Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 332 (MP)

Rajendra Singh Saluja v. State of M. P.

2012-03-21

SUJOY PAUL

body2012
JUDGMENT : Inthis petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitionerhas called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order passedby the Caste Verification Committee dated 10-8-2011 (Annexure P-1). The Committee by the said orderheld that the petitioner do not belong to " Sansi "(Scheduled Caste) Community and directed confiscation of the Caste Certificateissued in favour of the petitioner and furtherdirected to take appropriate action against the petitioner pursuant to cancellationof aforesaid Caste Certificate. 2.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that initially thepetitioner preferred an application dated 20-2-2008 for grant of Provisional Caste Certificate. Theapplication was pregnant with all requisite documents and material. Theconcerned authority after examining the application and its averments waspleased to issue the Provisional Caste Certificate, dated 31-5-2008 (Annexure P-9). Thereafter, thepetitioner preferred application for grant of Permanent Caste Certificate on 3-6-2008 . The learned Senior Counselsubmits that after due verification and proper application of mind, certificatedated 8-8-2008 (Annexure P16), i.e., Permanent Caste Certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner. 3.The learned Senior Counsel submits that it appears that subsequently somefrivolous complaints were made against the petitioner, which persuaded theState Level Caste Verification Committee (hereinafter called as the"Committee") to take cognizance of the matter. The learned SeniorCounsel submits that the said Committee is constituted as per the judgment ofSupreme Court in the case of Knmari Madhuri Patil and another Vs.Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, (1994) 6 SCC 241 . Inthe said judgment, the Apex Court has prescribed the methodology to verify the caste status of a person and theentire enquiry needs to be conducted in consonance with the law laid down bythe Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil (supra). The learned Counsel by placing reliance on various circulars issued bythe General Administration Department (GAD) submits that the said direction ofthe Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil (supra), was circulated in the shape of executive instruction and it wasdirected that if Vigilance Officers' report is in favour of the candidate, no further action is required to be taken by the Committee.He placed reliance on the GAD, circular dated 1-8-1996 in this regard. He further submits that the CasteCertificate was issued strictly in consonance with the GAD circular, dated 11-7-2005 , which prescribes themethodology of issuance of a valid Caste Certificate. He further submits that the CasteCertificate was issued strictly in consonance with the GAD circular, dated 11-7-2005 , which prescribes themethodology of issuance of a valid Caste Certificate. He further submits thatthe Revenue Authorities consumed sufficient time to verify the genuineness ofthe information furnished by the petitioner for obtaining the Caste Certificateand only thereafter the Caste Certificate was issued. 4.The learned Counsel submits that the order impugned is bad in law because thedecision making process was erroneous as well as the ultimate decision. Thus,the attack is of two fold : - (1)On the decision making process. (2)On the ultimate decision taken by the Committee. 5.To elaborate, the learned Senior Counsel submits that in the judgment of Madhuri Patil (supra), inParagraph 13 (4), the constitution of Committee is prescribed. The State isunder a legal obligation to constitute the Committee strictly in consonancewith the direction given by the Supreme Court. However, Shri Gupta submits that the State Government issued circular in this regard andprescribed the constitution of the Committee. The learned Senior Counselsubmits that the Committee, which decided the matter was not constituted in consonance with the executive instructions on thesubject dated 8-9-1997 (Annexure P-17). A perusal of Annexure P-17 shows that the constitution ofCommittee should be as under : - (1) Principal Secretary/Secretary, Tribal Welfare and Scheduled Caste Welfare Department- Chairman. (2)Director Scheduled Caste Development - Member Secretary (3)A person having expertise in the subject of Scheduled Caste, who is nominatedby the Chairman - Member. (4)Secretary, Scheduled Caste Commission Member. 6. Shri K.N. Gupta, learnedSenior Counsel submits that the constitution of the Committee was defective inas much as the person/member as prescribed in No. 3 above was not there. Inother words, the contention is that no officer who is nominated and havingexpertise in the subject of Scheduled Caste was there as a member of theCommittee. Thus, he submits that the constitution of the Committee itself isdefective and, therefore, the whole order based on the said defective Committeecannot sustain and liable to be set aside. He relied on Salam Mani Singh (Dr.) Vs. Lakshmibai ,National Institute of Physical Education and others, 2002 (2) JLJ 391 ( Paras 10 and 15) Jagdish Singh Gujar Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2005(4) M.P.H.T. 48 =20.05 (4) MPLJ417 ( Paras 10, 11 and 12) in thisregard. He relied on Salam Mani Singh (Dr.) Vs. Lakshmibai ,National Institute of Physical Education and others, 2002 (2) JLJ 391 ( Paras 10 and 15) Jagdish Singh Gujar Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2005(4) M.P.H.T. 48 =20.05 (4) MPLJ417 ( Paras 10, 11 and 12) in thisregard. 