be conducted in the manner laid down under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, governing the procedure of inquiry. 17. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 18 of the Act of 2000, and all other powers conferred on it in that behalf, the Government of Maharashtra has framed the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2003). Rule 10 prescribe the constitution of vigilance cell whereas Rule 12 prescribe the procedure to be followed by the Scrutiny Committee. Rules 10 and 12 read thus: 10. Cell Constitution of Vigilance Cell - The State Government shall constitute a vigilance cell to assist each Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee for conducting enquiry which shall consist of,- (i) A Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police; (ii) Police Inspector (number of Inspectors depending upon the number of cases); (iii) Police Constables to assist the Police Inspector; (iv) Research Officer. Cell Constitution of Vigilance Cell - The State Government shall constitute a vigilance cell to assist each Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee for conducting enquiry which shall consist of,- (i) A Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police; (ii) Police Inspector (number of Inspectors depending upon the number of cases); (iii) Police Constables to assist the Police Inspector; (iv) Research Officer. The police personnel shall investigate into the social status claims by conducting school and home inquiries and other enquiry as per the reference made by the Scrutiny Committee under sub-rule (2) of Rule 12. 12. Procedure to be followed by Scrutiny Committee. - (1) On receipt of the application, the Scrutiny Committee or a person authorised by it shall scrutinise the application, verify the information and documents furnished by the applicant, and shall acknowledge the receipt of the application. The Member Secretary shall register the application, received for verification, in the register prescribed by the Chairman. (2) If the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the documentary evidence produced by the applicant the Scrutiny Committee shall forward the applications to the Vigilance Cell for conducting the school, home and other enquiry. (3) The Vigilance Officer shall go to the local place of residence and original place from which the applicant hails and usually resides, or in case of migration, to the town or city or place from which he originally hailed from. (4) The Vigilance Officer shall personally verify and collect all the facts about the social status claimed by the applicant or his parents or the guardian, as the case may be. (5) The Vigilance Cell shall also examine the parents or guardian or the applicant for the purpose of verification of their Tribe, of the applicant. (6) After completion of the enquiry, the Vigilance Cell shall submit its report to the Scrutiny Committee who will in turn scrutinise the report submitted by the Vigilance Cell. (7) In case the report of Vigilance Cell is in favour of the applicant, and if the Scrutiny Committee is satisfied that the claim of the applicant is genuine and true, the Scrutiny Committee may issue the validity certificate. (7) In case the report of Vigilance Cell is in favour of the applicant, and if the Scrutiny Committee is satisfied that the claim of the applicant is genuine and true, the Scrutiny Committee may issue the validity certificate. The validity certificate shall be issued in Form G. (8) If the Scrutiny Committee, on the basis of the Vigilance Cell report and other documents available, is not satisfied about the claim of the applicant, the Committee shall issue a show cause notice to the applicant and also serve a copy of the report of the Vigilance Officer by registered post with acknowledgment due. A copy shall also be sent to the Head of the Department concerned, if necessary. The notice shall indicate that the representation or reply, if any, should be made within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice and in any case not more than thirty days from the date of receipt of the notice. In case the applicant requests for adjournment or extension of the time-limit, reasonable time, may be granted. (9)(a) After personal hearing if the Scrutiny Committee is satisfied regarding the genuineness of the claim, Validity Certificate shall be issued in Form G. (b) After personal hearing, if the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied about the genuineness of the claim and correctness of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate, it shall pass an order of cancellation and of confiscation of the Certificate and communicate the same to the Competent Authority for taking necessary entries in the register and for further necessary action. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate shall then be stamped as "cancelled and confiscated". 18. It would be evident on reading the above rules that a Research Officer shall be the member of the Vigilance Cell. However, Rule 10 further provides that the police personnel shall investigate into the social status claims by conducting school and home inquiries and other enquiry as per the reference made by the Scrutiny Committee under sub-rule (2) of Rule 12. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 provides for referring the application by the Committee to the Vigilance Cell for conducting the school, home and other enquiry, in case where the Scrutiny Committee could not reach the satisfaction on the basis of the documentary evidence placed on record by the applicant. 19. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 provides for referring the application by the Committee to the Vigilance Cell for conducting the school, home and other enquiry, in case where the Scrutiny Committee could not reach the satisfaction on the basis of the documentary evidence placed on record by the applicant. 