Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1831 (BOM)

Prakash v. Deputy Collector (General), Latur

2014-08-14

R.M.BORDE, V.L.ACHLIYA

body2014
JUDGMENT R.M. Borde, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. All the petitioners, in these petitions, claim to belong to 'Koli Mahadev', a Scheduled Tribe. The petitioners were issued certificates by the competent authority certifying that they belong to 'Mahadev Koli', Scheduled Tribe. All the petitioners are either in employment, secured as against the posts earmarked for Scheduled Tribe category, or the students admitted to various educational Institutions as against seats earmarked for Scheduled Tribe category. The certificates issued to respective petitioners were referred for verification to concerned Scrutiny Committees. The Scrutiny Committees, in separate judgments delivered in all the matters, reached the conclusion that tribe 'Mahadev Koli' does not find place at Sr. No. 29 in the Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950 as well as in (Amendment) Act, 1976. Entry No. 29 recorded in the Presidential Order describes 'Koli Mahadev', 'Dongar Koli' as Scheduled Tribes. All the petitioners are recipients of the certificates certifying that they belong to Mahadev Koli', Scheduled Tribe. Relying upon the decision in the matter of State of Maharashtra v. Milind and others, reported in 2001 (1) Mh.LJ. (S.C.) 1 : (2001) 1 SCC 4 , State of Maharashtra v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsingh Parmar and others, reported in 2007 (2) Mh.LJ. (S.C.) 250 : 2007(1) BCR 102, Palghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya Samrakshna Samithi v. State of Kerala, reported in (1994) 1 SCC 359 , the Scrutiny Committee came to the conclusion that since the certificates issued in favour of respective petitioners are not in conformity with Entry No. 29 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950 and (Amendment) Act of 1976, such certificates cannot be validated. The Scrutiny Committee, as such, directed invalidation and confiscation of the caste/tribe certificates. The Scrutiny Committee, at the same time, granted liberty to the petitioners to secure proper certificates from the competent authority and submit the same for verification to the Scrutiny Committee along with fresh proposals. 2. Heard learned Counsel for respective parties. 3. It is urged by the petitioners that there is no separate caste or tribe in existence as 'Mahadev Koli' or 'Koli Mahadev' and both the nomenclatures relate to only one tribe i.e. 'Koli Mahadev'. 2. Heard learned Counsel for respective parties. 3. It is urged by the petitioners that there is no separate caste or tribe in existence as 'Mahadev Koli' or 'Koli Mahadev' and both the nomenclatures relate to only one tribe i.e. 'Koli Mahadev'. It is contended that although certificates are issued by the competent authorities that the petitioners belong to 'Mahadev Koli', Scheduled Tribe, those are required to be read as 'Koli Mahadev', Scheduled Tribe in conformity with Entry No. 29 of the Scheduled Tribes' Order, 1950. It is contended that for years together, certificates have been issued to the tribal community as belonging to 'Mahadev Koli' and such tribe certificates have also been validated and validation orders have been confirmed by the Supreme Court and the High Court. It is contended that even in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 , reference was made to tribe 'Mahadev Koli'. It is, thus, contended that there can be no dispute that 'Koli Mahadev' and 'Mahadev Koli' are one and the same and have been treated as one and the same even by the Scrutiny Committees or the High Courts and the Supreme Court. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for respective Scrutiny Committees have supported the judgment and orders passed by the Scrutiny Committees and contended that the orders are in adherence to the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra v. Milind and others (supra). 5. There is a little doubt that 'Koli Mahadev' are referred as 'Mahadev Koli' and for years together certificates were issued by the competent authorities in favour of persons belonging to the tribal community certifying their tribe as 'Mahadev Koli' and that such certificates have been validated by the Scrutiny Committees without raising an issue. 6. It is also not a matter of dispute that in number of matters, validation orders in favour of number of tribal persons certifying that they belong to 'Mahadev Koli', Scheduled tribe have been confirmed by the High Courts and the Supreme Court. 6. It is also not a matter of dispute that in number of matters, validation orders in favour of number of tribal persons certifying that they belong to 'Mahadev Koli', Scheduled tribe have been confirmed by the High Courts and the Supreme Court. Even if there is no doubt that there does not exist any separate tribe as 'Mahadev Koli', still, technically, since Entry recorded in the Presidential Order reads "Koli Mahadev", following the dictum of the Supreme Court, no authority or the Court has any entitlement to read the Entry in a different manner. 