JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner, Dharam Singh Garasiya S/o Pratap Singh Garasiya, aged 27 years, has approached this Court by way of present writ petition, which was filed on 14.05.2012 and sought following relief/s: - “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that by an appropriate writ order or direction your lordship may kindly be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and: (i)The respondents may be directed to allow the petitioner to undergo the training programme for the post of Patwari and to appoint the petitioner on the post of Patwari with all consequential benefits w.e.f. his immediate next candidate given appointment. (ii) Petitioner may be declared selected against vacancies of TSP (ST) being ST candidate. (iii)Any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner, may kindly be granted to him.” 2. The petitioner applied for seeking appointment to the post of Patwari in the selection process in the reserved category of Scheduled Tribe (ST). For claiming the said reservation, the petitioner obtained a Caste Certificate, which was issued by the Tehsildar, Jhadol, District: Udaipur vide Annex.4 dated 18.08.2008 to the effect that he is by caste – 'Garasiya' (ST category). 3. The petitioner was selected on the post of Patwari, however, since he was not offered appointment and before appointment, an enquiry was held in relation to the said Caste Certificate at the instance of Board of Revenue vide its letter dated 05.05.2012 and upon enquiry, the same Tehsildar, Jhadol, found that the petitioner was in fact by caste Garasiya-Rajput and not belonging to ST category and, therefore, he was not entitled to claim the appointment as Patwari against the reserved category. His Roll number in the selection process was 43102633. 4. The District Collector-cum-Controller of Examination, Udaipur, accordingly, passed the order on 05.05.2012 (Annex.9) itself holding the petitioner ineligible in the said category for appointment on the post of Patwari and instead of petitioner, another person having Roll No.43101676, was selected. His Roll number in the selection process was 43102633. 4. The District Collector-cum-Controller of Examination, Udaipur, accordingly, passed the order on 05.05.2012 (Annex.9) itself holding the petitioner ineligible in the said category for appointment on the post of Patwari and instead of petitioner, another person having Roll No.43101676, was selected. The relevant Note No.4 of the order dated 05.05.2012 (Annex.9) is quoted below for ready reference: - ^^4- jksy ua- 43102633 Vh-,l-ih- ¼,l-Vh-½ oxZ dk vH;FkhZ ugh gksus ls jktLo e.My jktLFkku] vtesj ls izkIr funsZ’k Øekad % le@Hkw-v-@ijh{kk@i&226@10@ikVZ@4858 fnukad 05-05-12 dh ikyuk es jksy ua- 43102633 ds ctk; Vh-,l-ih- ¼,l-Vh-½ oxZ ds ofj;rk ds vkxs Øe ls jksy ua- 43101676 dk p;u fd;k x;kA^^ 5. After issuing notices in the present writ petition, the respondent-Revenue Department, has filed a reply to the writ petition contesting the same. 6. Mr. Sundeep Bhandawat, learned counsel for the respondents urged that on the basis of the false and forged Caste Certificate (Annex.4) dated 18.08.2008, obtained by the petitioner, the petitioner could not be offered the appointment as Patwari. He drew the attention of the Court towards the extract from the Census of India – 2011 of Rajasthan, which enumerated the list of Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes of Rajasthan and in which, the said caste of 'Garasiya' specifically found mention as excluding from that ST category 'Rajput-Garasiya'. The Item No.5 in the list of 12 Scheduled Tribes for Rajasthan in Census of India – 2011 of Rajasthan reads as under: - “5. Garasia (Excluding Rajput Garasia).” 7. He, therefore, prayed that the report (Annex.R/2) dated 'Nil' [prepared in pursuance of order dated 14.12.2011 issued by the District Collector, (Land Revenue), Udaipur] of the Tehsildar, after holding due enquiry in the matter deserves to be accepted and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Garasia (Excluding Rajput Garasia).” 