Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1044 (MP)

Prateek Kumar David v. State of M. P.

2018-12-20

R.S.JHA, SANJAY DWIVEDI

body2018
ORDER 1. The appellant has filed this appeal under section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Uccha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal), Adhiniyam, 2005, against order dated 22.9.2016 passed in W.P. No.12372/2013, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner against order dated 21.6.2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khandwa rejecting the application filed by the appellant for grant of Schedule Caste certificate, has been dismissed. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge, while taking into consideration the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Anjan Kumar v. Union of India (2006) 3 SCC 257 , Punit Rai v. Dinesh Chaudhary (2003) 8 SCC 204 and Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika v. State of Gujarat and others (2012) 3 SCC 400 , has failed to take note of the fact that in the case of Rameshbhai Dabhai (supra), the Supreme Court, after considering all the previous judgments, has infact held that the presumption in respect of caste of the individual on the basis of the caste of the father, in case of inter-caste marriage or in respect of marriage between tribal and non-tribal, is a rebuttable presumption and that the status of such an individual should be determined taking into consideration the attending facts of the case inasmuch as if the individual continues to suffer the same disablities or disqualifications that his tribal parent was suffering then he is entitled to be treated as a tribal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant's father is a Christian who has married a tribal lady belonging to the Oraon community and he still continues to suffer the disqualifications and deprivations that was suffered by his mother as a tribal. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the decision in the case of Rameshbhai Dabhai (supra), is misconceived and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 5. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the decision in the case of Rameshbhai Dabhai (supra), is misconceived and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 5. From a perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is apparent that the learned Single Judge has quoted the relevant portions from the judgments in the case of Anjan Kumar (supra), Punit Rai (supra) as well as Rameshbhai Dabhai (supra), according to which a person derives his caste on the basis of the caste of the father in case of marriage between the tribal and non-tribal. At the same time, after considering the aforesaid three judgments, the learned Single Judge has also recorded a finding to the effect that the petitioner throughout had excellent schooling in the mission and convent schools and there is nothing on record to indicate that he has been living amongst the tribals as a tribal. The learned Single Judge has also taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner's parents, having adopted Christianity, were staying away from the tribals and that the petitioner had been given the best of education in the convent schools and is a holder of a degree of Bachelor of Engineering. 6. The learned Single Judge has also taken note of and quoted the relevant part and portion of the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, whereby the Sub-Divisional Officer has also considered this aspect and has stated that the petitioner availed of all the facilities available to non-tribals and high caste persons as well as the statement of the petitioner that he has throughout stayed with his parents and enjoyed the benefits by staying with them. The learned Single Judge has also taken into consideration the notification dated 5.1.2013 issued by the Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe Commission as well as the circular dated 30.11.2012 issued by the M.P. General Administration Department, wherein the guidelines relating to issuance of caste certificate clearly states that in case of inter-caste marriage, the caste of the applicant should be treated to be and considered to be that of the father. 7. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, warranting interference nor is there any conflict, as alleged by the learned counsel for the appellant, in the manner of appreciation and understanding by the learned Single Judge of the case of Rameshbhai Dabhai (supra), and the actual law laid down. 8. In view of the aforesaid, we find no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is accordingly dismissed.