JUDGMENT : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. Writ Petition No. 2091 of 2014 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, rule made returnable forthwith. 2. These two Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge the order passed withdrawing and cancelling a Non-Creamy Layer Certificate (“NCL certificate” for short) which was obtained by the Petitioner's parents in order to enable them to secure admissions in educational institutions, particularly, for the course in medicine against seats reserved for Other Backward Classes (“OBC”). It is common ground that in order to be eligible for such admissions, the candidate/student must satisfy the authorities that not only he belongs to an Other Backward Class notified as such for the State of Maharashtra together with other conditions but importantly he does not belong to a Creamy Layer. For establishing and proving that such a student/candidate does not belong a Creamy Layer but is a non-creamy layer candidate that a certificate is required to be obtained. That certificate has to be obtained on filling up the requisite application accompanied by an affidavit of the Applicant disclosing how he fulfills the criteria determined for obtaining such certificate. He has to affirm his affidavit and the particulars stated in such affidavit are capable of being verified and scrutinized even at a later stage. The competence and jurisdiction to hold such scrutiny and verification in order to satisfy that the certificate has not been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, suppression of relevant and material facts is conceded in both these Petitions. What is projected is the manner in which the enquiry has been held in order to arrive at a satisfaction that the certificates were obtained by misrepresentation or suppression of a relevant and material fact. We would firstly refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 2091 of 2014. That Writ Petition was filed in this Court on 28th February, 2014 and to challenge an order passed by the 6th Respondent to that Writ Petition dated 8th October, 2013 and all consequential steps and measures in furtherance thereof. 3. The Petitioner in that Writ Petition states that she is a citizen of India and domiciled in the State of Maharashtra. At the time of presentation of the Petition, she was undergoing a course in medicine particularly in the second year and which course is recognized and approved by the 3rd Respondent University. 3. The Petitioner in that Writ Petition states that she is a citizen of India and domiciled in the State of Maharashtra. At the time of presentation of the Petition, she was undergoing a course in medicine particularly in the second year and which course is recognized and approved by the 3rd Respondent University. The admissions to this course are obtained by appearance at a Common Entrance Test and results of the same would decide the order of merit in which the name of the candidate like the Petitioner appears. Thereafter, the student/candidate is allotted a medical college and in a process styled as Common Admission Process. The Petitioner has been admitted by the 4th Respondent to this Writ Petition in the 5th Respondent's college. The 6th Respondent to this Writ Petition is the Collector of the Mumbai Suburban District. The Petitioner being the resident of Mumbai Suburban District, it is that Collector who is in-charge of issuance of such certificate either by himself or through his delegates duly authorized and equally empowered to hold a Inquiry as to whether the certificate is false or obtained by perpetrating a fraud or vitiated by misrepresentation or suppression of relevant and germane facts. 4. The Petitioner says that her father was employed by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (“BPCL” for short). He was working as a Utility Operator in Labour Category equivalent to Class “C” of the Central Government Classification of ranks/posts of employees. The Petitioner's mother Nilima is a Teacher in a Municipal Corporation school. She belongs to a superior labour category. The case of the Petitioner is that her mother's income is less than the upper limit of the income criteria set up by the 1st Respondent-State in order to enable a OBC candidate to obtain NCL certificate. Thus, both parents are holding Class-C posts. 5. The important claim of the Petitioner is that she belongs to Mali community which is recognized at Sr. No. 182 as Other Backward Class under the Government Resolution No. CBC/1467 dated 13th October, 1967 as amended from time to time. 6. The Petitioner's further case is that on 25th June, 2004, the Sub Divisional Officer, Dahanu Division, Dahanu issued a caste certificate and thereafter that certificate was sent up for scrutiny and verification by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. That certificate was duly validated. 6. The Petitioner's further case is that on 25th June, 2004, the Sub Divisional Officer, Dahanu Division, Dahanu issued a caste certificate and thereafter that certificate was sent up for scrutiny and verification by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. That certificate was duly validated. The Petitioner is a meritorious student having secured 93% marks in her Secondary School Exam, and 79% in Higher Secondary examination held in 2012 by the Maharashtra State Board. 7. After completion of her H.S.C. course (XII standard), she appeared in the Common Entrance Examination conducted by the Department of Medical Education (Respondent No. 4). She succeeded in the examination having obtained 163 out of 200 marks in the Physics, Chemistry, Biology papers. She was desirous of obtaining admission in a Government Medical College in open category but that could not be achieved as she fell short by few marks. Therefore, she was allotted Respondent No. 5 a private medical college but under OBC quota. The Petitioner thereafter continued her study in the 5th Respondent college and paid her fees. She completed her first year of the M.B.B.S. degree course and now is in the final year. 8. The Petitioner does not dispute that for her admission and as against the reserve seat, she would have to establish and prove that she belongs to the Non-creamy Layer category. 9. We must at once clarify that the Constitution of India envisages reservations in terms of Clause 4 of Article 15 and which overrides all other clauses in that Article and Clause 2 of Article 29. By that, it is possible for the State to make a provision called as special provision for the advancement of any socially or educationally backward classes of citizens or for the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe. It is in the first category of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens that the requirement of demonstrating and proving that such persons though belonging to this category are not falling in the creamy layer, meaning thereby, those who are advanced and forward to such an extent as would afford to get education and jobs without the benefit or relaxation or concession of a reservation. 10. The Non-creamy layer therefore is that which requires the support of these relaxations or concessions/reservations. 10. The Non-creamy layer therefore is that which requires the support of these relaxations or concessions/reservations. Therefore, every OBC candidate would not be entitled to the benefit but only such of those who demonstrate and prove as above would be entitled and can stake their claim. 11. The Petitioner's father at the relevant time applied for obtaining a NCL certificate. He approached the Tahsildar, Taluka Borivali, Mumbai. This is the authority directly working under and reporting to the Collector of Mumbai Suburban district. The Petitioner states that at the time of making this application her father was working with BPCL in the same Group-C post. 12. The Petitioner then relies upon an Office Memorandum (“O.M.” for short) dated 8th September, 1993 issued by the Central Government. That lays down the criteria for obtaining the certificate and for exclusion from reservation of those categories whom the Central Government has determined on the basis of the defined criteria to be socially and educationally advanced. 13. At the relevant time that was O.M. applicable. Relying upon the terms and conditions of this O.M. and asserting that it was applicable to all the States, it is submitted that Group-C and Group-D post holders were not disentitled to OBC reservation and it is not their salaried income which would determine as to whether they fulfill the criteria evolved in that O.M. 14. We would refer to this O.M. and other documents based on which the NCL certificate is issued, a little later. 15. It is stated that Group-C and Group-D workers/employees will always come under NCL category and their income from salary cannot be considered for computing the total income. Thereafter, another O.M. dated 14th October, 2008 is relied upon where-under the income limit has been increased from Rs. 2.5 Lakhs per annum to Rs. 4.5 Lakhs per annum. The other stipulations according to the Petitioner remain the same. 16. Later, on 27th May, 2013, the Government increased the limit of income from Rs. 4.5 Lakhs to Rs. 6 Lakh vide O.M. dated 27th May, 2013. 17. The Petitioner therefore relies upon all this and to submit that on 3rd June, 2012 her father's application was made, an affidavit was filed in support thereof on 18th December, 2012. The Petitioner's father is suffering from several diseases including Heart disease and psychiatric disorder for the past several years. He is under medication for the same. 17. The Petitioner therefore relies upon all this and to submit that on 3rd June, 2012 her father's application was made, an affidavit was filed in support thereof on 18th December, 2012. The Petitioner's father is suffering from several diseases including Heart disease and psychiatric disorder for the past several years. He is under medication for the same. He was operated for his heart ailment in 2011. He was also treated for his psychiatric disease. The Petitioner's father however in that affidavit did not dispute that he had income from other sources namely income from postal deposits. The O.M. excludes the income from salary and agricultural operations. 18. At the time of making the application, the Petitioner and her father was not aware about the gradation of the mother's post as a Teacher in the municipal school. In any event, the service in the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai is not the service which comes within the purview of these OM's. However, even if the income of mother is taken into consideration that is much below the ceiling limit. That is how the affidavit proceeded and based on all this, the certificate was issued in favour of the Petitioner's father. A copy of that certificate which is issued, is annexed at page No. 43. The date of this certificate is 5th July, 2012 and it was valid up to 31st March, 2013. 