7.Another attack on the decision making process adopted by the Committee is onthe ground that two Vigilance Officers submitted their reports and in both thereports, after due verification it was found that the petitioner belongs to ' Sansi " (Scheduled Caste) Community. Byplacing reliance on the judgment in Mddhuri Patil (supra), [ Para 13 (7)], and the GAD circular dated 1-8-1996 . it is submitted that once theVigilance Officers' report is in favour of thepetitioner and it is not found that those reports were obtained fraudulently,there was no occasion for the Committee to proceed further and the mattershould have been closed at that stage itself. Thus, it is stated that theCommittee has exceeded its jurisdiction and assumed jurisdiction after getting tworeports by very senior Vigilance Officers, who issued their reports in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, the Committee hasnot followed the judgment in Madhuri Patil's case (supra). 8.The learned Senior Counsel further submits that Page 84 of the petition showsthat the Vigilance Officer should be an officer of the rank of Senior DeputyPolice Superintendent. It is not in dispute that the Vigilance Officers, whohave submitted the reports are of the same rank andtherefore, there was an error in procedure adopted by the Committee inproceeding further in the matter, despite those two favourable reports. He further submits that no reasons are assigned by the Committee as towhy the report of those Vigilance Officers were nottrustworthy. By placing reliance on a recent judgment of this Court in Gokul Prasad Vs . State LevelCommittee and another, 2012 (1) MPLJ 359 , it is stated that any conclusion,which is not based on reason is liable to be set aside. It is stated that thereasons are heart beat of conclusions and in absence of reasons, no conclusion can be permitted to stand. Reliance is also placed on Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and verification of TribeClaims and others, (2012) 1 SCC 113 ( Paras 22 and23), Kalpana Karatkar Vs.State of M.P. and others, 2010 (1) JLJ Page 14 ( Paras 10 and 11), Kranti Associates Private Limited Vs. Reliance is also placed on Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and verification of TribeClaims and others, (2012) 1 SCC 113 ( Paras 22 and23), Kalpana Karatkar Vs.State of M.P. and others, 2010 (1) JLJ Page 14 ( Paras 10 and 11), Kranti Associates Private Limited Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others, (2010)9 SCC 496 and Madhavi Khambra (Dr.) Vs. Stateof M.P. and others, 2007 (5) MPIJ 539. On the basis of these judgments, it isstated that the decision making process is polluted and the order based on itis liable to be axed. The decision was also attacked on the ground that theVigilance Officers have given detailed reports in favour of the petitioner and in absence of any justifiable reason, the decision itself is perverse and bad in law. 9.Per contra. Mrs. Nidhi Patankar , learned GovernmentAdvocate supported the order passed by Caste Verification Committee. Thelearned Counsel submits that initially the circular dated 8-9-1997 , was issued by General AdministrationDepartment whereby six members Committee was constituted. However, subsequentlyvide Annexure P-17, dated 8-9-1997 the constitution of the Committee was modified and four members Committee wasconstituted. She submits (hat the Committee was properly constituted and insupport thereof, she relied on document dated 4-11-1999 issued by the Scheduled Caste and ScheduledTribe Welfare Department No. F 23-34/98/25/4, dated 4-11-1999 . It is mentioned in this order that theState Government has decided to nominate the Director, Adimjati Anusandhan Sanstha as anexpert member in lieu of Shri S.K. Pandey , Joint Director, who was earlier acting as Member.On the strength of this, it is stated that the constitution of the Committeewas proper and Director, Adimjati Anusandhan Sanstha is an expert in this subject who was dulynominated and therefore, no fault can be found in the constitution of theCommittee. It is further stated that the said member has done research in thefiled of Scheduled Caste and, therefore, he was rightly nominated and thenomination dated 4-11-1999 is not called in question in the present petition. Thus, as per order dated4-11 -1999 by no stretch of imagination, the constitution of the Committee canbe said to be impermissible or running contrary to the judgment of the SupremeCourt in Madhuri Patil (supra). Thus, as per order dated4-11 -1999 by no stretch of imagination, the constitution of the Committee canbe said to be impermissible or running contrary to the judgment of the SupremeCourt in Madhuri Patil (supra). 10.Coming to the second contention of Shri Gupta, thelearned Government Advocate submits that a minute scrutiny of the judgment in Madhuri Patil (supra), would showthat when the Vigilance Officer's report is correct and genuine and prepared asper method prescribed in Madhuri Patil (supra), then only it can be relied upon. However, the discretion of Committeeis not taken away and the Committee is well within its jurisdiction to examinethe genuineness and correctness of these reports. The Committee has assignedreasons as to why these reports were not found trustworthy. By placing relianceon those documents, the learned Government Advocate submits that both thereports submitted by the Vigilance Officers were based on oral submissions ofthe persons and no documentary evidence was in favour of the petitioner herein. Thus, the Committee has committed no error of law innot blindly believing those reports and examined the matter in toto . The learned Counsel submits that Annexure P-2 clearlyshows the jurisdiction of the Committee. When the Caste Certificate is obtainedby furnishing incorrect in formations, the Committee has jurisdiction to dealwith the matter. 