7. It would be appropriate to refer to some of the judgments of the Supreme Court. In the matter of Nityanand Sharma v. State of Bihar, reported in 1996 (3) SCC 576 , the question arose before the Supreme Court was, as regards power to declare a particular tribe to be Scheduled Tribe under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950, as amended by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) Act, 1976. The question before the Supreme Court was, as to whether caste 'Lohara' recorded in the Hindi version of the Schedule for Bihar, recording the Entry as 'Lohar' can be accepted as referring to a Scheduled Tribe when the English version records the entry as 'Lohara'. The Supreme Court, dealing with the issue and answering the same in negative, has observed in paragraph No. 15 of the judgment, thus: "15. It is for Parliament to amend the law and the Schedule and include in and exclude from the Schedule, a tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community for the State, District or region and its declaration is conclusive. The Court has no power to declare synonyms as equivalent to the Tribes specified in the Order or include in or substitute any caste/tribe etc. It would thus be clear that for the purpose of the Constitution, "Scheduled Tribes" defined under Article 366 (25 as substituted (sic) under the Act, and the Second Schedule thereunder are conclusive. The Court has no power to declare synonyms as equivalent to the Tribes specified in the Order or include in or substitute any caste/tribe etc. It would thus be clear that for the purpose of the Constitution, "Scheduled Tribes" defined under Article 366 (25 as substituted (sic) under the Act, and the Second Schedule thereunder are conclusive. Though evidence may be admissible to a limited extent or finding out whether the community which claims the status as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, was, in fact, included in the Schedule concerned, the Court is devoid of power to include in or exclude from or substitute or declare synonyms to be of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or parts thereof or group of such caste or tribe." 8. In Palghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya Samrakshna Samithi v. State of Kerala, reported in 1994 (1) SCC 359 , the question, that arose for consideration before the Supreme Court, was as to whether the persons named or called Thandans in Malabar area were intended to be covered by 1976 Order. The Supreme Court, dealing with the issue, has observed in the aforesaid judgment that: "...It is not for the State Government or for this Court to enquire into the correctness of what is stated in the report that has been made thereon or to utilise the report to, in effect, modify the Scheduled Castes Order. It is open to the State Government, if it so deems proper, to forward the report to the Appropriate Authority to consider whether the Scheduled Castes Order needs amendment by appropriate legislation. Until the Scheduled Castes Order is amended, it must be obeyed as it reads and the State Government must treat Thandans throughout Kerala as members of the Scheduled Castes and issue community certificates accordingly." 9. Similarly, in the matter of State of Maharashtra v. Milind and others, reported in (2007) 1 SCC 4, there were two questions taken up for consideration: "(1) Whether at all, it is permissible to hold enquiry and let in evidence to decide or declare that any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community is included in the general name even though it is not specifically mentioned in the concerned entry in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950? (2) Whether 'Halba Koshti' caste is a subtribe within the meaning of Entry 19 (Halba/Halbi) of the said Scheduled Tribes Order relating to State of Maharashtra, even though it is not specifically mentioned as such?" The Division Bench of this Court, in the matter, held that it was permissible to enquire as to whether the sub-division of a tribe was part and parcel of the tribe mentioned therein and that 'Halba-Koshti' is a sub-division of main tribe 'Halba/Halbi' as per Entry No. 19 in the Scheduled Tribes Order applicable to Maharashtra. The State Government challenged the said decision of the High Court in the Supreme Court. The Constitution Bench in Milind's matter, referring to earlier Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of B. Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinappa, reported in AIR 1965 SC 1269 and in the matter of Bhaiya Lal v. Harikishan Singh, reported in AIR 1965 SC 1557 . In paragraphs No. 16 to 19, has observed thus: "16. In (B. Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa), AIR 1965 SC 1269 : 1965 (1) S.C.R. 316 , a Constitution Bench of this Court has held thus:-- "It may be accepted that it is not open to make any modification in the order by producing evidence to show (for example) that though caste A alone is mentioned in the Order, caste B is also a part of caste A and therefore must be deemed to be included in caste A. It may also be accepted that wherever one caste has another name it has been mentioned in brackets after it in the Order [see Aray (Mala) Dakkal (Dokkhalwar) etc.] Therefore, generally speaking it would not be open to any person to lead evidence to establish that caste B (in the example quoted above) is part of caste A modified in the order. Ordinarily, therefore it would not have been open in the present case to give evidence that the Voddar caste was the same as the Bhovi caste specified in the Order for Voddar caste is not mentioned in brackets after the Bhovi caste in the order." (emphasis supplied) 17. Ordinarily, therefore it would not have been open in the present case to give evidence that the Voddar caste was