19. The Petitioner then concedes that a Writ Petition was brought in this Court by another medical student Gauri Hemant Kumar Gharat. Her grievance was that but for the manipulations allegedly made in the records relating to the issuance of non-creamy layer certificate she would have been able to obtain admission in Government Medical College. To such a Writ Petition, the said Gauri impleaded the Petitioner, as well as a party Respondent. That Petitioner involved the issue of 17 non-creamy layer certificate/ documents and obtained for securing admissions. 20. In pursuance of the order passed in that Writ Petition, Respondent No. 6 commenced the necessary Inquiry into the NCL Certificate issued to the Petitioner. 21. After the Petitioner received the letter to appear before the Scrutiny Committee that her parents appeared and submitted that the father of the Petitioner is BPCL employee equivalent to Grade-C of the Central Government post and receives a monthly salary of Rs. 30,000 to 40,000/- after deduction of income tax. 21. After the Petitioner received the letter to appear before the Scrutiny Committee that her parents appeared and submitted that the father of the Petitioner is BPCL employee equivalent to Grade-C of the Central Government post and receives a monthly salary of Rs. 30,000 to 40,000/- after deduction of income tax. It was orally submitted that his income from salary cannot be considered for evaluation of the total income as per the Government Resolution published from time to time for granting NCL certificate. The Petitioner states that her father again appeared before the Scrutiny Committee on 5th October, 2013 and reiterated his contentions. He also submitted that he would produce the requisite Government Resolutions and also the documents to establish the equivalence of the post held by the Petitioner's father with that of the Government/PSUs employees. It is stated that the father of the Petitioner was not well and could not therefore present his view-point effectively before the Committee. On the same day, namely, on 8th October, 2013 the impugned order has been passed. It is this order which is challenged in this Writ Petition. 22. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the Joint Director (Dental) of the Directorate of Medical Education and Research. It is stated that the Petitioner appeared for the Common Entrance Test held in 2012. She was selected for admission to M.B.B.S. course under OBC quota and that admission was granted to her. The documents which were submitted at the time of Admission came to be later on scrutinized and the Joint Director states that Respondent No. 1-State Government communicated through a letter dated 28th November, 2013 that the Petitioner's father's certificate (NCL) was found to be false and fabricated. It is stated that it is in these circumstances an order was issued to cancel the admission. That is how the admission was cancelled and reliance is placed on the terms and conditions of the information brochure of MHT-CET-2012 (paragraph 12). It is submitted that therefore the Petition be dismissed. 23. This Petition was placed before a Division Bench of this Court on 5th March, 2014 on which date the following order came to be passed:- “1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. It is submitted that therefore the Petition be dismissed. 23. This Petition was placed before a Division Bench of this Court on 5th March, 2014 on which date the following order came to be passed:- “1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. The grievance of the Petitioner is that Respondents have cancelled the admission of the Petitioner to the MBBS course on the ground that non-creamy layer certificate which is produced by the Petitioner is false and fabricated. It is submitted that the said order has been passed without giving any opportunity to the Petitioner and no reasons have been assigned while passing the said order. Learned AGP appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 seeks time to take instructions. 2. We have perused the documents, which are annexed to the petition. Perusal of the impugned order dated 11.2.2014 indicates that as a result of the directives received from the Directorate of Medical Education and Research, Mumbai, the admission given to the Petitioner has been cancelled. The directives issued by the Director of Medical Education and Research, Mumbai is not annexed to the said order dated 11.2.2014. It is obvious that no personal hearing was given to the Petitioner before cancelling the said admission due to submission of false non-creamy layer certificate. Prima facie case is made out for grant of ad interim relief. Ad interim relief is granted in terms of prayer clause (e). Respondents to file their reply within 2 weeks. S.O. to 26.3.2014.” 24. It is by virtue of this ad-interim order that the Petitioner states that her admission has not been still disturbed. She is pursuing the M.B.B.S. course. 25. Mr. Anturkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in this Writ Petition submitted that the Petitioner belongs to other backward class-Mali-Panchkalshi. The Petitioner's certificate dated 5th July, 2012 has been invalidated and cancelled on a completely wrong and erroneous premise. The foundation for the conclusion is the condition requiring the applicant to demonstrate and prove his annual income to be below a certain limit. However, income is not the criteria in such cases. It is the social status. If that is how each of the OM's and Government Resolutions have to be interpreted and considered, then, it is evident that the Petitioner's father's certificate could not have been cancelled at all. Mr. However, income is not the criteria in such cases. It is the social status. If that is how each of the OM's and Government Resolutions have to be interpreted and considered, then, it is evident that the Petitioner's father's certificate could not have been cancelled at all. Mr. Anturkar would submit that, the NCL Certificate could not have been questioned at all. First of all, it had gained finality. The parties have acted upon it. Secondly, and assuming it could have been scrutinized and verified again that process should have been completed in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner's father should have been given an effective and proper opportunity to place his version and then to substantiate it. The direction of this Court to the Collector resulted in formation of the Scrutiny Committee. That Scrutiny Committee concluded a hearing abruptly. Based on that Committee's conclusion, the impugned order has been passed. 26. A perusal of the impugned order, according to the Senior Counsel, would indicate that it is entirely based on the criteria of income. Mr. Anturkar has invited our attention to the certificate, copy of which is at page 43 of the paper book. He then invited our attention to the O.M. dated 8th September, 1993. That is on the subject of reservation for other backward class in civil posts and services under the Government of India. 27. Mr. Anturkar would submit that similar instructions in respect of public sector undertakings and financial institutions including public sector banks were to be issued by the Department of Public Enterprises and by the Ministry of Finance. 28. Mr. Anturkar then submitted that there are certain constitutional posts enlisted in the schedule to this O.M. After the constitutional posts, comes the broad categories styled as service category. In that, at clause-A, the Group-A/Class-I officers of the All India Central and State Services (Direct Recruits) and in Clause-B, Group-B/Class-II officers of the Central and State services are mentioned. Then comes the category of employees in public sector undertakings. It is stated that the criteria enumerated in categories in Classes A and B of the officials of the Central and State services (Direct Recruitment) is followed for the employees in PSUs. 29. Mr. Then comes the category of employees in public sector undertakings. It is stated that the criteria enumerated in categories in Classes A and B of the officials of the Central and State services (Direct Recruitment) is followed for the employees in PSUs. 29. Mr. Anturkar has taken us through the relevant O.M.s, the improvements and amendments thereto to submit that the Court should be guided by the criteria evolved by the State Government on 25th March, 2013 in its Government Resolution. There in Annexure-A the State Government follows the criteria referred above. The category at Sr. No. 1 is constitutional posts, followed by service category and Mr. Anturkar would submit that the employees in public sector undertaking are mentioned with their status. That would clearly denote as to how the emphasis is on the status and equivalence established with Class- I and II officers. Throughout and if each of these categories are perused, it would be evident that as far as salary is concerned that is not to be taken as a factor guiding the authority issuing the certificate. Therefore, salary and income from agricultural operations stands excluded. Assuming and without admitting that the income / wealth test (Category-6) can be evolved and applied, even there it would have to be in terms of the clarifications and to be found at pages 80 & 81 of the paper book. Mr. Anturkar would submit that nothing of this nature is considered in the impugned order. Mr.Anturkar has thus relied upon the relevant Government Resolutions at page nos. 52, 53 and 57 of the paper book to submit that the impugned order cannot stand the scrutiny in terms of these Government Resolutions. It is plainly erroneous and contrary thereto. It is therefore vitiated by non application of mind and an error of law apparent on the face of the record. On these grounds alone it should be set aside. 30. Assuming without admitting that the conclusion in the impugned order is justified on the touchstone of the said Government Resolution and the clarification issued therein, still, it is clear that the Petitioner has appeared for the first year, second year examination of the M.B.B.S. course. She has now to appear for the final examination to be held in December, 2016. She is otherwise eligible for the same. She has now to appear for the final examination to be held in December, 2016. She is otherwise eligible for the same. She has continued her studies without any complaint from the college or Respondent No. 4 University or the Government. But for this cancellation, her education has not been disrupted. Even that disruption did not come into effect on account of the ad-interim order passed by this Court on 5th March, 2014. Therefore from the date of communication of the impugned order for the past nearly three years, she has attended the classes and therefore this Court by applying the broad consideration of equity and justice, should grant the relief prayed for. That relief, namely, allowing her to continue with her education by protecting her Admission under the said category of OBC. The relief can be restricted to the final year and by imposing a condition denying her permanent benefit of the OBC category can be granted. That relief can be granted even on the touchstone of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is erroneous to assume that only the Hon'ble Supreme Court by applying Article 142 of the Constitution of India can render complete justice. Even this Court can in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India render such complete justice. In that, Mr. Anturkar relied upon a judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Arun Vishwanath Sonone and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2015 (1) Bombay Case Reporter 568. 