( 1 ) HEARD Shri Dhaval D Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Shri Vinay Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. ( 2 ) IN the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by Commissioner, Schedule Tribe Development Department, Gandhinagar dated 28th March, 2007 where Caste Certificate dated 1st July, 1989 issued by District Welfare Officer, Panchmahal, Godhra is set aside by Scrutiny Committee. ( 3 ) THE petitioner is working as Primary Teacher with respondent school i. e. at Nasirpur Prathmik Shala. Learned Advocate Shri Vyas challenging the order dated 28th March 2007 submitted that no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing the aforesaid order. He also submitted that documents which have been relied upon by the Scrutiny Committee have not been supplied to the petitioner. He also submitted that there is enmity between the family members which resulted to such inquiry and therefore, Scrutiny Committee has decided against the petitioner. He also submitted that Scrutiny Committee has not properly considered the case of the petitioner for Caste Certificate and Scrutiny Committee has without application of mind cancelled the Caste Certificate. The affidavit in reply is filed by one Shri Anilkumar Bhamaniya, Deputy Director Tribal Development Department, Gandhinagar (Page:78 of the compilation ). ( 4 ) THE present petitioner residing at Village:deloch, Tal:godhra and where the caste, from where he belongs to, is mentioned in School General Register as "hindu Bhil", whereas as per School Leaving Certificate his caste is mentioned as "hindu Bhil" and in the Certificate No. PRCH/vashi/1222-1335 of dated 4th May, 2005 issued by Collector of Dist:panchmahal, the caste of the petitioner is mentioned as "hindu Bhil Backward Class". The services of Primary Teacher was obtained by the petitioner as "schedule Tribe" candidate. On the basis of letter No. JP/sk/vashi/11518 dated 10. 12. 1996 of District Social Welfare Officer, Dist:panchmahal, the caste certificate of the petitioner was examined wherein it was found that the petitioner has obtained job as Primary Teacher in the school fraudulently by showing his caste as Schedule Tribe. In the said letter, it was also mentioned that in the school leaving certificate of the elder brother of the petitioner viz. Balvantsinh Gedalbhai Bhamabhai, his caste is mentioned as "hindu Bariya Kshatriya" whereas in the school leaving certificates of two younger brothers of the petitioner viz. In the said letter, it was also mentioned that in the school leaving certificate of the elder brother of the petitioner viz. Balvantsinh Gedalbhai Bhamabhai, his caste is mentioned as "hindu Bariya Kshatriya" whereas in the school leaving certificates of two younger brothers of the petitioner viz. Bamaniya Gulabsinh and Laxmansinh, their caste is mentioned as "hindu Bamaniya Schedule Caste". The allegations against the petitioner is that the petitioner is not belonged to Schedule Tribe candidate even though getting benefits of Schedule Tribe and obtained job as Primary Teacher. For that purpose, District Collector, Panchmahal sent the report on 10th December,1996. Since there was no entry as per proceeding of 73a and 73aa as mentioned in Notification dated 4. 4. 1961, the same is cancelled vide Review Order and the marriage and social relations of the petitioner belong to Hindu Bhil, the present petitioner is not covered by Schedule Tribe even though by way of forging documents the certificate of the Schedule Tribe caste was obtained and to that effect the report was sent to the Competent Authority. After considering the aforesaid certificate which is referred to by this Court it is mentioned in the report of the Collector recommendation was made to the effect that certificate issued to the petitioner belonged to Schedule Tribe may be cancelled. As held in meeting of Vigilance Committee dated 24. 06. 2005, Vigilance Committee sent the report No. TRTI/266/2005-06 dated 07. 01. 2006 to Adivassi research and Training Center Gujarat Vidhyapith wherein it is mentioned that the caste of the petitioner is mentioned in school record is as Hindu Bhil Backward Class, whereas the records of his relatives reflect caste as Hindu Bhil from 1981 onwards. Therefore, Ultimately on 30th June, 2006 Vigilance Committee has decided that the petitioner by way of wrong doing obtained job as a teacher showing his caste wrongly as Hindu Bhil Backward Class which belongs to Schedule Tribe whereas the school record does not support the say of the petitioner relating to his caste certificate that the petitioner is belonging to Schedule Tribe. Therefore, the petitioner was called upon to produce the relevant records and school leaving certificates relating to the caste of his Father, Sister and brother but the petitioner did not produce any of the documents as asked for from him raising defense that since they are illiterate persons, he is unable to produce such records. Therefore, the petitioner was called upon to produce the relevant records and school leaving certificates relating to the caste