11. Shri Anil Mishra , learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 submitsthat as per executive instructions (Annexure P-2) the scope of enquiry by theCommittee is defined. By placing reliance on "points of enquiry", Shri Mishra submits that theCommittee has rightly assumed and exercised jurisdiction as per the circular.The learned Counsel submits that along with application (Annexure R-3-11),dated 20-2-2008 , thepetitioner has not provided any documentary evidence in support of his desiredcaste status. Shri Anil Mishra , vehemently opposedthe petition and stated that there is not a single documentary evidence toestablish that at any point of time the petitioner mentioned himself asbelonging to the Scheduled Caste Community. Neither in the revenue record norin the educational qualification certificates it is mentioned that the petitioner belongs to " Sansi "Community. The only document is an application allegedly preferred by thepetitioner in the year 1972, wherein petitioner's father described himselfbelonging to " Sansi " Community. Neither in the revenue record norin the educational qualification certificates it is mentioned that the petitioner belongs to " Sansi "Community. The only document is an application allegedly preferred by thepetitioner in the year 1972, wherein petitioner's father described himselfbelonging to " Sansi " Community. The learnedCounsel submits that this document is also incorrect and not-genuine document,lie then relied on an application for obtaining ration card preferred by thepetitioner wherein he described himself as Sikh and general category person.There is a declaration in the bottom of this application wherein the petitionerverified the correctness of the information given by him in the saidapplication for obtaining ration card. The learned Counsel submits that afterverifying the correctness of this information, the petition is estopped and cannot take "U" turn only for thepurposes of showing himself lobe a reserved category candidate to contest theelection. The learned Counsel then relied on certain in formations obtained byhim under the RT1 Act to show that the petitioner's father came to Markimahu on 10-8-1950 .He further relied on various Supreme Court judgments on the subject. 12. Shri Mishra , learned Counsel submits that the petitioner was noticedand he participated in the proceedings before the Committee. The petitionernever raised any objection regarding constitution of the Committee or regardingany violation of principles of natural justice. Shri Mishra further submits that no objection was taken by thepetitioner during the proceedings before the Committee regarding jurisdictionof the Committee despite availability of two Vigilance Officers report in favour of the petitioner. In nut-shell, Shri Mishra submits that the petitioner submitted to thejurisdiction of the Committee and now cannot take "U" turn andchallenge the jurisdiction or correctness of the order. 13.Mr. Mishra , learned Counsel submits that the scope of judicial review in these mattersunder Article 226 of the Constitution is limited. This Court is not sitting asan Appellate Court. He further submits that on the basis of aforesaidjudgments, it is clear that a person, who admittedly, never availed the benefitof caste status cannot be permitted to say on one finemorning that he belongs to reserved community. 14.In rejoinder submissions, the learned Senior Counsel submits that I. A. No.1680/12 is tiled by the petitioner by placing reliance on the document(Annexure P-4). 14.In rejoinder submissions, the learned Senior Counsel submits that I. A. No.1680/12 is tiled by the petitioner by placing reliance on the document(Annexure P-4). which is written by respondent No. 3to the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Revenue Officer, Adimjati Anusandhan Sanstha .Respondent No. 3 desired certain in formations including the informationwhether the earlier documents were actually issued by Tehsildar , Amritsar on the strength of which Caste Certificate was issued. In turn, the said authority,by communication (Annexure P-41), dated -15-2-2012 informed that thesedocuments were actually issued by the then Tehsildar . Amritsar Shri Rajinder Singh. It is also stated that said report was issued by Shri Rajinder Singh on the basisof report obtained by field staff of his department. 15.The learned Senior Counsel further submits that respondent No. 3 is complainantand he had never chosen to appear before the Committee to put forth his caseand for the first time he has submitted certain new documents before thisCourt. He submits that those new documents, which were not on record before theCommittee cannot be looked into by this Court in a proceeding of (his naturewhen judicial review is almost on the basis of Wednesbury Principles and this Court is not acting as an Enquiry Officer or AppellateAuthority. The learned Senior Counsel by placing reliance on Annexures P-28 and P-29 submits that respondent No. 3desired those documents including the 1972 application preferred by petitioner'sfather for obtaining Patta by showing himself to be aperson of " Sansi " Community. By placingreliance on Annexures P-28 and P-29, it is statedthat the documents were supplied to the petitioner and therefore, it cannot besaid that these are doctored documents. No other point is argued by theparties. 16.I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival contentions of theparties and perused the record. 17.The questions need to be decided are as under : - ( i ) Whether constitution of Committee was proper? (ii)Whether Committee's decision in proceeding with the Caste Verification despite favourable vigilance reports is justified? (iii)Whether the decision/order passed by the Committee is legal and justified ? 18.First two questions are related with decision-making process whereas the thirdquestion aforesaid deals with the validity of the decision itself. 19.Question No. ( i ) -Constitution of the Committee :- By circular dated 8-9-1997 (Annexure P-17) a four member Committee wasconstituted for Caste Verification. (iii)Whether the decision/order passed by the Committee is legal and justified ? 18.First two questions are related with decision-making process whereas the thirdquestion aforesaid deals with the validity of the decision itself. 