31. Mr. Anturkar has also taken us through the passages and paragraphs of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India and others reported in (2000) 1 SCC 168 . 32. On the other hand, Mr. Patki, the learned AGP for the State submits that firstly the Petition is completely frivolous and must be dismissed. Secondly, the Petitioner relies upon a Resolution issued by the Government of Maharashtra much after the certificate dated 5th July, 2012 was obtained. Therefore the scrutiny and verification of that certificate should be in the backdrop of the Government Resolutions which were prevalent on the date of issuance of the certificate and not thereafter. It is in such circumstances, that he would submit that Mr. Therefore the scrutiny and verification of that certificate should be in the backdrop of the Government Resolutions which were prevalent on the date of issuance of the certificate and not thereafter. It is in such circumstances, that he would submit that Mr. Anturkar's first contention that the entire emphasis ought to be on the status and not on income is misplaced. Every O.M. or Government Resolution emphasizes both, namely, the status as an OBC, but the yardstick for determining the backwardness is the income, which is by now Judicially recognized. However, when it comes to the categorization of the employees and namely Class-I, II, III and IV, it has been stated as to how the Government Resolution or O.M. applies to those in Indian Administrative Services / Civil Services and those in the PSUs, namely, public sector undertakings. As far as the Petitioner's father is concerned, he was working in the BPCL. That fact was not disclosed until the hearing. It was only stated that he was working in a post which could be termed as Group-C post. The equivalence was also not established and proved. Thereafter, what is material to note that even in cases of such employees if there is an income other than salary and agricultural operations, then, that must be disclosed faithfully and honestly. Even that income was suppressed until the scrutiny and verification of the NCL certificate. In these circumstances, there is no prejudice caused. Both at the stage of scrutiny and prior to that, when, this Court issued the direction to hold it, the Petitioner was duly heard. The Petitioner was aware that her father's certificate is one such which is directed to be scrutinized and verified by this Court by a Division Bench order. To the Writ Petition in which the Division Bench passed that order, the Petitioner is admittedly a party. In such circumstances, no further hearing or opportunities contemplated in law. This is a clear case of a certificate being obtained by misleading or misrepresenting a public body/its officers. The Petitioner cannot obtain benefit as a OBC candidate must be the criteria evolved has not been fulfilled by her father. For these reasons, he would submit that the Writ Petition be dismissed. Writ Petition No. 2545 of 2014 33. We had another Writ Petition which has been filed by similarly placed candidate and Mr. The Petitioner cannot obtain benefit as a OBC candidate must be the criteria evolved has not been fulfilled by her father. For these reasons, he would submit that the Writ Petition be dismissed. Writ Petition No. 2545 of 2014 33. We had another Writ Petition which has been filed by similarly placed candidate and Mr. Thorat, learned counsel appearing in support of that Petition would submit that the distinguishing feature is that the Petitioner in that Writ Petition was claiming that both father and mother belong to OBC category. The Petitioner's father completed his M.B.B.S. and M.S. course. Thereafter, the Petitioner's father was admitted to Super-specialty course in Cardio Thoracic Surgery. While the father was under going that Super-specialty course, he was diagnosed with brain tumor. He went through a surgery. Thereafter, he underwent an aggressive treatment. The Petitioner's father still managed to complete his super-specialty course. He was advised not to lead a stressful life and to carry out regular check ups. These tumors and which are typical reoccur after 10-15 years. 34. The Petitioner's father was appointed as a Lecturer in BYL Nair Hospital in 1992. The Petitioner's father in the year 2000 was selected for a fellowship at Royal Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. The Petitioner's father applied for leave for a year and completed his fellowship from 31.01.2000 to 04.02.2001. The Petitioner had to accompany his father and mother. After completing that fellowship his father returned from Australia and resumed his duties at DYL Nair Hospital. He was offered a job as a Cardio Thoracic Specialist Surgeon at some hospital in Malaysia in 2004. The Petitioner's father did not get necessary leave as this was a job and not fellowship. The Petitioner's father has to resign as a Lecturer and that is how he quit the job and went with his family to Malaysia. He was in Malaysia and during that time the Petitioner completed some studies after which his father joined a hospital in Saudi Arabia. Eventually, they returned to India in 2007 and in this backdrop our attention is invited to page No. 6 sub-para-B of the Petition. 35. Mr. Thorat submits that there is no suppression from the authority while the certificate was issued. There is no suppression of material facts in obtaining the NCL certificate from authority. That was issued on due scrutiny and satisfaction. 35. Mr. Thorat submits that there is no suppression from the authority while the certificate was issued. There is no suppression of material facts in obtaining the NCL certificate from authority. That was issued on due scrutiny and satisfaction. It is erroneous to assume that the Petitioner's father did not disclose the true and correct facts. The Petitioner's father disclosed as to how he had no income for he could not render any effective service and work on return to India. He has also pointed out that there was a passport which was issued. Initially, the passport expired in 2000. The renewed passport was lost/stolen and a Police complaint was lodged. A copy of the Police complaint was also produced. Further, the information about the bank statements and for the relevant years was placed on record. Yet, the impugned order proceeds on the footing that the Petitioner's father suppressed these facts, particularly, with regard to the passport and the income. It has been disclosed as to how the Petitioner's father has pointed out to the committee that he was abroad but on a fellowship. He has not suppressed his income and once this conclusion cannot be reached on the basis of the available documents, then, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 36. Our attention is invited by Shri Thorat to the conclusions reached by the committee and particularly at page No. 44 of the paper book. He submits that the contradictions allegedly found in the documents and the version of the Petitioner has led to this conclusion. Once that conclusion is vitiated, then, the impugned order cannot be sustained. It must be set aside. 37. Alternatively, Mr. Thorat while adopting the line of Mr. Anturkar submits that additional affidavit of the Petitioner in this Petition discloses that on the strength of the Petitioner's position in the merit list, the Petitioner could have secured admission in open category at Government Medical Colleges at Akola and Yeotmal. The Petitioner was compelled to take a college at Bombay simply because he had to look after his ailing father. The Petitioner opted for the OBC category in Bombay for this reason and did not join those colleges either at Akola or Yeotmal. The candidates much below the Petitioner in merit list joined those colleges. The Petitioner was compelled to take a college at Bombay simply because he had to look after his ailing father. The Petitioner opted for the OBC category in Bombay for this reason and did not join those colleges either at Akola or Yeotmal. The candidates much below the Petitioner in merit list joined those colleges. However, there is no complaint about the Petitioner's competence and merit for he has also completed successfully the years preceding the final year of MBBS course. The Petitioner has also been selected on the basis of the marks obtained in the Common Entrance Test. The Petitioner's rank was 1696 in the merit list. The Petitioner obtained 166 marks out of 200, in the Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Maths subjects of the Common Entrance Test. Once the Petitioner could have also been admitted against the non reserved or open seat, then, all the more he could rely upon the same principle as has been laid down in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 . Reliance is placed by him on paragraphs 18 and 19 of this judgment which read thus:- “18. The delay in the process is inevitable but that factor should neither be considered to be relevant nor be an aid to complete the course of study. But for the fact that she has completed the entire course except to appear for the final examination, we would have directed to debar her from prosecuting the studies and appearing in the examination. In this factual situation no useful purpose would be served to debar her from appearing for the examination of final year M.B.B.S. Therefore, we uphold the cancellation of the social status as Mahadeo Koli fraudulently obtained by Km. Suchita Laxman Patil, but she be allowed to appear for the final year examination of M.B.B.S. course. She will not, however be entitled in future for any benefits on the basis of the fraudulent social status as Mahadeo Koli. However, this direction should not be treated and used as a precedent in future cases to give any similar directions since the same defeats constitutional goals. 19. In the case of Madhuri Laxman Patil, she did not approach the competent officer. However, this direction should not be treated and used as a precedent in future cases to give any similar directions since the same defeats constitutional goals. 