19. In the instant case, we find that the Vigilance Cell enquiry is conducted by the Vigilance Officer, who is the police officer. It is also borne out from the material placed on record that the Scrutiny Committee had referred the application of the petitioner for enquiry to the Vigilance Cell and the Vigilance Cell enquiry was conducted in accordance with Rule 10 of the Rules of 2003. As the Vigilance Cell consists of a Research Officer, it is not necessary that the said Research Officer shall accompany the police officer to conduct the field enquiry and it is not the requirement of Rule 10. The argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the whole inquiry is vitiated on account of failure of the Research Officer to accompany the Vigilance Officer during the conduct of field enquiry, is not sustainable in law. As stated above, the directives issued by the Apex Court in Madhuri Patil's case are considered as "workable principles", as held by the Apex Court in the case of Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of A. P. (supra). So also as Research Officer is one of the member of Vigilance Cell as required under Rule 10, requirement as contemplated by judgment of Apex Court in Madhuri Patil's case (second) is complied with. 20. That, so far as the inquiries in respect of verification of the tribe claims are concerned, after enactment of Act of 2000 and the Rules of 2003, those are governed by the concerned legislation occupying the field. The challenge raised by the petitioner, in this petition, in respect of the vigilance cell enquiry is not sustainable, as we find that the procedure adopted for conducting vigilance cell enquiry as well as for verification of the tribe claim by the Scrutiny Committee is in consonance with the Rules of 2003 governing the field. 21. In this view of the matter, we do not find any substance in the objection raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 22. 21. In this view of the matter, we do not find any substance in the objection raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 22. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also urged that the petitioner has secured admission to medical course during the academic year 2005-2006 and as the petitioner is undergoing her studies, her admission to the medical course may be directed to be protected by issuing a suitable order. The petitioner also expressed her willingness to pay the sum, as may be determined by this Court, as has been directed by the Apex Court in the case of Sandeep Subhash Parate vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2006(6) Mh.L.J. (SC) 720 = 2006 AIR SCW 4555. 23. Normally the trend of the decisions rendered by this Court as well as by the Apex Court is in favour of protecting the admissions secured by the candidate, who has completed major part of his studies. In the instant case, the petitioner has secured admission during the present academic year. The another distinguishing feature is that petitioner's admission to the medical course is not in furtherance of any interim direction issued by this Court. This Court has not passed any interim order directing admission of the petitioner to the medical course during the pendency of the petition. However, this Court is dealing with the petition and disposing of the same at the admission stage itself. In Sandeep's case (supra), the Apex Court was favourably inclined to entertain the request mainly on the ground that (a) the appellant before the Apex Court had completed his substantial part of studies under the interim orders passed by the High Court; (b) No opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant by the Scrutiny Committee at the first instance and his first petition was allowed; (c) Although in the second 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) He filed an application after completion of his studies that respondent No.4 University should be directed to issue him the Degree of Bachelor. No order was passed thereon. These are the distinguishing features which persuaded the Apex Court to grant protection to the appellant before the Apex Court. No order was passed thereon. These are the distinguishing features which persuaded the Apex Court to grant protection to the appellant before the Apex Court. However, in the instant case, as the admission of the petitioner to the medical course is not under any interim order passed by this Court, nor the petitioner has completed any substantial tenure of the medical course, we are not favourably inclined to entertain the request made by the petitioner. 24. We may also resort to the provisions of section 10(1) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000, which prescribes: 10. Benefits secured on the basis of false Caste Certificate to be withdrawn - (1) Whoever not being a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special Backward Category secures admission in any educational institution against a seat reserved for such Castes, Tribes or Classes, or secures any appointment in the Government, local authority or in any other Company or Corporation, owned or controlled by the Government or in any Government aided institution or Co-operative Society against a post reserved for such Castes, Tribes or Classes by producing a false Caste Certificate shall, on cancellation of the Caste Certificate by the Scrutiny Committee, be liable to be debarred from the concerned educational institution, or as the case may be, discharged from the said employment forthwith and any other benefits enjoyed or derived by virtue of such admission or appointment by such person as aforesaid shall be withdrawn forthwith. 25. In view of the provisions of law, quoted above, the admission of the petitioner to the medical course, which has been secured by her as against a seat reserved for scheduled tribe category candidate, cannot be protected. 26. In the result, petition is devoid of any substance and the same is accordingly rejected. Petition dismissed.