the same as the Bhovi caste specified in the Order for Voddar caste is not mentioned in brackets after the Bhovi caste in the order." (emphasis supplied) 17. Thereafter looking to the peculiar circumstances of the case, the Court went on to say that: "The difficulty in the present case arises from the fact (which was not disputed before the High Court) that in the Mysore State as it was before the reorganisation of 1956 there was no caste known as Bhovi at all. The Order refers to a scheduled caste known as Bhovi in the Mysore State as it was before 1956 and therefore it must be accepted that there was some caste which the President intended to include after consultation with the Rajpramukh in the Order when the Order mentions the caste Bhovi as a scheduled caste. It cannot be accepted that the President included the caste Bhovi in the Order though there was no such caste at all in the Mysore State as it existed before 1956. But when it is not disputed that there was no caste specifically known as Bhovi in the Mysore State before 1956, the only course open to Courts to find out which caste was meant by Bhovi is to take evidence in that behalf. If there was a caste known as Bhovi as such in the Mysore State as it existed before 1956, evidence could not be given to prove that any other caste was included in the Bhovi caste. But when the undisputed fact is that there was no caste specifically known as Bhovi in the Mysore State as it existed before 1956 and one finds a caste mentioned as Bhovi in the Order, one has to determine which was the caste which was meant by that word on its inclusion in the Order. It is this peculiar circumstance therefore which necessitated the taking of evidence to determine which was the caste which was meant by the word 'Bhovi' used in the Order when no caste was specifically known as Bhovi in the Mysore State before the reorganization of 1956." 18. It is this peculiar circumstance therefore which necessitated the taking of evidence to determine which was the caste which was meant by the word 'Bhovi' used in the Order when no caste was specifically known as Bhovi in the Mysore State before the reorganization of 1956." 18. A gain a Constitution Bench of this Court in a later decision in (Bhaiya Lal v. Harikishan Singh), AIR 1965 SC 1557 : 1965(2) S.C.R. 877 , did not accept the plea of the appellant that although he was not a chamar, as such he could claim the same status by reason of the fact that he belonged to Dohar caste which is sub-caste of Chamar. Even after referring to the case of Basavallingappa (supra) it was held that an enquiry of that kind would not be permissible in the light of the provisions contained in Article 341 of the Constitution. In that case the appellant's election was challenged inter alia on the ground that he belonged to the Dohar caste which was not recognized as a Scheduled Caste for the district in question and so his declaration that he belonged to the Chamar caste which was a Scheduled Caste was improper and was illegally accepted by the Returning Officer. The Election Tribunal declared that the election was invalid. On appeal the High Court confirmed the same. This Court also dismissed the appeal pointing out that the plea that the Dohar Caste is a sub-caste of the Chamar Caste, could not be entertained in view of the Constitution Scheduled Castes Order, 1950 issued by the President under Article 341 of the Constitution. It is also stated that in order to determine whether or not a particular caste is a Scheduled Caste within the meaning of Article 341, one has to look at the public notification issued by the President in that behalf. The notification referred to Chamar, Jatav or Mochi. The Court observed that the enquiry which the Election Tribunal could hold was whether or not the appellant is a Chamar, Jatav or Mochi and held thus:-- "The plea that though the appellant is not a Chamar as such, he can claim the same status by reason of the fact that he belongs to the Dohar caste which is a sub-caste of the Chamar caste, cannot be accepted. It appears to us that an enquiry of this kind would not be permissible having regard to the provisions contained in Article 341." (emphasis supplied) 19. Referring to the case of Basavalingappa (supra) the Court explained thus: "In the case of B. Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnapa and Ors., this Court had occasion to consider a similar question. The question which arose for decision in that case was whether respondent No. 1, though Voddar by caste, belonged to the scheduled caste of Bhovi mentioned in the Order, and while holding that an enquiry into the said question was permissible, the Court has elaborately referred to the special and unusual circumstances which justified the High Court in holding that Voddar caste was the same as the Bhovi caste within the meaning of the Order, otherwise the normal rule would be: "It may be accepted that it is not open to make any modification in the Order by producing evidence to show, for example that though caste A alone is mentioned in the Order, caste B is also a part of caste A and, therefore, must be deemed to be included in caste A". That is another reason why the plea made by the appellant that the Dohar caste is a sub caste of the Chamar caste and as such must be deemed to be included in the Order, cannot be accepted." (emphasis supplied) 10. The Supreme Court has also referred to the judgments in the matter of Palghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya Samrakshna Samithi v. State of Kerala, reported in 1994 (1) SCC 359 ; and Nityanand Sharma v. State of Bihar, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 576 , and in paragraph No. 28 of the judgment, recorded affirmation of ratio of two Constitution Bench judgments and stated in clear terms that no enquiry, at all, is permissible and no evidence can be let in to find out and decide that if any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community is included within the scope and meaning of the Entry concerned in the Presidential Order when it is not so expressly or specifically included. The conclusions are recorded in paragraph 36 of the judgment by the Constitution Bench in Milind's matter, which reads thus: "36. In the light of what is stated above, the following positions emerge: 1. The conclusions are recorded in paragraph 36 of the judgment by the Constitution Bench in Milind's matter, which reads thus: "36. In the light of what is stated above, the following positions emerge: 1. It is not at all permissible to hold any enquiry or let in any evidence to decide or declare that any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community is included in the general name even though it is not specifically mentioned in the entry concerned in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. 2. The Scheduled Tribes Order must be read as it is. It is not even permissible to say that a tribe, sub-tribe, part of or group of any tribe or tribal community is synonymous to the one mentioned in the Scheduled Tribes Order if they are not so specifically mentioned in it. 3. A notification issued under Clause (1) of Article 342, specifying Scheduled Tribes, can be amended only by law to be made by the Parliament. In other words, any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe can be included or excluded from the list of Scheduled Tribes issued under Clause (1) of Article 342 only by the Parliament by law and by no other authority. 4. It is not open to the State Governments or Courts or Tribunals or any other authority to modify, amend or alter the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in the notification issued under Clause (1) of Article 342. 5. Decisions of the Division Benches of this Court in Bhaiya Ram Munda v. Anirudh Patar, 1971(1) S.C.R. 804 and Dina v. Narayan Singh, 38 E.L.R. 212, did not lay down law correctly in stating that the inquiry was permissible and the evidence was admissible within the limitations indicated for the purpose of showing what an entry in the Presidential Order was intended to be. As stated in Position (1) above no inquiry at all is permissible and no evidence can be let in, in the matter." 11. In the case of Mana Adim Jamat Mandal v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2003(3) Mh.LJ. As stated in Position (1) above no inquiry at all is permissible and no evidence can be let in, in the matter." 11. In the case of Mana Adim Jamat Mandal v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2003(3) Mh.LJ. 513 : 2004(2) Bom.C.R. 295 , the question that arose for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court was, as to whether members of the Mana community specially in Vidarbha region falls under Entry 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 and are entitled to be treated as members of the Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner before the Court sought to quash Government Resolutions dated 24-4-1985 and 19-6-1985, directing not to treat members of Mana community as belonging to Scheduled Tribe unless they establish relationship and/or affinity with Gond tribe. The Division Bench of this Court, referring to the various judgments of the Supreme Court, recorded a finding that the castes and tribes, as mentioned in Presidential Order are final and the State Government or other authorities or even Court cannot alter the same. It is only the Parliament that can alter the same by an Act. Accordingly, the Division Bench has directed to quash the notifications issued by the State of Maharashtra. 12. Similarly, in the matter of Ramakant Bajirao More v. Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nasik and others, Writ Petition No. 7162 of 2010, decided on 14th October, 2010, this Court has observed mat, it is a settled position of law that entries in the Presidential Order are required to be taken as it is and it is not permissible for any one to add, alter or amend the said entries. 13. In view of the judgments referred to above, it will have to be concluded that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950 and (Amendment) Act, 1976 must be read as it is and it is not permissible to record a finding that a tribe, sub-tribe, part of or group of any tribe or tribal community is synonymous to the one mentioned in the Scheduled Tribes Order. The view taken by the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioners need to produce caste/tribe certificate certifying that they belong to 'Koli Mahadev', Scheduled Tribe, Entry of which is recorded at Sr. The view taken by the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioners need to produce caste/tribe certificate certifying that they belong to 'Koli Mahadev', Scheduled Tribe, Entry of which is recorded at Sr. No. 29 in Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950 and then only it would be permissible for the Scrutiny Committee to verify the caste/tribe and issue validity certificates, cannot be said to be erroneous. 