19. In the case of Madhuri Laxman Patil, she did not approach the competent officer. She appears to have wrongly gone to an officer who had no jurisdiction, obviously she has shown the order issued by the High Court in favour of her sister Suchita and secured the certificate and got the admission. Though she is in midway of her study in B.D.S. in the end of second year, she cannot continue her studies with her social status as Mahadeo Koli, a Schedule Tribe and the concessions which she might have got on that account. If she was eligible for obtaining admission as a general candidate she may continue her studies. Therefore, we uphold the cancellation and confiscation of her and of Suchita of social status as Mahadeo Koli ordered by Scrutiny Committee and affirmed by the order of Appellate Authority and that of the High Court in that behalf. Subject to the above modifications, the appeal is dismissed but without costs.” 38. For properly appreciating the above contentions raised by the counsel of both sides, we must firstly appreciate and as enumerated above that this category of OBC evolved for reservations, concessions and relaxations, according to the State, is in tune with the mandate of Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India. Once that contemplates the obligation of the State to provide for reservations to these socially and educationally backward category of citizens, then, consistent with that mandate the reservations have been carved out for the other backward classes in the State of Maharashtra. A Government Resolution was issued way back in 1967 which is amended from time to time to include such of the classes which are identified as socially and educationally backward. Both Petitioners claim to be belonging to such class. They are OBC and categorized and recognized as such in the State of Maharashtra. However, on the own showing of both counsel for being eligible for OBC benefits, concessions and relaxations in admissions to educational institutions and jobs, these candidates / students have to fulfill another requirement. That is the requirement laid down in the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India itself. However, on the own showing of both counsel for being eligible for OBC benefits, concessions and relaxations in admissions to educational institutions and jobs, these candidates / students have to fulfill another requirement. That is the requirement laid down in the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India itself. These judgments direct the State to extend these benefits and concessions to such persons belonging to these classes who did not have any opportunity to advance and better their prospects and chances in life. They have not been able to earn what would be called a minimum income annually for their sustenance and subsistence. It is such persons and their families who have to obtain a certificate and styled as NCL. It is for the benefit of such persons and the benefit of reservation should not be snatched away by those ineligible candidates that requirement of obtaining the Non-Creamy layer certificate is inserted in the O.M. issued by the Central Government of India and duly adopted by the States, including the State of Maharashtra. 39. What we must first therefore notice is the O.M. and copy of which is placed on record. That O.M. issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India, (Department of Personnel and Training), New Delhi dated 8th September, 1993 states that after the first O.M. on the subject dated 13th August, 1990 and 25th September, 1991 regarding reservation for socially and educationally backward classes in civil posts and services under the Government of India and following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India and others (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 930/1990), the Government of India appointed an expert committee to recommend the criteria for exclusion of socially advanced persons/ sections from the benefits of the reservation for other backward classes in civil posts and services under the Government of India. Thus, post these judgments, the Central Government decided to appoint an expert committee to recommend the criteria for exclusion of socially advanced persons/sections from the benefits of reservations for OBC. If that is how the Central Government has proceeded then consistent with that object and purpose, these O.M.'s should be interpreted. Thereafter, this expert committee forwarded its recommendations. Based on that, a O.M. was issued on 13th August, 1990. That O.M. was modified on 8th September, 1993. If that is how the Central Government has proceeded then consistent with that object and purpose, these O.M.'s should be interpreted. Thereafter, this expert committee forwarded its recommendations. Based on that, a O.M. was issued on 13th August, 1990. That O.M. was modified on 8th September, 1993. That O.M., copy of which is at page 44 reads thus:- “No. 36012/22/93 Estt (SCT) The 8th September, 1993. Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) New Delhi OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject:- Reservation for Other Backward Classes in Civil Posts and Services under the Government of India-Regarding. The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department's O.M. No. 36012/31/90 Estt. (SCT) dated the 13th August, 1990 and 25th September, 1991 regarding reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes in Civil Posts and Services under the Government of India and to say that following the Supreme Court judgment in the Indira Sawhney and Others Vs. Union of India and others case [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 930 of 1990] the Government of India appointed an Expert committee to recommend the criteria for exclusion of the socially advanced person/sections from the benefits of reservations for Other Backward Classes in civil posts and services under the Government of India. 2. Consequent to the consideration of the Expert committee's recommendations this Department's Office Memorandum No. 36012/31/90 Estt (SCT) dated 13.8.90 referred to in para (1) above is hereby notified to provide as follows: (a) 27% (twenty-seven percent) of the vacancies in civil posts and services under the Government of India to be filled through direct recruitment shall be reserved to the Other Backward Classes. Detailed instructions relating to the procedure to be followed for enforcing reservation will be issued separately. (b) Candidates belonging to OBCs recruited on the basis of merit in an open competition on the same standards, prescribed for the general candidates shall not be adjusted against the reservation quota of 27%. (c) (i) The aforesaid reservation shall not apply to persons/sections mentioned in column 3 of the schedule to this office memorandum. (ii) The rule of exclusion will not apply to persons working as artisans or engaged in hereditary occupations, callings. A list of such occupations, callings will be issued separately by the Ministry of Welfare. (c) (i) The aforesaid reservation shall not apply to persons/sections mentioned in column 3 of the schedule to this office memorandum. (ii) The rule of exclusion will not apply to persons working as artisans or engaged in hereditary occupations, callings. A list of such occupations, callings will be issued separately by the Ministry of Welfare. (d) The OBCs for the purpose of the aforesaid reservations would comprise, in the first phase, the castes and communities which are common to both the lists in the report of the Mandal Commission and the State Governments Lists. A list of such castes and communities is being issued separately by the Ministry of Welfare. (e) The aforesaid reservation shall take immediate effect. However, this will not apply to vacancies where the recruitment process has already been initiated prior to the issue of this order. 3. Similar instructions in respect of public sector undertakings and financial institutions including public sector banks will be issued by the Department of Public Enterprises and by the Minister of Finance respectively effective from the date of this Office Memorandum.” 40. Thereafter, appears the schedule at page No. 45. It gives a description of the category and to whom rule of exclusion will apply. It would apply to constitutional posts, then it would apply to Group-A/Class-I officers of the All India Central and Civil Services, their sons and daughters if working in these posts. They would be excluded and there is a proviso that the rule of exclusion shall not apply to the cases enlisted at page 45 of the paper book. Then comes the category of Group-B/Class-II officers of the Central and State services. Following that, is the other group of employees in PSUs etc. It is stated that the criteria enumerated for the cases of Group-A/Class-I and Group-B/Class-II officers referred above will apply mutatis mutandis to officers holding equivalent or comparable posts in PSUs, banks, insurance organizations, universities etc. It would also apply to equivalent or comparable posts and positions under private employment. Pending the evaluation of the posts on equivalent or comparable basis in these institutions, the criteria specified in Category-VI will apply to the officers in these institutions. 41. Mr. Anturkar's and Mr. Thorat's argument overlooks a important facet of this O.M. The important and prominent being that a rule of exclusion is carved out by this O.M. The exclusion is from reservation altogether. 41. Mr. Anturkar's and Mr. Thorat's argument overlooks a important facet of this O.M. The important and prominent being that a rule of exclusion is carved out by this O.M. The exclusion is from reservation altogether. The exclusion follows the criteria which was recommended by the expert committee and if that criteria as recommended and adopted/ applies, then, the category of officers get excluded from the benefits altogether. Therefore, their children also get excluded unless their parents fall under the proviso. The proviso emphasizes that even if these highly post officials have children and who can be excluded otherwise from the benefit of the reservation, if they are permanently incapacitated or disabled, then, such exclusion would not be suffered by their progeny. 