7. He, therefore, prayed that the report (Annex.R/2) dated 'Nil' [prepared in pursuance of order dated 14.12.2011 issued by the District Collector, (Land Revenue), Udaipur] of the Tehsildar, after holding due enquiry in the matter deserves to be accepted and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. The report of the Tehsildar, Jhadol, District: Udaipur, (Annex.R/2) is quoted below for ready reference: - ^^Jheku ftyk dyDVj egksn; mn;iqj ds i=kad ,Q-16@5 lh ¼13½ fjV fof/k@12@1141&45 fnukad 31-05-12 ds vkns’kkuqlkj gkbZ dksVZ ds lks dk uksfVl okn@;kfpdk vihy l-,l-ch-lh-fjV la- 4983@12 Jh /kjeflag xjkfl;k cuke ljdkj o vU; dk mPp U;k;ky; tks/kiqj es nk;j gksdj izkIr gqvk ftldh tkap djus ds fy, vkj-vkbZ- o iVokjh gYdk ls fjiksVZ yh xbZ iVokjh gYdk us viuh ipkZ ekSdk xzke lkVdk iapk;r tSrkokM+k dks fnukad 14-06-12 dks igqap dj ekSds ij mifLFkr eksrchjku }kjk tkghj fd;k fd xzke lkVdk es lHkh jktiwr ifjokj ds gksdj budh xkS= fllksfn;k gS vU; fdlh Hkh tkfr dk dksbZ Hkh ifjokj fuokl ugh djrk gSA jktLo jsdMZ vuqlkj i{kdkj ds firk ds uke xzke lkVdk ds [kkrk uEcj 37 ij izrkiflag firk xqykc flag jktiwr ntZ jsdMZ gSA xzke tsrkokM+k es tekcUnh lEor 2065 ls 2068 dh [kkr la[;k 60 ij /kjeflag firk izrkiflag xjkfl;k lkfdu lkVdk ntZ jsdMZ gS tks fd /kjeflag }kjk foØ; yh xbZ Hkwfe gSA ftles rk;hn es tekcanh dh udy lkFk layXu gS] budh rk;hn es ljiap Jh lksguyky xzke iapkr tSrkokM+k ds eksrcjksa }kjk Hkh rLnhd nh xbZ iwoZ es Jheku ftyk dyDVj ¼Hkw-v-½ mn;iqj ds ia=kd ,Q&9@1ch@14@¼8½LFkk@Hkw-v-@i-lh- e-@11 fnuakd 14-12-11 tkfr izek.k&i= dh tkap gsrq i= es fHktok;k x;k ftles izkFkhZ us jktLo e.M+y jktLFkku vtesj }kjk vk;ksftr iVokj ijh{kk 2011 lh/kh HkrhZ es izfrHkkxh jgk gSA Jh /kjeflag ds vkosnu dh tkfr ds ckjs es iVokjh gYdk vksMk ls tkap djkbZ xbZ rks iVokjh gYdk }kjk rS;kj ekSdk ipkZ ds vuqlkj eksrfcjku }kjk jktiwr xjklh;k gksuk tkfgj vk;kA ik;k dh /kjeflag firk izrkiflag fuoklh lkVad tkfr xjkfl;k jktiwr ds uke ls tkuk tkrk gSA i{kdkj ds firk ls iwNrkN djus ij crk;k fd esjh tkfr xjkfl;k jktiwr gS rFkk gedks blh tkfr ls tkuk tkrk gS rFkk ekSds ij mifLFkr eksrfcjku us Hkh budh tkfr xjkfl;k jktiwr gksus dh rk;hn dh] xzke lkVdk es fLFkr d`f”k Hkwfe tks fd izrkiflag firk xqykcflag ds uke [kljk uEcj 18] 19] 37 ij ntZ tekcanh lEor 2060 ls 2069 gS] ij tkfr jktiwr vafdr gSA Jheku ftyk dYkDVj egksn;] mn;iqj ds i=kad ,Q&9@1 ¼ch½ 14 ¼8½LFkk@Hkw-v- mn;iqj o@11 fu- 6978 fnukad 21-12-11 }kjk lfpo ¼Hkw-v-½ jktLo Ek.My jktLFkku vtesj dks lh/kh HkrhZ iVokj izfr;ksxh ijh{kk 2011 ds lEcU/k es p;fur vH;FkhZ Jh /kjeflag xjkfl;k ds tkfr izek.k&i= dh tkap es lansg ds vk/kkj ij rglhynkj >kMksy ls tkap djkdj tkap fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj vH;FkhZ Jh /kjeflag dh tkfr xjkfl;k u gksdj jktiwr xjkfl;k gS dh fjiksVZ izLrqr dh x;h gSA lsVyesUV la- 2037 dh fely cUnkscLr es Hkh izkFkhZ ds firk dk uke xqykc flag tkfr jktiwr ntZ jsdkMZ gSA izkFkhZ }kjk Ø; dh xbZ Hkwfe es jktiwr dh ctk; tkfr xjkfl;k ntZ djokbZ xbZ gSA tks ,l-Vh- dk ykHk izkIr djus ds dkj.k ntZ djokbZ gS pwafd tkap fjiksVZ jktLo jsdkMZ vuqlkj izkFkhZ ds firk o nkn ekSjklh Hkwfe jktiwr tkfr vafdr gSA Sd/- rglhynkj r->kMksy ¼Q-½ ftyk mn;iqj^^ 8. On the other hand, Mr. M.S. Godara, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that so long as the Caste Certificate (Annex.4) dated 18.08.2008 stands and which could be cancelled only by the District Collector after holding due enquiry and the petitioner cannot be deprived of status of 'ST' person; and he is entitled to be considered for appointment as Patwari in the selection process of the year 2011 on the basis of said Caste Certificate. He, therefore, prayed the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the respondents have wrongly withheld the appointment of the petitioner as Patwari. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 10. This Court finds it as a glaring example of misuse of Caste Certificate/s, which are casually issued by the Tehsildar/s of the Revenue Department for askance and mostly for extraneous reasons. The caste-Garasia, which is apparently available in both ST category as well as in the General category as Garasiya is also sub-caste of Rajput who belong to General category, was the background, in which the petitioner with the help of said Tehsildar, Jhadol, Udaipur, could claim such reservation in the selection process for the post of Patwari. Though the application on the basis of which the said caste certificate was issued by the Tehsildar, Jhadol, has not been placed on record, however, it appears, prima facie, that the said Caste Certificate has been issued by the Tehsildar, Jhadol, District: Udaipur, without holding any enquiry in the matter. This would be revealed from the following facts. 11. While the mark sheet issued for Secondary examination in favour of petitioner by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, vide Annex.1 on 01.06.2002 bears his name as 'Dharam Singh Garasiya' with the parentage viz. son of Pratap Singh Garasiya and his mother's name is Champa Bai. Similar names appear for the mark sheet of Senior Secondary Examination, 2005, vide the mark sheet (Annex.2). But, the Annex.3 is the letter dated 14.12.2011 of the Principal, Moti Lal Tejawat, Govt. Upper Primary School, Kolyari, (Udaipur), at the instance of the petitioner himself, who requested the said Principal to get the word 'Rajput' added with his name in the said mark-sheet and consequently, the said request was forwarded by the Principal of the school to