( 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 30th June, 1987 and 4th September, 1987 are set aside by Scrutiny Committee. ( 3 ) THE petitioner is working as Primary Teacher with respondent school i. e. Moral Naka Primary School of Santrampur Taluka. 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. The petitioner is discharging her duties as Primary Teacher from 8th September, 1990. 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:77 of the compilation ). ( 4 ) THE present petitioner residing at Gothibada, Tal:santrampur and where the caste from where she belongs to is mentioned in School General Register No. 340 as "hindu Schedule Tribe". Whereas as per School Leaving Certificate of Bhumanand Vidhyalaya, the Social Welfare Office of Godhra at Panchmahal vide his Certificate No. 711, issued to the petitioner on 30. 06. 1987 has mentioned the caste of the petitioner as "hindu Pateliya Schedule Tribe" and in the Certificate No. PRCH/sr/1743/87 of dated 4th September, 1987 issued by Mamlatdar of Santrampur, Dist:panchmahal, the caste of the petitioner is mentioned as Hindu Pateliya Schedule Tribe and thereafter, services of Primary Teacher was obtained by the petitioner as an "aadivasi" from 08. 09. 1990. 1987 has mentioned the caste of the petitioner as "hindu Pateliya Schedule Tribe" and in the Certificate No. PRCH/sr/1743/87 of dated 4th September, 1987 issued by Mamlatdar of Santrampur, Dist:panchmahal, the caste of the petitioner is mentioned as Hindu Pateliya Schedule Tribe and thereafter, services of Primary Teacher was obtained by the petitioner as an "aadivasi" from 08. 09. 1990. Shri Mal Somaji Vali, Shri Mal Jotibhai Vali, residents of Suka Timba, Po:jaanvad, Tal:santrampur, Dist:panchmahal have given application on 1st September, 2003 alleging that Shri Laxmanbhai Revabhai Khant who though belongs to SEBC candidate, his wife Savitaben Haribhai Pateliya residing at Gothibada making corrections and/or erasion in the School Leaving Certificate obtained services as Primary Teacher on 8th September, 1990 at Moral Naka, Tal:santrampur, Dist:panchmahal. 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 working since 8th September, 1990. For that purpose, District Collector, Panchmahal sent the report on 16th February, 2004. wherein it is mentioned that in the School, in Government Resolution No. 340, the caste of petitioner is mentioned as Hindu Schedule Tribe but in the Government Resolution No. 309, caste of her elder brother Jayanti Hirabhai Pateliya is mentioned as Hindu Kshatriya Pateliya. In the land record of Hirbhai Jethabhai Pateliya, since there was no entry as per proceeding of 73aa as mentioned in Notification dated 4. 4. 1961, the same is cancelled vide Review Order 12th February, 2004 and the marriage and social relations of the petitioner belong from Khant, Damor, Vaagdiya Since, these are the caste belonged to SEBC, the caste of wife of the petitioner viz. Savitaben Hirabhai Pateliya is not covered by Schedule Tribe even though forging documents the certificate of the Schedule Tribe caste was obtained and to that effect the report was sent to the Competent Authority. The another report from Vigilance Officer dated 11th August, 2004 also suggests that petitioner is belonged to Hindu Schedule Tribe. After considering the aforesaid certificate which is referred to by this Court it is mentioned in the report of the Collector and recommendation was made to the effect that certificate issued to the petitioner belonged to Schedule Tribe may be cancelled. After considering the aforesaid certificate which is referred to by this Court it is mentioned in the report of the Collector and recommendation was made to the effect that certificate issued to the petitioner belonged to Schedule Tribe may be cancelled. Ultimately on 2nd September, 2004 Scrutiny Committee directed to submit the report on the basis of details submitted on 8th December, 2004 where Savitaben blonged to Gothibada and Bhumanand Vidhyalaya School Leaving Certificate and also two sons of one father having different community mentioned in the school record. From school record nos. 54 to 75 Hindu Pateliya Kshatriya is mentioned but 76 onward it is corrected as Schedule Tribe. Therefore, the husband of the petitioner Shri Laxmanbhai Revabhai Khant was called upon to produce the relevant records relating to the caste but he refused to produce any such records. Furthermore, in the electoral roll of Randhikpur Legislation Assembly where their names are mentioned at Sr. No. 88a and 881 is the Kshatriya caste. According to the Director of Schedule Tribe, Research and Training, Gujarat Vidhyapith report, Savitaben Hirabhai Pateliya does not belong to Schedule Caste Tribe and she belongs to Kshatriya, Subcaste of which is "pateliya Savitaben Hirabhai Pateliya". The petitioner produced his representation/objection before Scrutiny Committee on 17th February, 2005, 23rd March, 2005, 25th April, 2005 which was held on 2nd September, 2004, 20th January, 2005, 6th June, 2005, 5th January, 2006 and 14th June, 2006 and personally remained present before Scrutiny Committee and accordingly written representation was made. The petitioner also produced the relevant records and certificate of uncle, uncle s sons, daughter and other relevant record were produced by the petitioner before the Scrutiny