19.Question No. ( i ) -Constitution of the Committee :- By circular dated 8-9-1997 (Annexure P-17) a four member Committee wasconstituted for Caste Verification. The only objection of the petitioner iswith regard to non-representation of a member having expertised in the subject of SC, who is nominated by the Chairman. The Government by placingreliance on a circular dated 4 11-1999 stated that Director, Tribal ResearchInstitute was appointed as member and that officer is expert in the field ofSC. Learned Senior Counsel although stated that the said Director might be anexpert of the subject related to ST because he is appointed in a researchinstitute, which is confined for ST and. therefore, he cannot be treated to bea person having expertise regarding SC community. In the considered opinion ofthis Court, merely because the said Director is the head of a ST ResearchInstitute would not mean that he does not have expertise in the field of SCunless proved otherwise. The decision of Government in appointing him bycommunication dated 4-11-1999 was not called in question. No material was produced to show that the saidDirector was not competent to become a member. Therefore, I am unable to holdthat constitution of Committee was defective. The burden was on the petitionerto prove that either nomination of the Director, ST Research Institute is notin accordance with law or the said officer is not having requisite expertise inthe field of SC. In absence of any specific pleading and material in thisregard and more particularly when the decision dated 4-11-1999 was not challenged, no fault can befound in the constitution of the Committee. The petitioner also participated inthe proceeding without any objection in this regard and submitted to thejurisdiction of the said Committee. Thus, this question is decided against thepetitioner. 20.Question No. (ii) - Effect of vigilance reports in favour of the petitioner : - Itis not in dispute that there are two reports by the Vigilance Officer in favour of the petitioner. In the first report dated 16-7-2009 the Vigilance Officer afterconsidering the material before him opined that the petitioner belongs to Sansi (SC) Community. 20.Question No. (ii) - Effect of vigilance reports in favour of the petitioner : - Itis not in dispute that there are two reports by the Vigilance Officer in favour of the petitioner. In the first report dated 16-7-2009 the Vigilance Officer afterconsidering the material before him opined that the petitioner belongs to Sansi (SC) Community. A perusal of this report shows thathe had examined following material: - ( i ) All documents relating to issuance of Caste Certificatein favour of the petitioner; (ii)Information obtained from the petitioner in prescribed proforma ; (iii)Statements of villagers of Village Bandala ( Amritsar -Punjab) recorded through an officer of StateGovernment; (iv) Copy of admission register of Class 1 of petitioner; (v)Statements of petitioner, his father, Gajadhar Prasad Agarwal , Harveer Singh Santokh Singh and complainant Sangita Mohan Kajak ; and (vi) Statements of villagers of Village Handala obtained by Sub-Inspector Dinesh Sharma. 21.The case of petitioner is that his family basically hails from Village Pindi , Bhawaldeen , DistrictGujarat ( Pakistan )and in 1947, they migrated to Village Handala (District Amritsar ) andstayed there for four years. Thereafter, in 1948, the petitioner's fatherswitched over to Village Markimahu (District Guna ). Admittedly, the petitioner's father and petitionernever showed that their caste is Sansi (SC). Neitherin the revenue record nor in educational record of the petitioner's father orpetitioner, there is any mention that they belong to Sansi (SC). The petitioner has fairly admitted that in 1972, his father preferred anapplication wherein his caste is mentioned as "Punjabi - Sansi ". Except this document (Annexure P-12),admittedly there is no document, which reflects the caste of the petitioner orhis father as Sansi (SC). Annexure P-12 is also anapplication for grant of permanent ' patta ' and waspreferred to the Tehsildar , wherein petitioner'sfather described his caste as 'Punjabi Sansi '.However, in this document also, there is no mention that Sansi belongs to SC Community. The aforesaid vigilance report is followed by yetanother vigilance report of Superintendent of Police (SP), dated 16-11-2009 (Annexure P-20). The saidofficer also relied on almost same material on which the SIX) (Police) reliedwhile issuing Annexure P-18. This officer also gave a finding that in theschool admission register the petitioner's caste is shown as 'Punjabi' and inAPL/BPL list his caste is shown as 'General'. In the ration card, petitioner'scaste is mentioned as "Sikh" whereas in school transfer certificatehis caste is mentioned as 'Hindu'. This officer also gave a finding that in theschool admission register the petitioner's caste is shown as 'Punjabi' and inAPL/BPL list his caste is shown as 'General'. In the ration card, petitioner'scaste is mentioned as "Sikh" whereas in school transfer certificatehis caste is mentioned as 'Hindu'. Both the authorities have relied on thepetitioner's stand that he did not mention his actual caste so that he does notface the insult being a " Dalit ". However,it is mentioned that on the basis of statements of villagers of Village Bandala and on the basis of documentary evidence, the S.P.stated that it appears that the petitioner belongs to SC Community. On thebasis of these reports coupled with GAD circular, it is staled that once reportis in favour of the petitioner, the Committee erredin proceeding further. 