the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer vide Annex.3 dated 14.12.2011. Upper Primary School, Kolyari, (Udaipur), at the instance of the petitioner himself, who requested the said Principal to get the word 'Rajput' added with his name in the said mark-sheet and consequently, the said request was forwarded by the Principal of the school to the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer vide Annex.3 dated 14.12.2011. The Annex.4 dated 18.08.2008 is the questioned Caste Certificate, the validity of which was enquired into, and Annex.R/2 report dated Nil came subsequently. The Annex.5 dated 14.12.2011 is the Certificate issued by the Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti-Jhadol (Pha.) to the effect that the said area of Village Satka, Post Kolyari, Tehsil Jhadol (Pha.), District: Udaipur falls in TADA/MADA (TSP) area. 12. Since, the petitioner was not offered the appointment as Patwari though he was selected in the said selection process of the year 2011 vide Annex.8 dated 24.11.2011 but his selection was cancelled vide the impugned order Annex.9 dated 05.05.2012, whereas the present writ petition was filed on 14.05.2012, just after the Annex.9 order was passed on 05.05.2012 cancelling the selection of the petitioner. 13. Apparently the case gives rise to the disputed questions of facts, which cannot be determined in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, from the aforementioned Report of the Tehsil-Jhadol, District Udaipur itself, it appears that it is only at the instance of the Board of Revenue's letter dated 05.05.2012 that the said enquiry was held by the said Tehsildar and as an ex-post fact in the report, it was revealed that the petitioner belonging to Garasiya caste, was apparently belonging to General category being 'Garasiya Rajput' having sub-caste 'Garasiya' as it appears from the Report Annex.R/2 that not only the land holding in the name of his father, Pratap Singh were as 'Rajput' but he also appears to have given statement to the said Tehsildar upon enquiry to the effect that they were Rajputs. It is needless to say, nor any of the parties claimed that Garasiya belongs to Rajput caste are not ST persons. It is needless to say, nor any of the parties claimed that Garasiya belongs to Rajput caste are not ST persons. On the contrary, prima facie, it appears that the petitioner himself made effort at one point of time when he moved own school Principal to get his mark sheet corrected by including the word 'Rajput' in his mark sheet and at his instance, the Principal of the school sent the communication dated 14.12.2011 (Annex.3) to the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer, for deleting the caste 'Garasiya' and including the caste 'Rajput' in the said mark sheet. Therefore, prima facie it appears that the petitioner in order to claim the advantage of appointment in the reserved category of ST, obtained the said false Caste Certificate (Annex.4) from the Tehsildar, Jhadol, District: Udaipur, which was a self-serving document to say the least. 14. This kind of casual, corrupt and irresponsible practice of issuing the caste certificates by the Tehsildar, Jhadol, not only deserves to be strongly deprecated but the matter should not end there. A proper and detailed enquiry deserves to be held in this regard because the petitioner alone cannot be blamed for obtaining the caste certificate (Annex.4), and equally the shared blame lies with the Tehsildar, Jhadol, District: Udaipur also. Therefore, the District Collector, Udaipur is directed to hold a detailed enquiry in the matter against both the persons, the petitioner as well as the then incumbent in the office of Tehsildar, Jhadol, District: Udaipur on 18.08.2008 and if the learned District Collector comes to the conclusion that the Caste Certificate (Annex.4) dated 18.08.2008 was issued illegally and without holding the proper enquiry by the then Tehsildar, appropriate action under Rule 16 of the CCA (CCS) Rules should be taken against the concerned incumbent Tehsildar also. An FIR for forgery should be filed against the said Tehsildar and the petitioner. In fact, this Court is of the opinion that such an officer having the designation of Tehsildar in the Revenue Department on the basis of whose certificate/s, the entire scenario of obtaining appointment can change, should be dismissed from the service, if they are held guilty by the District Collector in this regard. It is only if such a severe punishment of dismissal of service including stoppage of pension is made then it can curb such malpractices and corrupt activities. It is only if such a severe punishment of dismissal of service including stoppage of pension is made then it can curb such malpractices and corrupt activities. Both the parties should get a lesson from this kind of enquiry and disciplinary action and criminal trial for obtaining of a false and forged caste certificate to serve the purpose of obtaining appointment on a responsible position such as Patwari in the Revenue Department. 