JUDGMENT : BELA M. TRIVEDI, J. 1. The petitioner, by way of the present petition, has raised a much vexed question as to whether the petitioner, an offspring of a tribal mother and a non-tribal father could acquire the caste status of his mother, despite the legal presumption that in case of an inter-caste marriage, the child acquires the caste of his father, and though there was no evidence produced before the Scrutiny Committee to rebut the said presumption to show that he had suffered the deprivations, indignities, humilities and handicaps like other members of the community to which his mother belonged? 2. The petitioner in the present petition has sought direction to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 19.2.2018 passed by the respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee and to declare that the certificate issued by the District Social Welfare Officer (District Panchayat), Panchmahal, Godhra as well as the certificate issued by the Mamlatdar, Civic Service Centre, Taluka Morva (Hadaf), District Panchmahal, certifying the petitioner as the member of scheduled tribe “Hindu Bhil” are legal and valid. As per the case of the petitioner, his mother belonged to “Bhil” community, which is a scheduled tribe and his father belonged to a non-tribal community i.e. “Khant - Hindu Soni”. The petitioner was born on 1.5.1979 at Village Bhuvar and his birth was registered at the Gram Panchayat Bhuvar on or about 10.5.1979, wherein his caste was mentioned as “Bhil”. Thereafter in July 1984 the petitioner was admitted in the School at Bhuvar and thereafter was sent to Godhra for the purpose of studies, where he was required to submit his caste certificate. The petitioner, therefore, had made an application to the District Social Welfare Officer, Panchmahal at Godhra and the competent authority had issued the caste certificate to the petitioner on 7.7.1994 showing his caste as “Hindu Bhil” (Annexure-A). Thereafter the petitioner had applied to the Mamlatdar, Civic Service Centre, Morva (Hadaf) for issuing the caste certificate, which was issued by the said authority on 2.7.2009, showing him as a member belonging to scheduled tribe “Hindu Bhil” (Annexure-B). It is further case of the petitioner that one Nisarta Fatabhai Varsinbhai, resident of Valaiya, Taluka Morva (Hadaf) had submitted an application for cancellation of the certificate issued by the Mamlatdar, however, the same was filed by the Mamlatdar. It is further case of the petitioner that one Nisarta Fatabhai Varsinbhai, resident of Valaiya, Taluka Morva (Hadaf) had submitted an application for cancellation of the certificate issued by the Mamlatdar, however, the same was filed by the Mamlatdar. Thereafter, another person Shri Amarsinh Manabhai Rathod, President of Morva (Hadaf) Taluka had also submitted an application for cancellation of the said certificate of the petitioner. Pursuant to the said application, the Vigilance Officer (Tribal Development), Panchmahal at Godhra was directed to hold inquiry. The Vigilance Officer submitted a report to the Commissioner, Tribal Development, State of Gujarat on 1st October, 2012 (Annexure- (C). The said report of Vigilance Officer was sent to the Collector for verification and the Collector had expressed the opinion that the certificate issued to the petitioner and the benefit flowing from the said certificate to the petitioner could not be denied. 3. The petitioner had contested the 13th Gujarat Legislative Assembly Election as an independent candidate, from 125-Morva (Hadaf) Legislative Assembly Constituency, which was reserved for ST category. In the said election, the petitioner was elected as the returned candidate in the result declared on 18.12.2017 and the respondent No.7 was defeated. The respondent No.7 thereafter made an application on 23.12.2017 to the respondent No.1 for verification of the caste status of the petitioner. The respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee, therefore, called upon the petitioner to appear before it on 9.1.2018, vide the communication dated 28.12.2017. The petitioner had challenged the action of the respondent authorities by filing Special Civil Application No.1162 of 2018 on 18.1.2018. The said petition came to be withdrawn by the petitioner on 23.1.2018 as the petitioner had filed another substantive petition being Special Civil Application No.1337 of 2018, challenging the order dated 19.1.2018 passed by the Scrutiny Committee. The Special Civil Application No.1337 of 2018 preferred by the petitioner was allowed by the Court with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties as the Court was of the prima facie opinion that the petitioner was not afforded sufficient opportunity of being heard before the impugned order dated 19.1.2018 was passed by the Scrutiny Committee. The Special Civil Application No.1337 of 2018 preferred by the petitioner was allowed by the Court with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties as the Court was of the prima facie opinion that the petitioner was not afforded sufficient opportunity of being heard before the impugned order dated 19.1.2018 was passed by the Scrutiny Committee. The Court, while setting aside the said order without going into the merits of the case, had directed the petitioner to file his reply and necessary documents in support thereof before the respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee on or before 7.2.2018, and directed the respondent No.2 to decide the matter afresh and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and preferably before 21.2.2018. The petitioner accordingly filed the reply and the documents before the respondent No.2 Committee. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.2, however, misinterpreting the guidelines issued by the Government of India dated 21.5.1977 and the judgments of the Supreme Court, passed the impugned order, holding that the petitioner had failed to rebut the presumption that in case of inter-caste marriage, the child would acquire the caste status of his father, and that the petitioner had failed to establish that he had suffered deprivations, indignities, humilities, like other members of the community to which his mother belonged. As per the further case of the petitioner, the respondent No.2 Committee having wrongly cancelled the caste certificates issued by the District Social Welfare Officer, Panchmahal, Godhra and by the Mamlatdar, Civic Service Centre, Taluka Morva (Hadaf), District Panchmahal, certifying the petitioner as the member of scheduled tribe “Hindu Bhil”, the present petition has been filed. 4. The petition has been resisted by the respondent No.2 by filing the affidavit-in-reply contending inter alia that earlier the Scrutiny Committee had cancelled the caste certificate of the petitioner on the basis of the report of the Vigilance Cell, however, the said order having been challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing the petition being Special Civil Application No.1337 of 2018, the learned Additional Advocate General had fairly stated before the Court that the petitioner having not been given reasonable opportunity of hearing, the said order be set aside, and accordingly the Court had set aside the same. Thereafter, as per the directions of the Court, the petitioner had filed his reply and necessary documents in support thereof on 7.2.2018. Thereafter, as per the directions of the Court, the petitioner had filed his reply and necessary documents in support thereof on 7.2.2018. On 8.2.2018 the petitioner was served with the notice to remain present before the Committee on 15.2.2018. On the said day, considering the grievance of the petitioner about non-furnishing of certain documents, the petitioner was furnished with complete set of documents relating to the Vigilance Report and at the request of the petitioner the matter was fixed for final arguments on 19.2.2018. The Committee thereafter, considering the submissions made by the petitioner and the documents on record, passed the impugned order. Hence, there was no violation of the principles of natural justice as alleged by the petitioner. 5. As regards the documents submitted before the committee, it has been contended by the respondents that the petitioner was admitted to 1st Standard at Devgadh Baria Taluka Primary School in the year 1984, where he studied up to 1987, and then was admitted to 4th Standard at Methodist Girls’ Practising School, Godhra, District Panchmahal where he studied up to 7th Standard. In June 1991, he was admitted to 8th Standard at Maccab Memorial High School (Higher Secondary), Godhra, in the year 1991, to 9th Standard at M & M Mehta High School, Godhra and in July 1993 he was admitted at Bhupendra Kumar Madhyamik Vidyalay, Chopada Buzarg, Taluka Godhra, District Panchmahal which school belonged to his father and was established in the name of the petitioner himself. The petitioner thereafter was admitted to 11th Standard in Godhra Anaj Mahajan Sarvajanik High School, Godhra and he left the School on 13.6.1995. It has been further contended that as per the certificate issued by the Head Teacher of Bhuvar Mukhya Prathmik Shala, the petitioner had never studied in the said school. The real brother of the petitioner, Shri Govindbhai Vechatbhai Khant held the status of SEBC, which is the status of their father. According to respondents, the petitioner had not lived at his maternal home at Bhuvar for a long time as alleged and had never studied at Village Bhuvar, but had studied at various Taluka and District places like Devgadh Baria and Godhra. According to respondents, the petitioner had not lived at his maternal home at Bhuvar for a long time as alleged and had never studied at Village Bhuvar, but had studied at various Taluka and District places like Devgadh Baria and Godhra. It has been further contended that the father of the petitioner had a fair-price shop, which was allotted to him as he was a member of SEBC and after the death of his father, the petitioner as his legal heir was allotted the said shop. It has also been contended that the father of the petitioner originally belonged to "Khant" Community, which was an upper caste community, and the said community was declared as SEBC only in September, 1993. Hence, the certificates issued by the Social Welfare Officer and the Mamlatdar on the basis of the caste of the petitioner’s mother were without proper verification of the record. The petitioner, having got all the benefits in life from his father and there being nothing on record produced by the petitioner to show that he had suffered humilities or deprivations or indignities of any nature, which otherwise are suffered by a member of scheduled tribe, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. The petitioner had filed affidavit-in-rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent No.2 stating inter alia that merely because he had studied at different places to get education, such fact could not change the status of his caste. According to him, the caste certificates were issued by the District Social Welfare Officer and the Mamlatdar on the basis of his birth certificate, in which he was shown as belonging to “Bhil” community, which was very relevant piece of evidence. 7. Before adverting to the rival contentions raised by the learned Advocates for the parties, it would be appropriate to mention that the Supreme Court in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. Vs. 7. Before adverting to the rival contentions raised by the learned Advocates for the parties, it would be appropriate to mention that the Supreme Court in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors., reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 had observed that the endeavour of States to fulfill the Constitutional mandate of upliftment of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes by providing for reservation of seats in educational institutions and for reservation of posts and appointments, are sought to be denied to them by unscrupulous persons, who come forward to obtain the benefits of such reservations posing themselves as persons entitled to such status, while