Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 850 (MP)

Ram Kumar Meena v. State of M. P.

2017-07-21

HEMANT GUPTA, VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA

body2017
ORDER : VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, J. Heard on I.A. No. 8760/2017 on the question of limitation regarding delay in filing the instant appeal. The appellant-petitioner challenged the order passed by the Writ Court in the Review Petition No. 139/2016 which was dismissed on 3-5-2016. The writ petition forming the subject-matter of W.P. No. 6162/2014 was filed by the appellant-petitioner challenging the order dated 16-2-2005 passed by the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Scrutiny Committee’) which was dismissed by order dated 17-6-2015 by the writ Court. Against the said order a writ appeal was preferred which was decided on 17-2-2016 granting liberty to the petitioner to file a review petition before the learned Single Judge. 2. Thereafter, the appellant-petitioner filed Review Petition No. 139/2016 which was decided by the learned Single Judge on 3-5-2017. Assailing the original order passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 17-6-2015 in the writ petition and the order dated 3-5-2015 passed in the review petition, the present intra-Court appeal has been filed. 3. Considering the averments made in the interlocutory application which is duly supported by an affidavit, it is apparent that the appellant was prosecuting remedy before this Court by way of a writ appeal or review petition. Hence, the delay in filing the present writ appeal is bona fide constituting sufficient cause. Accordingly delay is condoned and the I.A. No. 8760/2017 is allowed. 4. Also heard on admission. The appellant-petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee, vide (Annexure-P/6), dated 16-6-2015 contending that the findings recorded by the Scrutiny Committee regarding his caste certificate are perverse. 5. The factual score that is essential to be depicted are that the petitioner was appointed as a Sub-Inspector in the Police Department in the year 1992 as a scheduled caste candidate. He submitted a caste certificate to the effect that he belongs to “Meena” caste which is a scheduled tribe in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Some complaints were received against the caste certificate of the petitioner. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The matter was referred to the Scrutiny Committee to verify the caste status of the petitioner. The Scrutiny Committee vide impugned order (Annexure-P/6) held that the petitioner has submitted a forged and bogus caste certificate at the time of his recruitment. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The matter was referred to the Scrutiny Committee to verify the caste status of the petitioner. The Scrutiny Committee vide impugned order (Annexure-P/6) held that the petitioner has submitted a forged and bogus caste certificate at the time of his recruitment. It was also found that the petitioner does not belong to the scheduled caste and his father or he was not a resident of Shironj Sub-Division of District Vidisha and, therefore, the petitioner is not covered under the category of the scheduled tribes, as claimed by him. 6. It is not in dispute that “Meena” caste is not included under the category of the Scheduled Tribes in the State of Madhya Pradesh, except “Meena” who were residing in Shironj Sub-Division of the District Vidisha, as per Notification issued by the Government of India in the year 2003 whereby “Meena” caste has been deleted from the category of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is also not in dispute against the enquiry conducted by the Scrutiny Committee in similar cases of “Meena” category, a special leave petition forming the subject-matter of SLP (Civil) No. 19248/2007 was filed before the apex Court which has been dismissed. Thus, it is clear that the “Meena” caste in the State of Madhya Pradesh is not included in the Scheduled Tribes category, except for Shironj Sub-Division of District Vidisha. 7. From a bare perusal of the record of the present case and also the findings ascribed by the Scrutiny Committee, it is found that the appellant-petitioner did not produce any credentials viz. Ration card and voter's list etc. in order to substantiate his claim that his forefather was residing in the District Vidisha. Contention of the petitioner that he had produced evidence before the Scrutiny Committee that his forefather had left the State of Rajasthan and shifted in the Village - Kolukhedi, Tahsil Lateri, District Vidisha was rightly not accepted by the Scrutiny Committee, as the same was not found to be corroborated by any cogent evidence. On the contrary, the record shows that the petitioner passed Middle and High School examinations from Village, Gudariya District Hoshangabad and also did his Graduation from Sohagpur in the District Hoshangabad. In his caste certificate there was serial number mentioned therein. On the contrary, the record shows that the petitioner passed Middle and High School examinations from Village, Gudariya District Hoshangabad and also did his Graduation from Sohagpur in the District Hoshangabad. In his caste certificate there was serial number mentioned therein. His certificate was not found to be genuine as the Tahsildar, Shironj had informed the police authority that there was no record available in the Office of Tahsildar, Shironj in regard to issuance of the caste certificate in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, no leniency can be shown to the petitioner. 8. It is established law that there cannot be any addition or deletion in the Presidential Notification regarding a caste certificate by the Court of law except by the Legislature. [See : Raju Ramsing Vasave v. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar, (2008) 9 SCC 54 ; R. Unnikrishnan v. V.K. Mahanudevan, (2014) 4 SCC 434 and Palghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya Samrakshana Samithi v. State of Kerala, (1994) 1 SCC 359 ]. 9. In the case in hand, the petitioner-appellant has availed appointment in the Police Department on the strength of a fake and fictitious caste certificate. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and proposition of law laid down by the apex Court, we do not perceive any error or illegality in the decision of the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee and the findings ascribed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition as well as review petition are impeccable. 11. Ex-consequenti the writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.