42. As far as public sector undertaking is concerned, the above rule applies mutatis mutandis to them. It also applies to those who hold equivalent or comparable posts in these organizations and PSU's. Therefore, pending the evaluation of this post on equivalent or comparable basis, the criteria specified in Category-VI will apply to the officials in these institutions. The Category-VI is income/wealth test and in earliest Memorandum of 1993 that is carved out in the following terms:- “VI: Income/Wealth Test:- (a) Persons having gross annual income of Rs. 1 lakh or above or possessing wealth above the exemption limit as prescribed in the Wealth Tax Act for a period of three consecutive years. (b) Persons in Categories I, II, III and V who are not disentitled to the benefit of reservation but have income from other sources of wealth which will bring them within the income /wealth criteria mentioned in (a) above. Explanation: (i) The income from salaries or agricultural land shall not be clubbed; (ii) The income criteria in terms of rupee will be modified taking into account the change in its value every three years. If the situation, however, so demands, the interregnum may be less.” Explanation: wherever the expression “permanent incapacitation” occur in this schedule, it shall mean incapacitation which results in putting an officer out of service.” Therefore, we will have to find out in the first case as to when the certificate to Mr. Anturkar's client was issued. That was issued on 5th July, 2012. The equivalence was not established until that certificate was issued. The equivalence or a document citing the comparable status was produced much thereafter. Anturkar's client was issued. That was issued on 5th July, 2012. The equivalence was not established until that certificate was issued. The equivalence or a document citing the comparable status was produced much thereafter. If the categorization of the employee working in Utility Sector of the BPCL to Group-C posts in civil services follows much later then, the scrutiny committee in this case was justified in applying the income/wealth test. If sons and daughters of persons having gross annual income of Rs. 1 lakh or above or possessing wealth above the exemption limit as prescribed in the Wealth Tax Act for a period of three consecutive years, the persons in categories I, II, III and V who are not disentitled to the benefit of reservation but have income from other sources of wealth which will bring them within the income/wealth criteria mentioned above. There is an explanation and income from salary or agricultural land shall not be clubbed. The income criteria and in terms of rupee will be modified taking into consideration the change in its value every three years. If the situation however so demands the interregnum may be less. This is the criteria applied and rightly for scrutinising and verifying the NCL certificates in both petitions. 43. Mr. Anturkar submits that another O.M. which was issued on 14th October, 2008 enhances the limit from Rs. 1 Lakh to Rs. 4.5 Lakhs or above. He places strong reliance upon these two O.M.'s and following it, O.M. dated 27th May, 2013 to submit that the same has been adopted in the State of Maharashtra. On 25th March, 2013 the State of Maharashtra issued the Government Resolution. That Government Resolution, copy of which is at page No. 53 (Exhibit-K) seeks to unify and define the procedure for arriving at the conclusion as to whether the Applicant/candidate is belonging to NCL category. Mr. Anturkar submits that the O.M. has been applied and followed in the State and particularly following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra). Therefore, the State of Maharashtra issued several Government Resolutions some of which were in force when the NCL certificate was obtained by the Petitioner's father. Each of these were issued to carry forward the mandate as noted above. Therefore, the State of Maharashtra issued several Government Resolutions some of which were in force when the NCL certificate was obtained by the Petitioner's father. Each of these were issued to carry forward the mandate as noted above. They were therefore to be properly and rationally codified and a uniform procedure carved out for identification of a person for exclusion. Once again, the State of Maharashtra is also obliged to follow the mandate of exclusion referred above in details. It is the exclusion from benefits of reservation. It is nothing as Mr. Anturkar would suggest that the status is predominant and therefore everything else is secondary and can be safely ignored. Rather the mandate is, if you do not fulfill the criteria for obtaining this certificate styled as NCL certificate, you are excluded from the benefit of reservation or OBC. The Government Resolution therefore must be read, construed and interpreted accordingly. To the Government of Maharashtra Resolution also, we have very same Annexure/schedule as to the Central Government's O.M. 44. Mr. Anturkar relies upon not first, second but the category carved out therein and referable to employees in public sector undertaking. He would submit that those of whom who are in service but in relation to whom evaluation and comparable status has still not been made, they would be identified for issuance of such certificate on the basis of their income/wealth. Mr. Anturkar's argument that emphasis is entirely on the status and not on the income, is therefore clearly misplaced. We find much substance in the objection raised by Mr. Patki that if the income does not fall within the limit specified and exceeds it, then, the person belongs to creamy layer. If he belongs to creamy layer, he is presumed to be advanced socially and educationally and therefore excluded from the benefit of reservation. 45. Even in this Government Resolution, therefore, we will find a similar stipulation as in the O.M. and that is the income/wealth. It is not necessary therefore to read and refer to the category of the Armed Forces including the paramilitary forces (persons holding civil posts are not included). 46. We are not concerned with the candidate whose father is serving in Armed Forces including the paramilitary forces. We are here concerned with a PSU employee. It is not necessary therefore to read and refer to the category of the Armed Forces including the paramilitary forces (persons holding civil posts are not included). 46. We are not concerned with the candidate whose father is serving in Armed Forces including the paramilitary forces. We are here concerned with a PSU employee. Admittedly, the identification of PSU employee or the comparable status was not available on 5th July, 2012, therefore, the scrutiny committee committed no error in relying upon the income/wealth criteria. That is also properly and meticulously defined. Pertinently, neither Mr. Anturkar nor Mr Thorat challenge this O.M. or the State Government Resolution. However, Mr. Anturkar submits that even while applying the criteria of income what should be taken into consideration is the income of the parents from salary and which should not exceed Rs. 4.5 lakhs for the past three years. This income should also not exceed the earnings from agricultural operations. However, as far as other income is concerned, that should be below Rs. 4.50 Lakhs and where-ever there is a property the valuation thereof in terms of the ready reckoner rate. If that is not satisfied and valuation falls much below, then, these persons and their progeny would be deemed to be not advanced but falling within the NCL, and therefore, certificate would be granted to them. 47. In the face of all these, we must firstly see the affidavit filed by the Petitioner's father in the First Petition (W.P. 2091/14). Mr. Dnyaneshwar Baliram Mhatre filed an affidavit, copy of which is at page 89. He states that he is getting interest on saving with Post Office at Mumbai and thereby his income is Rs. 79,200/- p.a. for the financial year 2011-2012. His wife Nilima is working with Malad Malwani Municipal School as a Teacher and her income is Rs. 3,60,368/- p.a. for the financial year 2011 – 2012. The total family income comes to Rs. 4,39,568/- p.a. for the financial year 2011- 2012. This affidavit is silent on the three years income preceding the grant of the certificate. It is no point setting out in the affidavit income for financial year 2011 -2012 only. Then, it is stated in this affidavit that the family does not have any agricultural land. There is no family member engaged in any profession or business. Therefore, the income from the business/profession is Nil. It is no point setting out in the affidavit income for financial year 2011 -2012 only. Then, it is stated in this affidavit that the family does not have any agricultural land. There is no family member engaged in any profession or business. Therefore, the income from the business/profession is Nil. The family as also the parents do not have any deposit or investments in any bank or private financial institutions, and therefore, income from deposit and investment is Nil. 48. In the case of Gauri Gharat this Court was informed about issuance of several certificates and which were based on the affidavits filed as in the present case. What we find is that when a scrutiny of this certificate was undertaken, the scrutiny revealed that the Petitioner stated before the committee that he has some investments in Post Office. He is earning monthly interests on the same. His wife is a Teacher and she is working in the Municipal School. The three years income of both of them was taken and it turns out according to the Petitioner's father to be much below the limit of Rs. 4.50 Lakhs prevailing then. However, the Petitioner's father was educated up to B. Sc. and has a Diploma in Engineering. He joined in BPCL as Supervisor and his monthly salary is Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 70,000/-. On 4th April, 2013 none was present for any hearing before the committee. Once the Complainant - Gharat revealed the above information about the Petitioner's father's employment and his salary so also his educational qualifications, in order to render complete justice, the committee adjourned the hearing to 16th April, 2013. On 16th April, 2013, the Petitioner's father and mother remained present. They stated that they are not working anywhere. The Petitioner's father was supposed to be working in BPCL but he quit the job in 2008 and now he is working with a contractor on temporary basis and is earning income of Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 4,000/-. This was the written explanation given by the Petitioner's father. He said that he does not want to state anything further but requested the committee to call for the necessary information from the PSU, namely, BPCL. On 29th April, 2013, the BPCL submitted written details in relation to the Petitioner's father employment and his salary. 3,000/- to Rs. 4,000/-. This was the written explanation given by the Petitioner's father. He said that he does not want to state anything further but requested the committee to call for the necessary information from the PSU, namely, BPCL. On 29th April, 2013, the BPCL submitted written details in relation to the Petitioner's father employment and his salary. Far from quiting this job, the Petitioner's father continued therein and earned annually income of Rs. 8,24,284/- in the year 2009-2010, in the year 2010-2011 his annual income was Rs. 9,69,966.38/- and for 2011-2012 it was Rs. 10,80,946.42/- He had also obtained Form- 16 which is issued to the salaried employees. This falsified his version that he was working at one time in BPCL but quit the job in 2008 and is now privately employed. Pertinently, there was no assertion and throughout about equivalence or comparable status. It is therefore evident that pending availability of such status from the employer, the income/wealth criteria could have been applied. For that to be applied the salary could have been taken into consideration. If the income from salary and the earnings of the interest on the post office savings are taken together, there was a vast difference in the disclosures made by the Petitioner's father. 