of his Father, Sister and brother but the petitioner did not produce any of the documents as asked for from him raising defense that since they are illiterate persons, he is unable to produce such records. According to the Director of Aadivasi Schedule Tribe, Research and Training, Gujarat Vidhyapith report, petitioner does not belong to Schedule Caste Tribe. The meeting of the Scrutiny committee was held on 30th June, 2006, and it was decided that petitioner is not belonged to Schedule Tribe candidate and certificates, belonged to Schedule Tribe issued to the petitioner, requires to be cancelled. The Scrutiny Committee has considered the Central Government Resolution No. 29th October, 1956 and Amended Act 108 of 1976 and 22nd March, 1977 instruction. The petitioner failed to satisfy Scrutiny Committee that he belongs to Schedule Tribe candidate and no concrete evidence was produced before the Scrutiny Committee satisfying the committee that he belongs to Schedule Tribe candidate. Therefore, ultimately scrutiny committee having the powers vested in it as per Government Resolution dated 20. 07. 2000 that in such cases where it is found that candidate is not belonging to Schedule Tribe even though getting benefit of the same then, considering note of Scrutiny Committee, it may be cancelled and ultimately Scrutiny Committee has set aside the caste certificate. ( 5 ) THE contention raised by learned advocate Shri Vyas that no opportunity was given to the petitioner is totally incorrect looking to the averments made in the order. The Scrutiny Committee has given sufficient opportunity and according the opinion of Scrutiny Committee it was more than that and detailed representations were made periodically before the Scrutiny Committee by the petitioner but ultimately petitioner failed to satisfy scrutiny committee and in absence of concrete and unimpeachable evidence before the committee supporting petitioner that he belongs to Schedule Tribe, stands failed therefore, and ultimately committee has pass the orders setting aside the caste certificate showing that the petitioner belongs to Schedule Tribe Community. ( 6 ) THE contention raised by Shri Vyas is not accepted by this Court on the ground of observations made by the Commissioner in his order. ( 6 ) THE contention raised by Shri Vyas is not accepted by this Court on the ground of observations made by the Commissioner in his order. ( 7 ) THE affidavit-in-reply is filed by the Deputy Director which is at Page:78 wherein Paras:6,7,8 and 9, are quoted as under:- "para:6:- I further say and submit that order dated 28/03/2007 by scrutiny committee in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of the Madhuri Patil in Civil Application 5854 of 1994. The committee examined the case of the complain of fake cast certificate and seeking the report from the Collector, Mamlatdar, and Vigilance Officer (Tribal Development) of the concerned area. Thereafter, the concern party also been asked to put up this fact that he is belongs to his cast. It is also asked to remain present before the Committee along with this fact and evidence in depute case the report of the Collector, Godhra Panchmahal has also been asked for the report of the Collector, Panchmahal vide dated 04/05/2005 was submitted. The certificate issued by District of Social Welfare Officer Godhra dated 01/07/1989 was on the based of School Leaving Certificate whereas shows his Bhil Community. The case GR No. 340 would also indicated that he is belongs to Hindu Bhil and his elder Bharatsing Gondalbhai Bamania is Hindu Kshratiya Bariya and parent s ser name is patel. Para:7:- I say and submit that Officer Trible Development Godhara given the report dated 24/06/2005. In the report it is also mentioned that in the petitioner s husband school record indicate Bhil Community in 40 years old record. But it was not available for inquiry, and he further says that it was clear that Bharatsinh Bamania who not S. T. Candidate. The electoral list also shown his name. Para:8:- I say and submit that petitioner asked to producer his defense. He has also represented his attendance dated 05/07/2004. He did not produce relevant document in his support and to prove to his cast. The electoral list also shown his name. Para:8:- I say and submit that petitioner asked to producer his defense. He has also represented his attendance dated 05/07/2004. He did not produce relevant document in his support and to prove to his cast. Thereafter, the committee on dated 29/08/2006 and even his procedures of the fake cast certificate and per the guideline of the Supreme Court judgment the person possesses the cast certificate are whom some one not entitled that the certificate should be cancelled and the person should revoke the benefit under taken and on the based of the fake cast certificate because some one from the Schedule Cast is supposed to entitled to benefit which is enjoys. In case of the Bharasing held fake cast certificate he could not put his clam as he is from Schedule Tribe Convinced. He has take scheudle Cast certificate for the employment in the