in fact they are not entitled to such status. It was further observed that the admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of false social status certificate necessarily has the effect of depriving the genuine scheduled caste or scheduled tribe or OBC candidates as enjoined in the Constitution, of the benefits conferred on them by the Constitution. It is the parent or the guardian who may play fraud claiming false status certificate. The Supreme Court, therefore, in order to streamline the procedure for issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and approval, issued as many as 15 directions in the said judgment. The Supreme Court further observed in paragraph 15 as under:- “15. The question then is whether the approach adopted by the High Court in not elaborately considering the case is vitiated by an error of law. High Court is not a court of appeal to appreciate the evidence. The Committee which is empowered to evaluate the evidence placed before it when records a finding of fact, it ought to prevail unless found vitiated by judicial review of any High Court subject to limitations of interference with findings of fact. The Committee when considers all the material facts and records a finding, though another view, as a court of appeal may be possible, it is not a ground to reverse the findings. The court has to see whether the Committee considered all the relevant material placed before it or has not applied its mind to relevant facts which have led the Committee ultimately record the finding. Each case must be considered in the backdrop of its own facts.” 8. The directions issued in the afore-stated case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. The court has to see whether the Committee considered all the relevant material placed before it or has not applied its mind to relevant facts which have led the Committee ultimately record the finding. Each case must be considered in the backdrop of its own facts.” 8. The directions issued in the afore-stated case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. came up for consideration before the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in a reference order in case of Dayaram Vs. Sudhir Batham and Ors., reported in (2012) 1 SCC 333 as to whether the directions 1 to 15 issued in Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. (supra) were impermissible, being legislative in nature. The Larger Bench after considering many other judgments observed that the entire scheme framed in Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case and the directions given therein have been satisfactorily functioning for the last one-anda- half decades and the same will continue till the legislature concerned makes an appropriate legislation in regard to the verification of claims of caste status as SC/ST and issue of caste certificates or in regard to the verification of caste certificates already obtained by the candidates, who seek the benefits of reservation, relying upon such caste certificates. However, the Supreme Court held that the second sentence of the direction No.13 in Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case providing that where the writ petition is disposed of by a Single Judge, no further appeal would lie against the order to the Division Bench, subject to a special leave under Article 136, is not legally proper, and therefore, to that extent was held to be not a good law. The Supreme Court, therefore, overruled the second sentence of direction No.13 of the said directions given in Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case, while confirming the rest of the said directions. 9. In the latest decision of the Supreme Court in case of Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and Ors. Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Ors., reported in (2017) 8 SCC 670 , the Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court reiterated the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil’s case in paragraph 69.2 as under:- “69. Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Ors., reported in (2017) 8 SCC 670 , the Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court reiterated the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil’s case in paragraph 69.2 as under:- “69. For these reasons, we hold and declare that: 69.1 xxx 69.2 Since the decision of this Court in Madhuri Patil which was rendered on 2.9.1994, the regime which held the field in pursuance of those directions envisaged a detailed procedure for: (a) the issuance of caste certificates; (b) scrutiny and verification of caste and tribe claims by Scrutiny Committees to be constituted by the State Government; (c) the procedure for the conduct of investigation into the authenticity of the claim; (d) cancellation and confiscation of the caste certificate where the claim is found to be false or not genuine; (e) withdrawal of benefits in terms of the termination of an appointment, cancellation of an admission to an educational institution or disqualification from an electoral office obtained on the basis that the candidate belongs to a reserved category; and (f) prosecution for a criminal offence.” 10. In view of the above, it is clear that the observations made and directions given by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case, still holds the field in the matter of scrutiny and approval of caste certificates. As held therein, the High Court is not a Court of appeal to appreciate the evidence. The Committee, which is empowered to evaluate the evidence placed before it, when records a finding of fact, it ought to prevail unless found vitiated by judicial review of the High Court subject to limitations of interference with the findings of facts. It has also been held that the Committee when considers all the material facts and records a finding, though another view, as a Court of appeal may be possible, is not a ground to reverse the findings. 