49. In other words, at page 135, the scrutiny committee rightly relied upon the contradiction and falsity in the version of the Petitioner's family. It is unfortunate that the father of the Petitioner went to the extent of denying his employment with BPCL. He denied that and asserted that he was no longer employed and had quit the job in 2008 but at the same time being confronted with the documents produced by Gharat, he stated that he would have nothing to say and would not clarify anything, if the information is obtained from BPCL. Once such a false version was placed before the committee, and it was asserted throughout that apart from the postal interest the family has no income, then, this is a clear case of suppression of a material and relevant fact at the time of obtaining the certificate. Once such a false version was placed before the committee, and it was asserted throughout that apart from the postal interest the family has no income, then, this is a clear case of suppression of a material and relevant fact at the time of obtaining the certificate. On the date on which the certificate was issued and even prior to that date on the date of the application for issuance of such certificate, the Petitioner's father was employed in BPCL, though he claim to be working in Group-C posts, the comparable analysis or evaluation was not made. The wife was working as a Teacher in the Municipal School and may be Group-C teacher but so long as municipal employment is not excluded, the OBC persons in municipal employment would not be protected. The OBC persons employed as such can be excluded from the benefit of reservation on the strength of income generated and earned from that service, then, the scrutiny committee rightly relied upon the income by way of salary and earned by the Petitioner's mother. 50. It is on this basis that it rendered its conclusions and we do not find them to be perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of record. Once we reach the above factual conclusion, there is no alternative but to affirm the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee and all consequential orders following it cancelling the Petitioner's admission. 51. The attempt by Mr. Anturkar in the alternative to save the admissions by relying on the principles of equity, fairness and rendering of complete justice enshrined in Articles 142 and 226 of the Constitution of India carries the case of the Petitioner no further. Concededly, that discretion has to be exercised on case to case basis. Concededly, that discretion is referable to the power of this Court to issue prerogative Writs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even if, we assume that Article 142 is not applicable to the High Courts but Article 226 enables us to render complete justice, we do not think that it lies on the side of the Petitioner. The Petitioner is a beneficiary of a false claim. The affidavit contained patently false assertions. They were found to be false and untrue and Petitioner's father stood completely exposed during the course of scrutiny of the NCL certificate. The Petitioner is a beneficiary of a false claim. The affidavit contained patently false assertions. They were found to be false and untrue and Petitioner's father stood completely exposed during the course of scrutiny of the NCL certificate. If the power to issue certificate inheres or implies in it, a power to cancel it, then, that power has been exercised by reaching the conclusion that the Petitioner's father suppressed his real income from the authority. Once the Petitioner's father gave false information about his income and filed an affidavit containing misleading statements, then, we do not think that any of the paragraphs of the Full Bench Judgment relied upon by Mr. Anturkar will assist the Petitioner. 52. We must at once clarify that the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extra ordinary, equitable and discretionary. It is to be exercised to render complete justice and to remove injustice and that is how Mr. Anturkar relies upon the Full Bench Judgment and on the Supreme Court's judgments which are relied on in the Full Bench decision. We would be doing a great disservice and injustice, if we allow the parties like the Petitioner to obtain benefits of reservation. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that these benefits must be obtained by genuine persons. There is a tendency to raise false claims and based on untrue, incorrect and incomplete information, the benefits or concessions or relaxations are obtained. Till the time, the truth comes out, the parties like the Petitioner on the strength of such certificate continue their studies or jobs. When the certificates are found to be vitiated and in above terms, a request for sympathetic consideration is made. The request is made on the basis that in such matters when academic years are about to culminate and studies are about to be completed or are nearing completion, we must not take away the benefits of reservation. This is precisely what the Supreme Court has cautioned us from doing. In the case of the State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind and Others reported in AIR 2001 SC 393 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:- “34. This is precisely what the Supreme Court has cautioned us from doing. In the case of the State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind and Others reported in AIR 2001 SC 393 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:- “34. In order to protect and promote the less fortunate or unfortunate people who have been suffering from social handicap, educational backwardness besides other disadvantages, certain provisions are made in the Constitution with a view to see that they also have the opportunity to be on par with others in the society. Certain privileges and benefits are conferred on such people belonging to Scheduled Tribes by way of reservations in admission to educational institutions (professional colleges) and in appointments in services of State. The object behind these provisions is noble and laudable besides being vital in bringing a meaningful social change. But, unfortunately, even some better placed persons by producing false certificates as belonging to Scheduled Tribes have been capturing or cornering seats or vacancies reserved for Scheduled Tribes defeating the very purpose for which the provisions are made in the Constitution. The Presidential Orders are issued under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution recognizing and identifying the needy and deserving people belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes mentioned therein for the constitutional purpose of availing benefits of reservation in the matters of admissions and employment. If these benefits are taken away by those for whom they are not meant, the people for whom they are really meant or intended will be deprived of the same and their sufferings will continue. Allowing the candidates not belonging to Scheduled tribes to have the benefit or advantage of reservation either in admissions or appointments leads to making mockery of the very reservation against the mandate and the scheme of the Constitution.” 53. We can safely apply these principles to the facts and circumstances of the present case. We do not think that the Petitioner deserves any discretionary or equitable relief. We have no hesitation in dismissing the first Writ Petition. We have no hesitation in vacating the ad-interim order, as well. 54. We do not think that any other conclusion can be reached as far as the second Petition is concerned. There facts are gross. There, the Petitioner's father is a qualified surgeon. The Petitioner's father was serving in a Municipal Hospital as a Doctor. We have no hesitation in vacating the ad-interim order, as well. 54. We do not think that any other conclusion can be reached as far as the second Petition is concerned. There facts are gross. There, the Petitioner's father is a qualified surgeon. The Petitioner's father was serving in a Municipal Hospital as a Doctor. The Petitioner's father presumably on a fellowship left India for Australia. He completed the fellowship, returned to India and thereafter during the course of the said service at Nair Hospital, Mumbai, got job offer in Malaysia. He promptly took it by quiting the municipal job. When he departed to Malaysia with his family, he stayed in Malaysia and after some years there, then obtained a job in Saudi Arabia until he returned to India in 2007. Thus, from 2000 to 2004, he stayed in Australia returned for a brief period to India, went to Malaysia and thereafter to Saudi Arabia. We cannot presume that he survived on a meagre fellowship according to him with no salary or income. Concededly, the Petitioner in the memo of the Petition itself states that her father went on a job assignment to Malaysia and thereafter to Saudi Arabia. We cannot be so naive to presume that from a job assignment abroad there is no earning or income at all. The Petitioner may not be desirous of disclosing his father's true income or salary. However, when such gross facts were noticed by the authorities naturally they called for a explanation from the Petitioner. It is then the Petitioner places before the committee and now reiterates before us the father's ailment and long history of diseases. All these did not impede his academic and professional growth. Throughout all this, he was working, traveling and earning. It is therefore improper and unjust now to rely upon such ailment and diseases. In that case as well we found that the certificate was obtained without disclosing this income and generated from the service rendered abroad. 