Committee. The meeting of the Scrutiny committee was held on 29th August, 2006, and it was decided that petitioner is not belonged to Schedule Tribe candidate and certificates, belonged to Schedule Tribe issued to the petitioner, which are given no. 711 and 1743 required 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. Savitaben Hirabhai Pateliya failed to satisfy Scrutiny Committee that she belongs to Schedule Tribe candidate and no concrete evidence was produced before the Scrutiny Committee that satisfying the committee that she belongs to Schedule Tribe candidate. The Scrutiny Committee has considered the Central Government Resolution No. 29th October, 1956 and Amended Act 108 of 1976 and 22nd March, 1977 instruction. Savitaben Hirabhai Pateliya failed to satisfy Scrutiny Committee that she belongs to Schedule Tribe candidate and no concrete evidence was produced before the Scrutiny Committee that satisfying the committee that she 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 two certificates dated 4th September, 1987 and 30th June, 1987. ( 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 petitinoer that she belongs to Schedule Tribe, stands failed therefore, and ultimately committee has pass the orders setting aside two certificates shwoing 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. ( 7 ) THE affidavit-in-reply is filed by the Deputy Director which is at Page:77 wherein Paras:6,7,8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 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. 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 16/02/2004 was submitted. The certificate issued by District of Social Welfare Officer Godhra dated 30/06/1987 was on the based on School Leaving Certificate whereas shows his Hindu Patiyala. The case GR No. 340 would also indicated that she is belongs to Anusuchit Janjati and her elder brother Jayantibhai Girabhai Pateliya on school record GR No. 340 is Hindu Kshratiya Pateliya. Para:7:- I say and submit that according to Vigilance Officer Tribal Development Godhara given the report dated 11/08/2004. In the report it is also mentioned that in the petitioner s husband name Khant Laxmanbhai Revanbhai in the OBC. The social relatinos ship like Marriage etc. are also in the OBC family like Khant, Damor, Bariya, Pagi. Para:8:- I further say and submit that the TRIT reposts dated 18/12/2004 mentioned that children of different cast in the school GR records since 1954 to 1947. Hindu, Patel were registered their case Hindu Patel Kshtriya but since 1976 they have changed their cast but her husband has denied to produce his cast Certificate actually he is Khant Kshtriya. Para:9- I say and submit that petitioner asked to produce her defense vide letter daated 02/09/2004, 20/01/2005, 6/10/2005, 05/01/2006 and 14/06/2006 and she has also represented her attendance dated 07/02/2005 and 23/02/2005. She did not produce relevant document in her support and to prove to her cast. Thereafter, the committee on dated 29/08/2006 and even her procedures of the fake cast certificate and per the guidelines 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 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 Savitaben held fake cast certificate she could not put her clam as she is from Schedule Tribe Convinced. Her relationship was also with the OBC community. She has taken schedule Cast certificate for the employment in the quota of the Schedule Tribe she 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:10:- 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 she belongs to OBC family. TRIT reports also shows that children differential in GR of the school, electoral report, cast of the husband, relationship of family like OBC therefore, she is from the OBC family. Para:11:- I say and submit that as provided her list of the copies of her relationship but she did not provide her husband s cast certificate. She wants to take her employment in Schedule cast cadre. She wants to extend time to show that benefit received under fake cast certificate can be continued and petitioner became silent while informing being conducted as per guideline of the Supreme Court judgments. Para:12:- 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. 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. 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 she was getting benefit of Schedule Tribe from 1990 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. 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. " "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. " "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. 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 ]. " ( 11 ) 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. 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. " [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] ( 12 ) 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 she 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 the 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. The Scrutiny Committee has not committed any error which requires any slightest interference in such a fraud case when petitioner has failed to establish her right to be a candidate belonging to Schedule Tribe. Therefore, there is no substance in the present petition. Accordingly present petition is dismissed.