14. Further, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra v. Milind and others (supra), referred to above, it will have to be concluded that although the Scrutiny Committee has referred to the discrepancy appeared in recording description of the tribe in the certificates issued by the competent authorities, in past, thousands of certificates have been issued and the Scrutiny Committee has also validated such certificates referring to the tribe at Sr. No. 29, in Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950, as 'Mahadev Koli'. In the judgment of Madhuri Patil, reference to the tribe, admittedly, is as 'Mahadev Koli'. It is not a matter of dispute that in past tribe certificates have been issued referring to the tribe as 'Mahadev Koli' and those certificates have been validated by the Scrutiny Committees after observing the procedure prescribed in the matter of Madhuri Patil as well as Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Namadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act (23 of 2001). The caste certificates and tribe certificates issued in past, after observing due procedure and in case of issuance of validity certificates, after holding vigilance cell inquiry as well as on consideration of affinity test, such certificates and validity certificates shall have to be treated as having been validly issued and shall be treated valid for all practicable purposes. In this context, reference can be made to a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Raju s/o Pundlikrao Burde v. Establishment Officer (MB), Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Mumbai and another, reported in 2003(4) Mh.LJ. 780 . The question before the Division Bench was as regards authenticity and practicability of acting upon validity certificates issued after observing due procedure, prior to pronouncement of judgment in the matter of Madhuri Patil. 780 . The question before the Division Bench was as regards authenticity and practicability of acting upon validity certificates issued after observing due procedure, prior to pronouncement of judgment in the matter of Madhuri Patil. Dealing with the question, the Division Bench has observed in paragraph No. 9 of the judgment, thus: "...Having regard to the scheme of the Act and reading of section 4, sub-section (2), in the light of the said scheme, we are of the view that the said provision does not invalidate the caste certificates issued by the Competent Officer and/or an Authority, who was then competent to issue such a certificate. We do not find any deviation in the basic idea of issuance of caste certificate and their scrutiny at the hands of the caste scrutiny committee. Right since beginning the system has been that an authority after making a prima facie enquiry used to issue a caste certificate and, thereafter, the said caste certificate was sent for its verification and scrutiny to a responsible officer or authority, who was expected to make an independent enquiry and pronounce the caste status. Similar is the position which is reflected on reading of section 4, Sub-section (2). A caste certificate is to be issued by competent authority and the caste certificate so issued is valid subject to verification and grant of validity certificate by the caste scrutiny committee. What has happened by passage of time is that one authority is replaced by other and one scrutiny committee is replaced by another scrutiny committee. To hold that the caste certificate issued or the decision rendered by the authorities, who were then competent, stands invalidated, would lead to absurdity besides multiplicity of litigation. Issues once concluded cannot be allowed to be reopened, otherwise the same would lead to unrest and turmoil. State of calm and repose would be replaced by uncertainty. All the reserve category candidates who have obtained caste certificates and caste validity certificates over years, from the Competent Authorities then validly constituted, would be subjected to a de novo enquiries which could terminate in issuing conflicting and inconsistent orders." 15. A reference can be made to a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Shilpa Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2009(3) Mh.LJ. 995 , wherein there is a reference to article of Dr. A reference can be made to a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Shilpa Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2009(3) Mh.LJ. 995 , wherein there is a reference to article of Dr. Robin D. Tribhuwan on Anthropological Perspectives and more particularly to similarities between tribal and non tribals. It would be appropriate to reproduce the following table of tribal and non tribal communities. Tribal Communities Non-Tribal Communities 1. Mahadeo Koli, Tokre Koli, Malhar Koli 1. Koli (including son Koli, Suyawanshi Koli, Vaiti Koli, etc. 2. Dhanwar 2. Dhangar 3. Thakur/Thakur, Ka Thakur/Ka Thakur Ma Thakur/Ma Thakur Thakur (including Bhat, Brahmabhat, Thakur, Kshatriya Thakur, Rajput Thakur, Sindhi Thakur, Maratha Thakur, Pardeshi Thakur) 4. Gond Gowari 4. Gowari 5. Mannerwarlu Munnurwar/Mannerwar/Mannarwar 6. Halba/Halbi 6. Koshti/Halba Koshti 16. A reference is also made to the Government Resolution issued by the Tribal Development Department bearing No. CBC1684/(309)/KA/l 1 dated 24-4-1985 and annexure thereto. The annexure records details of the Scheduled Tribes and its sub-tribes and other similar tribes