55. We have found that the certificate was obtained by the Petitioner's father in the same year, namely, 2012. That certificate is cancelled. The complaint is the same. When the complaint was made and by the same gentleman Gharat, the committee called for the explanation from the Petitioner. The Petitioner produced a passport. Pertinently, the passport was renewed but that was not produced, the expired one was produced. That certificate is cancelled. The complaint is the same. When the complaint was made and by the same gentleman Gharat, the committee called for the explanation from the Petitioner. The Petitioner produced a passport. Pertinently, the passport was renewed but that was not produced, the expired one was produced. It is after this expired passport of the year 2000 that the Petitioner's father took up all assignments and jobs abroad. It is that passport and information in relation thereto which ought to have been furnished. The information about the bank account also on the face of it does not appear to be truthful and in the above mentioned factual backdrop. Once that is admitted, then, it would be improper for us to assume that the committee committed an error in not referring to the accounts statement produced. The accounts statement reveal a small amount and balance of something like Rs.1,46,993/- in one bank account which is a joint account of the Petitioner's mother and father. The Petitioner's account details were called for. The Petitioner possessed a bank account for himself or did not have it or had it at one time but closed later on, then, all this information could have been revealed. On the other hand, in the affidavit filed with application for issuance of NCL certificate dated 11th May, 2012, it is stated that “I do not have any agricultural income.” “The only income that I have is from tuitions that my wife takes at home. There are no Fixed Deposits, no investments in shares and income that is revealed for the last year is Rs. 1,75,000/-, Rs. 1,75,000/- and Rs. 1,90,000/- from 2009-2010 to financial year 2011-2012.” Both persons had solemnly stated that if any information is found to be false, they can be prosecuted for offences committed and punishable under the Indian Penal Code. The complainant Hemant Gharat placed before the Court the information that the father of the Petitioner is an M.S. The Petitioner's father is a specialist Doctor. He has also super-specialty degree. He was expected to make a minimum income at-least of Rs. 50 Lakhs going by his qualification. It is impossible that if he had no income and as substantial as what is required to not only look-after himself, his family, their education and family needs abroad in these countries, then, Mr. Gharat complains that he earned much more. He was expected to make a minimum income at-least of Rs. 50 Lakhs going by his qualification. It is impossible that if he had no income and as substantial as what is required to not only look-after himself, his family, their education and family needs abroad in these countries, then, Mr. Gharat complains that he earned much more. That is how when the information was provided by said Gharat that an explanation was called from the Petitioner's father. 56. The Petitioner's mother appeared and stated that Ramakant Jadhav has also given a written explanation and annexed thereto a copy of the passport. That passport was found to be cancelled. When asked “whether there is any existing passport”, it was said that it was lost. When it was enquired, whether any police complaint is made, it was said that it was made. Then, it was stated by the Petitioner's father that he was abroad. He was on a visa under the category Education/Occupation/Training. This was not a job assignment but a fellowship and he was getting re-numeration. The re-numeration was 2500 Australian Dollars per month. The explanation was that he cannot undertake any professional or similar activities in Australia. That is because he is not permitted to practice Medicine in Australia. Then, it was conceded that in the year 2003-2004, he was in Malaysia. The job there was a Government job. Then, it was stated that from 2009-2010, 2011-2012 he was in Mumbai. During that time, he survived on agricultural income and that is how the wife was directed to produce the bank statement and passport. On 18th April, 2013, at the hearing, it was revealed that on such meager income as is now projected, it is difficult to survive and secondly when the Petitioner and his family were abroad it was impossible as to how the Petitioner managed to bear the expenditure of education, medical needs etc of the family, without income in money. Going by his qualifications, he is bound to earn much more. He cannot be earning a lesser income and as revealed. The committee rightly remarked that the figure that the Petitioner discloses as his annual income is much less than that earned by a nursing staff. 57. Going by his qualifications, he is bound to earn much more. He cannot be earning a lesser income and as revealed. The committee rightly remarked that the figure that the Petitioner discloses as his annual income is much less than that earned by a nursing staff. 57. In such circumstances, when the Petitioner's father appeared and said that he is presently not doing any practice and is in search of work from last six months and suffering from serious ailment, then, the contradictions as noted by the committee and to be found at page 44 of the paper book and based on that the conclusions reached, cannot be termed as perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. 58. For the same reasons for which we have denied the relief to the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2091 of 2014, we are unable to accept the argument of Mr. Thorat based on the penultimate and final para in Madhuri Patil's case (supra). For identical reasons, we deny the alternate relief. There is no substance in any of the contentions raised in support thereof. As a result of the above discussion, we find no merit in this Petition, as well. 59. We must at once clarify that the interim orders passed in these Petitions by themselves do not create any right in favour of the Petitioners. They cannot only on the strength of these interim orders claim to continue their studies. Merely because these orders continued for some time does not mean that we are bound to continue them so as to facilitate completion of the course. More so, when the Petitioners secured admissions to seats reserved for OBC though they are not eligible. Their Admissions are a product of suppression of a material fact. It is based on a active concealment and can safely be termed as obtained, by perpetrating a fraud, once it is so, then that is vitiated from inception. 60. Rule in both these Writ Petitions is discharged and adinterim orders are vacated forthwith. 61. Before parting, we must clarify that our conclusions are rendered following the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India rendered in the case of Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India-II reported in AIR 2000 SC 498 . The Hon'ble Court laid down the binding principles regarding creamy layers, their identification etc. 61. Before parting, we must clarify that our conclusions are rendered following the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India rendered in the case of Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India-II reported in AIR 2000 SC 498 . The Hon'ble Court laid down the binding principles regarding creamy layers, their identification etc. in following terms: 7. Our Constitution is wedded to the concept of equality and equality is a basic feature. Under Article 15(2), there is a prohibition that State shall not discriminate against any citizen on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex and place of birth or any of them. It is equally true that ours is a casteridden society. Still, it is a constitutional mandate not to discriminate on the basis of caste alone. Provisions can be made for the upliftment of socially and educationally backward classes, scheduled castes or scheduled tribes or for women and children. Article 16(4) empowers the States for making any provision for reservation in appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State. Reservation is permissible (i) in favour of any backward class of citizens and (ii) if it is not adequately represented in services under the State. 8. Caste only cannot be the basis for reservation. Reservation can be for a backward class citizen of a particular caste. Therefore, from that caste, creamy layer and non-backward class of citizens are to be excluded. If the caste is to be taken into consideration then for finding out socially and economically backward class, creamy layer of the caste is to be eliminated for granting benefit of reservation, because that creamy layer cannot be termed as socially and economically backward. These questions are exhaustively dealt with by a nine Judge Bench of this Court in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, (1992) Suppl. 3 SCC 217 and it has been specially held that 'only caste' cannot be the basis for reservation. 9. Inclusion of castes in the list of Backward classes cannot be mechanical and cannot be done without adequate relevant data. Nor can it be done for extraneous reasons. Care should be taken that the forward castes do not get included in the backward castes list. 9. Inclusion of castes in the list of Backward classes cannot be mechanical and cannot be done without adequate relevant data. Nor can it be done for extraneous reasons. Care should be taken that the forward castes do not get included in the backward castes list. In Indira Sawhney, Pandian, J. observed (para 174 SCC) that before a conclusion is drawn that a caste is backward or is inadequately represented in the services, "the existence of circumstances relevant to the formation of opinions is a sine qua non. If the opinion suffers from the vice of non-application of mind or formulation of collateral grounds or beyond the scope of the statute, or irrelevant and extraneous material, then the opinion is challengeable." Sawant, J. (see para 539 of SCC) too pointed out the need for proper application of mind to the facts and circumstances, the field, the post and the extent of existing representation and the need to balance representation. On behalf of himself and three others, Jeevan Reddy J. pointed out (para 798 SCC) that opinion in regard to backwardness and inadequate representation must be based on relevant material. The scope of judicial scrutiny even with regard to matters relating to subjective satisfaction are governed by the principles stated in Barium Chemicals v. Company Law Board, (1966) Supple. SCR 311. Likewise, periodic examination of a Backward class could lead to its exclusion if it ceases to be socially backward or if it is adequately represented in the services. Once backward, always backward is not acceptable. In any case, the 'creamy layer' has no place in the reservation system. 10. If forward classes are mechanically included in the list of backward classes or if the creamy layer among backward classes is not excluded, then the benefits of reservation will not reach the really backward among the backward classes. Most of the benefits will then be knocked away by the forward castes and the creamy layer. That will leave the truly backward, backward for ever. Jeevan Reddy, J. while delivering the majority judgment, inter-alia, held as under: If the real object is to discover and locate backwardness, and if such backwardness is found in a caste, it can be treated as backward; if it is found in any other group, section or class, they too can be treated as backward. (See Page 717 para 783). Jeevan Reddy, J. while delivering the majority judgment, inter-alia, held as under: If the real object is to discover and locate backwardness, and if such backwardness is found in a caste, it can be treated as backward; if it is found in any other group, section or class, they too can be treated as backward. (See Page 717 para 783). Reservation is not being made under Clause (4) in favour of a caste but a backward class. Once a caste satisfies the criteria of backwardness, it becomes a backward class for the purposes of Article 16(4). [See Page 718 Para 784]. 