quota of the Schedule Tribe he get also job of a teacher in Schedule Tribe Seat. Therefore, as per Supreme Judgment the benefit of on the Schedule Cast certificate should be recovered under liberty should be granted as such person who has been taken certificate by illegal. Para:9- I say and submit that Mamlatdar and Social welfare Officer gave cast certificate on the based of leaving certificate. The school leaving certificate is being registered on the oral statement of the parents. Entered in the school i. e. 1st standard they are not being asked for proof of the cast certificate whatever they have stated is being written in the GR of the school. It was a clear that he belongs to other than Bhil. 9. :- I further say and submit that this is the Constitutional privilege give to the Schedule Cast community no one can avail if some one is not entitled to avail. The Supreme Court and Government of India provided provision of the filing case under Indian Penal Code for fake certificate holder. If the petitioner is a Schedule Tribe then need not worry for any inquiry. She has produce her document of the Schedule Tribe since the order of the presidential i. e. 1950/1956. The Supreme Court and Government of India provided provision of the filing case under Indian Penal Code for fake certificate holder. If the petitioner is a Schedule Tribe then need not worry for any inquiry. She has produce her document of the Schedule Tribe since the order of the presidential i. e. 1950/1956. it is very clear in the said order the accused could have shown their legitimatelies by providing certificate of their father/forefather since the order quote not only since order they denied of her husband s cast certificate nor they accepted her marriage in to inter caste i. e. Schedule Tribe with the OBC. Therefore, they did not come with clean hand for the justice. " ( 8 ) IN view of the aforesaid averments made in reply and after perusing the orders passed by Scrutiny Committee, according to my opinion Scrutiny Committee has rightly dealt with the subject and found out correct facts that petitioner is not belonged to Schedule Tribe even though he was getting benefit of Schedule Tribe and real candidate who belonged to Schedule Tribe has remained without benefit which is clear fraud committed by the petitioner as per the view taken by Apex Court in 2007 (III)CLR 350 Bombay, 2007 (1) SCC 81. ( 9 ) IN the case reported in State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar and Anr. , reported in 2006 (10) SCALE 575 , the Court has observed as under: -. "a. The Caste Scrutiny Committee is a quasi-judicial body. It has been set up for a specific purpose. It serves a social and constitutional purposes. It is constituted to prevent fraud on Constitution. It may not be bound by the provisions of Indian Evidence Act, but it would not be correct for the superior courts to issue directions as to how it should appreciate evidence. Evidence to be adduced in a matter before a quasi-judicial body cannot be restricted to admission of documentary evidence only. It may of necessity have to take oral evidence. " "b. Moreover the nature of evidence to be adduced would vary from case to case. The rights of a party to adduce evidence cannot be curtailed. Evidence to be adduced in a matter before a quasi-judicial body cannot be restricted to admission of documentary evidence only. It may of necessity have to take oral evidence. " "b. Moreover the nature of evidence to be adduced would vary from case to case. The rights of a party to adduce evidence cannot be curtailed. It is one thing to say how a quasi-judicial body should appreciate evidence adduced before it in law but it is another thing to say that it must not allow adduction of oral evidence at all. " "c. It was furthermore not proper to suggest that all such bodies should be brought within the purview of Article 235 of the Constitution of India or only judicial officers should be appointed. " "d. As judges, we should exercise restraint before making such observations which would have a far reaching effect. Such directions could not have been, in our opinion, issued in a matter where the State had not been called upon to make its comments. No empirical study as regards functioning of the Caste Scrutiny Committees was carried out. Such sweeping remarks without there being adequate materials on records were, thus, unwarranted. " "e. We, with respect, do not agree with the conclusion of the High Court that no enquiry was permissible at all, once it is found that the person concerned in whose favour a certificate had been granted to be notified as a Scheduled Tribe. " "f. The makers of the Constitution laid emphasis on equality amongst citizens. Constitution of India provides for protective discrimination and reservation so as to enable the disadvantaged group to come on the same platform as that of the forward community. If and when a person takes an undue advantage of the said beneficent provision of the Constitution by obtaining the benefits of reservation and other benefits provided under the Presidential Order although