which are likely to take benefits available to the tribes recorded in the schedule on the basis of similarity in the nomenclature. So far as tribe 'Koli Mahadev' is concerned, it is recorded at Sr. No. 23 in the annexure and it is further recorded in the schedule, that "Mahadeo Koli" is one amongst the scheduled tribes in the State of Maharashtra mainly located in hilly areas of the State. The population figures of the said tribe, as per 1971 census was 3,39,855. It is recorded in column No. 4 that other tribes and castes such as 'Koli', Suryawanshi Koli, Sonkoli and Christian Koli are the castes likely to take benefits on the ground of similarity in the nomenclature. The tribe 'Koli Mahadev', which is recorded at Sr. No. 29 in the Schedule is referred to as "Mahadeo Koli" in the Government Resolution and annexure thereto. As has been stated earlier, it is a fact that all the while till this date, thousands of certificates have been issued in favour of persons belonging to 'Koli Mahadev' category referring to their tribe as 'Mahadev Koli' and such certificates have been validated by the respective Scrutiny Committees and orders have been issued in favour of thousands of applicants. As has been stated earlier, it is a fact that all the while till this date, thousands of certificates have been issued in favour of persons belonging to 'Koli Mahadev' category referring to their tribe as 'Mahadev Koli' and such certificates have been validated by the respective Scrutiny Committees and orders have been issued in favour of thousands of applicants. Neither the Scrutiny Committees nor the High Court, considering the matters, objected to reference of the tribe as 'Mahadev Koli' instead of 'Koli Mahadev'. As has been recorded earlier, it is an admitted position that there is no separate tribe or caste in the State of Maharashtra as 'Mahadev Koli'. 17. For the reasons recorded above, view taken by the Scrutiny Committee deserves to be upheld. However, in the facts and circumstances, we proceed to issue certain directions in addition to the directions issued by the Scrutiny Committee. "(a) The petitioners, in these petitions, may approach the concerned Scrutiny Committees for issuance of photostat copy of the caste/tribe certificate produced by them for verification, within a period of four months from today. The Scrutiny Committee, on receipt of such applications, issue attested/authenticated copy of the caste/tribe certificate produced by respective petitioners for verification to the Committee. (b) The respective petitioners, on receipt of photostat copy of the caste/tribe certificate, shall approach the concerned Sub Divisional Officer/competent authority with an application for issuance of caste/tribe certificate within a period of six weeks, thereafter. (c) In the event earlier caste certificates had been issued by the Executive Magistrates, it would be open for the petitioners to tender an application to the Sub Divisional Officer of the concerned Division and such officer shall entertain the application and shall issue caste certificate/s in the prescribed proforma on verifying attested/authenticated photostat copy of the earlier caste certificate. (d) The concerned Sub Divisional Officer/Competent Authority, on receipt of the applications by respective petitioners, together with attested/authenticated photostat copy of the caste/tribe certificate issued earlier, shall proceed to issue caste/tribe certificate in prescribed proforma certifying that respective petitioners belong to 'Koli Mahadev', Scheduled Tribe. The Sub Divisional Officers/Competent Authority shall issue certificate within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the applications. The Sub Divisional Officers/Competent Authority shall issue certificate within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the applications. (e) On receipt of Tribe certificates, respective petitioners, shall approach the concerned Scrutiny Committees with a proposal in prescribed proforma requesting the Scrutiny Committees to verify the Tribe Certificate and consider their applications for issuance of validity certificates. The respective petitioners shall approach the Scrutiny Committee within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the caste certificate from the competent authority. (f) On receipt of the proposal from respective petitioners, the Scrutiny Committee shall proceed to verify the caste/tribe certificate and take appropriate decision after following procedure prescribed under law in respect of issuance of validity certificates, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the proposal/application. (g) The Scrutiny Committee shall accept the proposals directly and shall not refuse to accept the proposals on the ground that same have not been routed through proper channel, either employer or educational institutions. (h) The respective education institutions/colleges or the employers shall not take any adverse action against any of the petitioners only on the ground of their failure to produce validity certificate and further appropriate action can be taken only subject to result of verification claim, which would be lodged before the Scrutiny Committee, in accordance with the directions issued in this judgment." 18. All the writ petitions stand disposed of in view of the directions as above. Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending Civil Applications, if any, do not survive and stand disposed of accordingly.