11. In paragraph 796, Jeevan Reddy, J. has summarised the discussion under Question No. 3 and inter-alia, as under: A caste can be and quite often is a social class in India. If it is backward socially, it would be a backward class for the purposes of Article 16(4). Identification of the backward classes can certainly be done with reference to castes among, and alongwith, other groups, classes and sections of people. One can start process with the castes, wherever they are found, apply the criteria (evolved for determining backwardness) and find out whether it satisfies the criteria. If it does what emerges is a "backward class of citizens" within the meaning of and for the purposes of Article 16(4). Similar process can be adopted in the case of other occupational groups, communities and classes, so as to cover the entire populace. The central idea and overall objective should be to consider all available groups, sections and classes in society. Since caste represents an existing, identifiable social group class encompassing an overwhelming majority of the country's population, one can well begin with it and then go to other groups, sections and classes. Court further considered in Paragraph 800 and held as under: “...........while answering Question 3(b), we said that identification of backward classes can be done with reference to castes along with g other occupational groups, communities and classes. We did not say that that is the only permissible method. Indeed, there may be some groups or classes in whose case caste may not be relevant to all. For example, agricultural labourers, rickshawpuliers/drivers, streethawkers etc. may well qualify for being designated as Backward Classes. 12. We shall next proceed to the question relating to 'creamy layer'. 13. We did not say that that is the only permissible method. Indeed, there may be some groups or classes in whose case caste may not be relevant to all. For example, agricultural labourers, rickshawpuliers/drivers, streethawkers etc. may well qualify for being designated as Backward Classes. 12. We shall next proceed to the question relating to 'creamy layer'. 13. In Indira Sawhney (1992 AIR SCW 3682) on the question of exclusion of creamy layer' from the Backward Classes, there was agreement among eight out of the nine learned Judges of this Court. There were five separate Judgments in this behalf which required the "creamy layer" to be identified and excluded. 14. The judgment of Jeevan Reddy, J. was rendered for himself and on behalf of three other learned Judges, Kania, CJ and M.N. Venkatachaliah, A.M. Ahmadi, JJ. (as they then were). The said judgment laid emphasis on the relevance of caste and also stated that upon a member of the backward class reaching an "advanced social level or status", he would no longer belong to the backward class and would have to be weeded out. Similar views were expressed by Sawant, Thommen, Kuldip Singh, and Sahai, JJ. in their separate judgments. 15. It will be necessary to refer to and summarise briefly the principles laid down in these five separate judgments for that would provide the basis for decision on points 2 to 5. 16. While considering the concept of 'meanstest' or 'creamy layer' which signifies imposition of an income limit, for the purpose of excluding the persons (from the backward class) whose income is above the said limit, in paragraph 791, the Court has noted that counsel for the States of Bihar, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and other counsel for respondents strongly opposed any such distinction and submitted that once a class is identified as a backward class after applying the relevant criteria including the economic one, it is not permissible to apply the economic criteria once again and subdivide a backward class into two subcategories. The Court negatived the said contention by holding that exclusion of such (creamy layer) socially advanced members will make the 'class' a truly backward class and would more appropriately serve the purpose and object of Clause (4). 22. As appears from the judgments of six out of the eight Judges, viz. Jeevan Reddy (for himself and three others), Sawant and Sahai JJ. 22. As appears from the judgments of six out of the eight Judges, viz. Jeevan Reddy (for himself and three others), Sawant and Sahai JJ. (i.e. six learned Judges out of nine), they specifically refer to those in higher services like IAS, IPS and All India Services or near about as persons who have reached a higher level of social advancement and economic status and therefore as a matter of law, such persons are declared not entitled to be treated as backward. They are to be treated as creamy layer "without further inquiry." Likewise, persons living in sufficient affluence who are able to provide employment to others are to be treated as having reached a higher social status on account of their affluence and therefore outside the backward class. Those holding higher levels of agricultural land holdings or getting income from property, beyond a limit, have to be excluded from the backward classes. This, in our opinion, is a judicial "declaration" made by this Court. 23. The submission of Sri Rajeev Dhawan for the S.N.D.P. Yogam that the above separate judgments contain mere illustrations and do not contain any declaration of law cannot, in our opinion, be accepted. Counsel also relied upon observations in the judgment of Jeevan Reddy, J. to the effect that in such a big country as ours, norms may differ from State to State or from region to region. In our view, those observations do not detract from the declaration of law that the above sections belong to the creamy layer and hence are to be kept outside the backward class. We may add that some more categories of persons who can be said to have gone outside the creamy layer are those "broad categories" enumerated in the notification of the Central Government dated 8.9.93 pursuant to Indira Sawhney and the said broad categorisation has been accepted by this Court in Ashok Kumar Thakur v. State of Bihar and Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 403 as valid. With respect, we are in entire agreement with the principles laid down in Ashok Kumar Thakur. 24. We may point out that the identification of creamy layer in every backward class is in fact based upon horizontal division of every section of the backward class into creamy layer or non-creamy layer. (1995) 5 SCC 403 as valid. With respect, we are in entire agreement with the principles laid down in Ashok Kumar Thakur. 24. We may point out that the identification of creamy layer in every backward class is in fact based upon horizontal division of every section of the backward class into creamy layer or non-creamy layer. For example, if there are a dozen named backward classes and each have particular percentage of D quota in the reservation, they can be arranged in a vertical distribution one after the other (see para 812 of Indira Sawhney referring to vertical and horizontal divisions), and the separate and the aggregate quota meant for them can be spelled out. But in each of these named backward classes listed one below the other, it is not difficult to make horizontal divisions of those p belonging to (i) constitutional offices (ii) particular services, (iii) professions (iv) industry and trade (v) particular income level and (vi) particular holding of property etc. to segregate the creamy and non-creamy layers in each vertical sub-classification of backward class and say that the children of such persons in these horizontal subdivisions of the backward classes will be creamy layer and therefore outside the backward classes. This is not a difficult exercise. It is also important to notice that such a horizontal division based on such norms will be applicable not only to those in the Backward Classes presently falling under the norm but the norms or limits so set would also be applicable to those reaching that level in the future. May be, as stated in the notification of the Central Government dated 8.9.93 issued pursuant to Indira Sawhney, the income levels may have to be reasonably upgraded periodically to set off inflation. Subject to such a reasonable revision in the norms, if any, periodically, the norms whether laid down by the Central Government or the State Governments must apply not only for the immediate present but also for the future. This, in our view, was the declaration of law made in Indira Sawhney and in Ashok Kumar Thakur in relation to identification and exclusion of creamy layer. 25. So far as the directions in Indira Sawhney are concerned, they are that the Central and State Governments are obliged to create separate bodies which will identify the creamy layer in the backward classes within a time frame. 25. So far as the directions in Indira Sawhney are concerned, they are that the Central and State Governments are obliged to create separate bodies which will identify the creamy layer in the backward classes within a time frame. Point 1 is decided accordingly. 27. As the 'creamy layer' in the backward class is to be treated "on par" with the forward classes and is not entitled to benefits of reservation, it is obvious that if the 'creamy layer' is not excluded, there will be discrimination and violation of Articles 14 and 16(1) inasmuch as equals (forwards and creamy layer of backward classes) cannot be treated unequally. Again, non-exclusion of creamy layer will also be violative of Articles 14, 16(1) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India since un-equals (the creamy layer) cannot be treated as equals that is to say, equal to the rest of the backward class. These twin aspects of discrimination are specifically elucidated in the judgment of Sawant J. where the learned Judge stated as follows: (para 520) “...............to continue to confer upon such advanced sections............special benefits, would amount to treating equals unequally...........Secondly, to rank them with the rest of the backward classes would.......amount to treating un-equals equally.” Thus, any executive or legislative action refusing to exclude the creamy layer from the benefits of reservation will be violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) and also of Article 16(4). We shall examine the validity of Sections 3, 4 and 6 in the light of the above principle.