he is not entitled thereto, he not only plays a fraud on the society but in effect and substance plays a fraud on the Constitution. When, therefore, a certificate is granted to a person who is not otherwise entitled thereto, it is entirely incorrect to contend that the State shall be helpless spectator in the matter. When, therefore, a certificate is granted to a person who is not otherwise entitled thereto, it is entirely incorrect to contend that the State shall be helpless spectator in the matter. " "g. We, with respect, fail to appreciate the approach of the High Court as it proceeded on the premise that once the surname of Respondent tallied with the name of the tribe, which finds mention in one or the other entries of the schedule appended to the 1976 Order, the same must be treated to be sacrosanct and no enquiry in relation to the correctness of the said certificate can be gone into by any Committee. The observations and directions of the High Court, in our considered opinion, were not only contrary to the judgments of the Court but also fall short of the ground realities. " ( 10 ) IN Para:33 of the said judgment the Court has observed as under: "33. We may notice that in Bank of India and Another v. Avinash D. Mandivikar and Others [ (2005) 7 SCC 690 ], a two-Judge Bench of this Court opined that the employee concerned having played fraud for obtaining an appointment, should not be allowed to get the benefit thereof. [see also Ram Saran v. I. G. of Police, CRPF and Ors. [ 2006 (2) SCALE 131 ], Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Distilleries and Chemical Mazdoor Union and Others [ 2006 (7) SCALE 171 ] and Sandeep Subhash Parate v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [ 2006 (8) SCALE 503 ]. " The Apex Court has observed in Paras:21, 22 and 23 of the decision reported in 2007 (4) SCALE 88 in case of A V Papayya Sastry and Ors. Vs. Government of A. P. and Ors. , which are quoted as under:- "para:21:- Para:21 Now, it is well settled principle of law that if any judgment or order is obtained by fraud, it cannot be said to be a judgment or order in law. Before three centuries, Chief Justice Edward Coke proclaimed; "fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal". "para:22:- It is thus settled proposition of law that a judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the Court, Tribunal or Authority is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. Before three centuries, Chief Justice Edward Coke proclaimed; "fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal". "para:22:- It is thus settled proposition of law that a judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the Court, Tribunal or Authority is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. Such a judgment, decree or order by the first Court or by the final Court has to be treated as nullity by every Court, superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any Court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings. " "para:23:- In the leading case of Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley, (1956) 1 All ER 341 : (1956) 1 QB 702 : (1956) 2 WLR 502, Lord Denning observed: "no judgment of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand, if it has been obtained by fraud. " [2007 (2) SCALE in case of The Superintendent of Post Offices and Ors. Vs. R. Valasina Babu and in case of State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Sanjay K Nimje reported in 2007 (2) SCALE 215] [2007 (7) SCALE 112 in case of Additional General Manager/human Resources Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Suresh Ramkrishna Burde and in case of Geeta Vs. State of M. P. and Ors. reported in 2007 (7) SCALE 509] ( 11 ) IN view of aforesaid observations made by the Apex Court that scrutiny committed has power to examine the issue if it is raised before the Committee and committee has power to appreciate the evidence not same of the Court or provision of the Evidence Act is not applicable to the process of the committee procedure adopted by the Scrutiny committee while examining the issue whether he is belonged to Schedule Tribe or not. This Court cannot act as Appellate Court where after all it is clear case of fact finding and finding based on documents and this cannot act as an Appellate Authority in such circumstances, therefore according to my opinion contention raised by Mr. Vyas that opportunity was not given to the petitioner is incorrect from the record which was considered as document by the State Government office and rightly believed by Scrutiny Committee. Vyas that opportunity was not given to the petitioner is incorrect from the record which was considered as document by the State Government office and rightly believed by Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee has not committed any error which requires slightest interference in such a fraud case when petitioner has failed to establish his right to be a candidate belonging to Schedule Tribe. Therefore, there is no substance in the present petition. Accordingly present petition is dismissed.