22.The Apex Court in Kumari Madlntri Patil's case (supra), in Para 13 (5) held as under : - "13 (5). Each Directorate should constitute a vigilancecell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in over-all chargeand such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social statusclaims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and originalplace from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in ease ofmigration 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 thesocial status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the casemay be. He should also examine the school records, birth registration, if any.lie should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation totheir caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social statusof the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together with allparticulars as envisaged in the pro forma, in particular, of the ScheduledTribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits,deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burialof dead bodies etc. by the castes or tribes or tribal communities concernedetc." Abare perusal of this para shows that it is madeobligatory for the Vigilance Officer to conduct the enquiry in a particularmanner. by the castes or tribes or tribal communities concernedetc." Abare perusal of this para shows that it is madeobligatory for the Vigilance Officer to conduct the enquiry in a particularmanner. The said officer is required to enquire in this manner: - ( i ) Inspector would go to local place of residence of theclaimant; (ii)He shall visit the original place; (iii)The Inspector will visit the town from which the claimant originally hailsfrom; (iv) He shall personally verify the school record, birthregister; (v)He will examine the parents/guardians and such other persons from whominformation can be gathered; (vi)The said officer shall in particular examine the trade, deity, ritual, custom , mode of marriage, death ceremonies and method ofburial of claimant's community. Thisis the method prescribed in Kumari Matlhuri Patil's case (supra),with a view to trace the anthropological and ethnological history of theclaimant. In Para 13 (7) the Apex Court held as under : - "13(7) In case the report is in favour of the candidateand found to be genuine and true, no further action need he taken except wherethe report or the particulars given are procured or (bund to he false orfraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as isenvisaged in Para 6 be followed." InPara 13 (7) aforesaid, it has been held that in case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be "genuine"and "true", no further action need be taken except where the reportsof the members given are procured and found to be fraudulently obtained. Theconjoint reading of paras 13 (5) and 13 (7) wouldshow that the authority is required to conduct an enquiry as per the method andmanner prescribed in aforesaid para and collectevidence in the same manner. The report should be prepared on the basis ofaforesaid material. The Caste Verification Committee is required to apply itsmind on the genuineness and correctness of the report. A microscopic reading ofPara 13 (7) of the judgment would show that when the report is found to begenuine and true then only no further action need be taken by the Committee.However, while examining "genuineness" or "trueness" of thesaid report, needless to mention that the Committee is to be guided by Para 13 (5) of the said judgment. A microscopic reading ofPara 13 (7) of the judgment would show that when the report is found to begenuine and true then only no further action need be taken by the Committee.However, while examining "genuineness" or "trueness" of thesaid report, needless to mention that the Committee is to be guided by Para 13 (5) of the said judgment. In other words, it is obligatory on the part ofthe SP to conduct an enquiry in a manner prescribed in Para 5 of the judgment in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). Thus, the basic question is whetherthe aforesaid reports of Vigilance Officer were prepared in consonance with Para 13 (5) and whether the Committee has erred in proceeding further despite favourable reports. TheCommittee in its proceeding dated 23-9-2009 considered the report of the Vigilance Officer. The Committee opined that thereport in favour of petitioner is wholly based on thebasis of oral statements of the persons. There is no documentary evidence whichshows that petitioner's caste is Sansi (SC). Inschool admission register, in APL/BPL list and in ration card the petitioner'scaste is not mentioned us Sunsi (SC). Rather, it ismentioned as "General". "Sikh" or"Hindu". On the basis of these documentary evidence, the Committee did not agree with the report. Inproceeding dated 23-2-2011 ,the Committee did not agree with another report, which is almost of the samenature. A perusal of the report shows that no efforts were made by theconcerned officer to trace the rituals, custom, trade, deity ,mode of marriage, death ceremonies and method of burial. In Kumari Madhuri Patil's case(supra), the Apex Court hasplaced heavy reliance on this aspect so that the actual person can get thebenefit of reservation. 23.This Court, in its recent judgment in Gokul Prasad Vs . State Level Committee and another, 2012 (1) MPLJ 359 ,opined that where report of Vigilance Officer is not prepared in consonancewith Para 13 (5) aforesaid, it is open for the Committeeto proceed further and enquire about the caste status of the candidate. Sincethe reports do not fulfill the requirement of Para 13 (5) in toto and has placed much reliance on oralstatements-despite availability of petitioner's own declaration and old schoolrecords etc., the Committee decided to proceed further. Sincethe reports do not fulfill the requirement of Para 13 (5) in toto and has placed much reliance on oralstatements-despite availability of petitioner's own declaration and old schoolrecords etc., the Committee decided to proceed further. In the consideredopinion of this Court, there is no error in this decision of the Committee.Since the reports do not fulfill the requirement of Para 13 (5), the reports can he said to he binding on the Committee as per Para 13 (7) of the judgment and it was open for the Committee to proceed further.Thus, this question is also decided against the petitioner. 