15. The present is also a glaring example of division of opportunities for employment along the caste lines further going up to the extent of sub-castes. It is indeed unfortunate that instead of uniting the country by avoiding such divisions, the respondent State permitted such bifurcations and fissures in the society and provided a breeding ground for such corrupt practice of issuance of false caste certificates. The common thread which could run through the society, if such divisions of caste was not made and which could have made the country more united and stronger, was chosen to be shredded and particularly when the innumerably castes and sub-castes exist in this colourful diverse and natural resources rich country, the State has chosen the Policy of dividing the society along the caste lines. After a long lapse of more than 65 years of Independence, such divisive policies actually need reversal and obliterated instead of reinforcement. 16. His Lordship Hon'ble Justice Mr. Markandey Katju, in his Article 'Looking back on the Caste System', which was published in the newspaper 'The Hindu' on 08.01.2009, partly reads as under: - “The caste system is one of the greatest social evils plaguing India today. It is acting as a powerful social and political divisive force at a time when it is essential for us to stay united in order to face the challenges before our nation. It is curse that must be speedily eradicated if we wish to progress. We may consider a few facts to realise how strongly caste is still entrenched in our society. • Our politics is largely governed by caste vote banks. When the time comes to select candidates for elections, a study is made of the numerical caste distribution in a constituency, because voters in most areas votes on caste lines; • What to say of illiterate people, even the so-called intellectuals tend to operate on caste lines. • Our politics is largely governed by caste vote banks. When the time comes to select candidates for elections, a study is made of the numerical caste distribution in a constituency, because voters in most areas votes on caste lines; • What to say of illiterate people, even the so-called intellectuals tend to operate on caste lines. Thus, in the elections to many bar associations, lawyers tend to vote for candidates of their caste; • Many castes want to be declared Other Backward Classes (OBCs) or Scheduled Castes in order to get the benefits of reservation. Eve some OBCs strive to be declared the Most Backward Castes (MBCs) or Scheduled Castes; • Fake caste certificates have become rampant, as it often witnessed in our law courts, to secure jobs, or admission to educational institutions; • Marriages are still largely performed within one's caste; • Violence often occurs between castes, as was noticed in a recent fight between students of different castes i a law college in Chennai, while policemen looked on as silent spectators. • Even Muslims, Christians and Sikhs often have caste divisions, although their religions preach equality. We can multiply these facts manifold. Many books and articles have been written on the caste system in India but a scientific study is still to be done. ...” 16. It is well settled in legal jurisprudence that a fraud unravels everything and if at the root of any right claimed by any person a fraud exists, anything topping on that should raze to the ground. Apparently, in the present case, there are two contradictory reports/certificates before this Court, but the balance of equity tilts against the petitioner prima facie. 17. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned District Collector, Udaipur, to hold an enquiry in the matter and take the disciplinary action against the concerned Tehsildar, Jhadol, District: Udaipur, who held the said office on 18.08.2008 under Rule 16 of the CCA (CCS) Rules and criminal action against both, the petitioner and the Tehsildar by filing FIR separately and submit the report to this Court within a period of three months from today. It is needless to say that if the caste certificate issued in favour of petitioner dated 18.08.2008 is found to be genuine and subsequent report (Annex.R/2) dated Nil is found to be wrong, the disposal of the present writ petition will not adversely affect the selection of the present petitioner and only the Tehsildar, may be proceeded against for issuing conflicting certificate/report. No costs. The copy of the order be sent to the District Collector, Udaipur and the concerned parties forthwith.