24.Question No. (iii) - Whether the order (Annexure P-1) is legal and justified ? Inthe present case, when petitioner was noticed by the Committee, he submittedhis written statement dated 10-8-2011 .In the said statement, he took following stand : - xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Aminute scrutiny of this written statement of the petitioner shows thatadmittedly after migrating to Guna in 1948 thepetitioner or his father never claimed or informed that they belong to Sansi (SC) Community. They used to show that they are"Sikh" or "Punjabi". They used to tell that their surnameis " Saluja ", which does not show any caste.The only reliance is on 1972 application for grant of permanent " patta " aforesaid, wherein inwriting petitioner's father mentioned his caste as "Punjabi Sansi ". Beforeboth the Vigilance Officer and the Caste Verification Committee the schoolrecord, API7BPL record, application for grant of Caste Certificate by thepetitioner and ration card were placed. Petitioner's relevant school record of Class-1 were also placed before the VigilanceOfficer and the Caste Verification Committee. Thus, the contention of learnedSenior Counsel that these documents were produced for the first time by therespondent No. 3 before this Court is without any basis and is hereby rejected.On the basis of peculiar fact situation of this case the following positionemerges - in all documentary records', the petitioner or his lather's caste ismentioned either as "Hindu", "Punjabi" or "Sikh"except in one application in 1972, wherein he disclosed himself as"Punjabi Sansi ". The Vigilance Officerheavily relied on the oral statements of the villagers of Bandala Village ,on the strength of which Amritsar Tehsildar opined that petitioner belongs to " Sansi "Community. Admittedly, in Bandala Village also, no documentaryevidence in favour he petitioner was found. The Vigilance Officerheavily relied on the oral statements of the villagers of Bandala Village ,on the strength of which Amritsar Tehsildar opined that petitioner belongs to " Sansi "Community. Admittedly, in Bandala Village also, no documentaryevidence in favour he petitioner was found. At thecost of repetition, it is relevant to mention that ethnological andanthropological history was not traced by the Vigilance Officer or Amritsar Tehsildar to determinethe real caste of the petitioner. Thus, the whole benefit is conferred on thebasis of oral statements of certain villagers of Village Bandala and Markimahu . These statements were recorded aftersubmission of application for grant of Caste Certificate by the petitioner.Thus, these are recent oral statements whereas School Leaving Certificate ofClass-1 of the petitioner is a document of more than 30 years old and itsgenuineness is not questioned by the petitioner. 25.This is settled in law that old documents obtained from the institution have agreat probative and evidentiary value. In Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra), the Apex Court held as under : - "Theentries in the school register preceding the Constitution do furnish greatprobative value to the declaration of the status of a caste. Hierarchical castestratification of Hindu social order has its reflection in all entries in thepublic records. What would, therefore, depict the caste status of the peopleinclusive of the school or college records, as the then census rules insisted upon. Therefore,it is no wonder that caste is reflected in relevant entries in the public recordsor school or college admission register at the relevant time and thecertificates are issued on its basis. The father of the appellants admittedlydescribed himself in 1943 and thereafter as a Hindu Koli .In other words his status was declared a Koli bycaste and Hindu by religion. Kolis are admittedly OBCs . His feigned ignorance of the ancestry is too hard tobelieve. The averment in the affidavit that the entries were mistakenly made asHindu Koli is an obvious afterthought.'' (Emphasissupplied) Inthe same judgment, it is held that the Caste Certificate issued by the Samaj is a self-servicing document and is always subject toscrutiny. The same cannot be held to be the exclusive proof to determine thecaste status. It is further held that the minute details and material arerequired to be gone into because the tricks are common where the person startsasserting himself as SC or ST with a view to earn the concession and facilitiesreserved for SC/ST. The same cannot be held to be the exclusive proof to determine thecaste status. It is further held that the minute details and material arerequired to be gone into because the tricks are common where the person startsasserting himself as SC or ST with a view to earn the concession and facilitiesreserved for SC/ST. Thus, it is emphasized that the scrutiny should be on legaland ethnological basis. Spurious persons have become a threat to the genuinepersons of the particular caste and benefit of genuine claimants is snatchedaway by spurious persons. 26.In R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs . State of Kerala and others, (2004) 2 SCC 105 , the Apex Court considered the school record of the petitioner and found it to be of greatevidentiary value. In the said case, school record of the then petitioner R. Vishwanatha Pillai reflects thathe belongs to a forward caste but he obtained community certificate from Tehsildar wherein for the first time he showed himself tohe a SC. 27.In Lillykutty Vs . ScrutinyCommittee, SC & ST. (2005) 8 SCC 283 . in Para 6 the Apex Court has held as under :- "(6)The appellant was, therefore, a horn Christian. It further found that the casteentries of the appellant showing her to be Hindu Pulayan Scheduled Caste have been obtained fraudulently by misrepresenting facts with aview to corner benefits as a member of a Scheduled Caste. The appellant,however, was a Christian. The appellant's children were also participatingactively in Baptist Church , Thannithode . The Committee found that though theappellant professed Christian religion and never followed Hinduism nor lived inHindu culture, she declared herself to be Pulayan Hindu and styled herself as a member of the Scheduled Caste falsely." 28. In Hank of India Vs. Avinash D. Mandivikar . (2005) 7 SCC 690 . the Apex Court held that if the Caste Certificate isobtained by a fraud or misrepresentation, same cannot be allowed to stand. The Apex Court dealt with various judgments relating tofraud which reads as under : - "ThisCourt in Bhanruo Dagdu Paralkar Vs . State of Maharashtra , (2005) 7 SCC 605 , dealt with the effect offraud. It was held as follows in the said judgment: (SCC pp. 613-14, Paras 12-16) "12[14]....... The Apex Court dealt with various judgments relating tofraud which reads as under : - "ThisCourt in Bhanruo Dagdu Paralkar Vs . State of Maharashtra , (2005) 7 SCC 605 , dealt with the effect offraud. It was held as follows in the said judgment: (SCC pp. 613-14, Paras 12-16) "12[14]....... 'Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation hasbeen made ( i ) knowingly, or (ii) without belief inits truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false.' 13 [15]. This aspect of the matter has been considered bythis Court in Roshan Deen Vs. Preeti Lal , (2002) 1SCC 110, Ram Preeti Yadav Vs. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, (2003) 8 SCC 311 , RamChandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi . (2003) 8 SCC 319 and Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs . State of T.N. , (2004) 3 SCC 1 . 14 [16]. Suppression of a material document would alsoamount to a fraud on the Court. [See Gowrishankar Vs . Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust, (1996) 3 SCC 310 and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath , (1994)1 SCC 1 ]. 15 [17]. 'Fraud' is a conduct either by letter or words,which induces the other person or authority to take a definite determinativestand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter.Although negligence is not fraud but it can be evidence on fraud; as observedin Ram Preeti Yadav case 16 [18]. In Lazrus Estates Ltd.Vs. Beasley, (1956) 1 QB 702, Lord Denning observed at QB pp. 712 and 713 : (All ER p. 345-C) 'Nojudgment of a Court, no order of a minister, can be allowed to stand if it hasbeen obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything.' In the same judgment Lord Parker, LJ. observed that fraud vitiates all transactions known to the law of however high a degreeof solemnity, (p. 722) [19]. These aspects were recently highlighted in State of A.P. Vs. I. Suryachandra Rao , (2005) 6 SCC 149 ." 29.In State of Maharashtra Vs. Sanjay K. Nimje , (2007) 14 SCC 481 , the Apex Court held as under in Para 19 : - "19.From the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee itself, it is evident that thelather of the respondent was shown in the primary school register as belongingto " Koshti " caste. They were not members ofa Scheduled Tribe. Sanjay K. Nimje , (2007) 14 SCC 481 , the Apex Court held as under in Para 19 : - "19.From the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee itself, it is evident that thelather of the respondent was shown in the primary school register as belongingto " Koshti " caste. They were not members ofa Scheduled Tribe. They were not even " Koshti-Halbas ".It may be true that an authoritative pronouncement in this behalf came for thefirst time in State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind , (2001) 1 SCC 4 ,but it is not a case where the respondent pleaded and proved bona fide." 30.In Geeta Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 10 SCC1590, the Apex Court held asunder in Paras 18 and 21 : - "(18)We may notice that both her father and the appellant are well educated. Theappellant's father was said to have been born on 1-1-1947 . No birth certificate was produced. No documentswhatsoever were produced prior to 3-11-1977 to prove that they belong to Majhi Tribe, which isScheduled Tribe. (21)Even in the midst of hearing of this appeal, we granted more time to theappellant, to produce any document, which will establish her tribe as Majhi , which is a Scheduled Tribe, prior to 3-11-1977 , but she utterly failed.This would clearly show that the tribe certificate showing the appellant as Majhi Tribe obtained on 29-8-1986 on the basis of tribe certificate of her fatherobtained on 3-11-1977 iswithout any documentary proof and is a manufactured document." 31.In Desk Raj Vs. Bodh Raj , (2008) 2 SCC 186 , the Apex Court held as under inParagraphs 25, 30, 38 and 39 : - "25.Section 35 of the Evidence Act provides that an entry in any public or otherofficial book or register or record, stating a fact in issue or relevant factand made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty or by anyother person in performance of a duly specifically enjoined by law of thecountry in which such book or register is kept, is itself a relevant fact.Having regard to the provisions of Section 35, entries in school admissionregisters in regard to age, caste, etc. have always been -considered asrelevant and admissible. [ See : Umesh Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan , (1982) 2 SCC 202 and State of Punjab Vs. Mohinder Singh, (2005) 3 SCC 702 ]. In Madhuri Patil Vs .Addl. Commr . have always been -considered asrelevant and admissible. [ See : Umesh Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan , (1982) 2 SCC 202 and State of Punjab Vs. Mohinder Singh, (2005) 3 SCC 702 ]. In Madhuri Patil Vs .Addl. Commr . Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 24 1this Court observed that caste is reflected in relevant entries in the publicrecords or school or college admission register at the relevant time andcertificates are issued on its basis. 30.We are of the view that the High Court committed an error in ignoring theentries in the admission and withdrawal registers of Government Primary andMiddle Schools, Mohtli ( Exh .P. W. 2-A and Exh . P. W. 3-B). 38 ....... However,' even if we exclude the entire oralevidence, the documentary evidence produced by the appellant, to which we haveadverted to above, clearly demonstrates that the respondent's father and hisfamily members including the respondent had always held out to be and acceptedas persons belonging to Tarkhan caste, It was onlyafter 1990, that the respondent tried to show that he belonged to Lohar caste. 39.The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that in view of Exhs . P.W. 4-D and R.W. 5-A, he should be considered ushaving established that he belongs to Lohar caste. Exh . P.W.4-D is the Pariwar Register extract for the year 1990onwards. The same no doubt shows the caste of the respondent as Lohar . But, when Exh . P.W. 4-D is read in conjunction with P.W. 4-A, P.W. 4-B and P.W. 4-C, which arethe Pariwar Register extracts relating to theprevious years (1976, 1977 and 1982-1989) where his caste was shown as Tarkhan and later altered as " Lohar ",the entry in Exh . P. W. 4-D becomes a self-servingstatement. (Emphasis supplied) 32.The aforesaid judgments would show that the old documentary evidence will havemore probative and evidence value in comparison to oral statements obtained ata later point of time. The petitioner's Class-1 admission register has a greatprobative value. The petitioner's father preferred an application for obtainingration card in which he disclosed himself as "General Category"person and gave following declaration : - xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 33.In the light of aforesaid judgments, it is also clear that only application of1972 (Annexure P-12) is at best a self-serving statement and cannot he relied upon. Thus, consistently the petitioner and hisfather showed themselves as "Hindu". "Sikh"or "General Category" person. Thus, consistently the petitioner and hisfather showed themselves as "Hindu". "Sikh"or "General Category" person. It is only when they decided toobtain a SC certificate, they came out with a case that they belong to Sansi community. Admittedly, deprivation, disadvantages,difficulties and discrimination faced by a SC community person were not facedby them because they never disclosed that they belong to said community. Thebasic purpose to provide reservation is to provide a helping hand andprotection to the person who has actually faced disadvantage, difficulties,deprivation and discrimination in the society being a reserve category person.The petitioner felt ashamed even to disclose his caste as " Dalit " as per his own admission in the reply beforethe Committee. Before preferring the application for obtaining SC certificate,the petitioner never showed his caste as " Sansi ".I low ever after obtaining certificate he contested the election as a reservecategory candidate and won it and became a member of Legislative Assembly. 34.In Anjan Kumar Vs. Union of India, (2006) 3 SCC 257 = 2006(2) M.P.H.T. 1 (SC), the Apex Court by relying the judgment of Valsamma Paul Vs. Cochin University, (1996) 3 SCC 545 , heldas under in Para 14 : - "14.In view of the catena of decisions of this Court, the questions raised beforeus are no more rex Integra. The condition precedentfor granting tribe certificate being that one must suffer disabilitieswherefrom one belongs." 35.On the basis of aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the considered opinionthat no fault can be found in the decision of Committee (Annexure P-1). TheCommittee passed its order on the basis of documentary evidence wherein thepetitioner and his father himself disclosed his caste as "Hindu","Sikh" or "Punjabi" and even gave a declaration to thateffect with open eyes. The petitioner's school leaving/admission documents ofClass- 1 are more than 30 years old. As per Section 90 of the Evidence Act alsothis document has great evidentiary value. The Committee has relied on these documentary evidence and on the basis of thesedocuments found that the certificate was erroneously issued in favour of the petitioner. 36.Thus, I do not find any infirmity in either decision-making process or decisionof the Committee. The petitioner could not establish any prejudice of anynature in procedural part of the enquiry conducted by the Committee. Since thisCourt came to the conclusion that the Committee was duly formed/constituted,the judgments relied upon by learned Senior Counsel regarding defectiveconstitution of the Committee have no effect. The petitioner could not establish any prejudice of anynature in procedural part of the enquiry conducted by the Committee. Since thisCourt came to the conclusion that the Committee was duly formed/constituted,the judgments relied upon by learned Senior Counsel regarding defectiveconstitution of the Committee have no effect. The judgment of Madhavi Khambra (supra), cite bylearned Senior Counsel has no application because in the said case vigilancereport was against the claimant which was not supplied to the petitioner in thesaid case and thereby caused prejudice to him. In the present case, reports arein favour of the petitioner. Thus, said judgment hasno application. 37.The judgments cited by learned Senior Counsel on the legal principle that ifsomething is prescribed in law, it has to be followed in the same manner andother methods are forbidden also has no application because, as analyzed above,the decision-making process is in consonance with the law laid down in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra). 38.Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The order passed bythe Committee (Annexure P-1) is affirmed. Partiesshall bear their own costs.