11. At this juncture, it would also be germane to mention that the issue of determination of caste status of a child born to scheduled tribe mother from a forward caste father had come up before the Supreme Court in case of Anjan Kumar Vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2006) 3 SCC 257 and it was observed in paragraph 14 as under:- “14. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2006) 3 SCC 257 and it was observed in paragraph 14 as under:- “14. In view of the catena of decisions of this Court, the questions raised before us are no more res integra. The condition precedent for granting tribe certificate being that one must suffer disabilities wherefrom one belongs. The offshoots of the wedlock of a tribal woman married to a non-tribal husband Forward Class (Kayastha in the present case) cannot claim Scheduled Tribe status. The reason being such offshoot was brought up in the atmosphere of Forward Class and he is not subjected to any disability. A person not belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes claiming himself to be a member of such caste by procuring a bogus caste certificate is a fraud under the Constitution of India. The impact of procuring fake/bogus caste certificate and obtaining appointment/admission from the reserved quota will have farreaching grave consequences. The meritorious reserved candidate may be deprived of reserved category for whom the post is reserved. The reserved post will go into the hands of non-deserving candidate and in such cases it would be violative of the mandate of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.” 12. The Supreme Court, in similar case of Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika Vs. State of Gujarat and others, reported in (2012) 3 SCC 400 after analyzing many earlier decisions held in paragraphs 54 and 55 as under:- “54. In view of the analysis of the earlier decisions and the discussion made above, the legal position that seems to emerge is that in an intercaste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal the determination of the caste of the offspring is essentially a question of fact to be decided on the basis of the facts adduced in each case. The determination of caste of a person born of an intercaste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal cannot be determined in complete disregard of attending facts of the case. 55. In an intercaste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal there may be a presumption that the child has the caste of the father. This presumption may be stronger in the case where in the intercaste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal the husband belongs to a forward caste. 55. In an intercaste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal there may be a presumption that the child has the caste of the father. This presumption may be stronger in the case where in the intercaste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal the husband belongs to a forward caste. But by no means the presumption is conclusive or irrebuttable and it is open to the child of such marriage to lead evidence to show that he/she was brought up by the mother who belonged to the scheduled caste/scheduled tribe. By virtue of being the son of a forward caste father he did not have any advantageous start in life but on the contrary suffered the deprivations, indignities, humilities and handicaps like any other member of the community to which his/her mother belonged. Additionally, that he was always treated a member of the community to which her mother belonged not only by that community but by people outside the community as well.” 13. From the afore-stated legal position it emerges that in case of inter-caste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal, there would be a presumption that the child has a caste of his father, more particularly when the non-tribal husband belongs to a forward caste, however, such presumption could be rebutted by the child by leading evidence to show that he was brought up by his mother, who belonged to the scheduled tribe or scheduled caste, and that by virtue of being a son of forward caste father he did not have any advantageous start in his life but on the contrary he had suffered the deprivations, indignities, humilities like other members of the community to which his mother belonged. Now, as observed by the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil’s case, the High Court being not a Court of appeal could not reappreciate the evidence, which has already been evaluated by the Scrutiny Committee empowered to record the findings of facts, nonetheless, to satisfy the conscience of the Court as to whether the Committee had considered all the relevant material placed before it and had applied its mind to relevant facts, it would be appropriate to broadly examine the findings of facts recorded by the Scrutiny Committee for cancellation of the caste certificate of the petitioner. 14. 14. As transpiring from the record of the petition and the impugned order passed by the Scrutiny Committee, indisputably the mother of the petitioner belonged to a scheduled tribe “Hindu Bhil”, whereas the father of the petitioner belonged to "Khant" community, which was an upper community at the time when they married in the year 1977-78 and when the petitioner was born in 1979. The said "Khant" community was declared as SEBC vide the resolution dated 10.9.1993 issued by the Ministry of Social Welfare, Government of India. Hence, when the petitioner was born on 1.5.1979, the father of the petitioner was belonging to "Khant" community, which was neither scheduled tribe, nor SEBC. However, in his Birth Certificate, his caste was shown as “Bhil” community of his mother. The said position appears to have been shown in the School Leaving Certificates also. It appears that the Social Welfare Officer and the Mamlatdar, Morva (Hadaf), without verifying the actual status of the petitioner, issued the caste certificate to the petitioner on 7.7.1994 and 2.7.2009 respectively, certifying the petitioner as belonging to the scheduled tribe “Hindu Bhil”. At this juncture,it is required to be noted that apart from the presumption that in case of inter-caste marriage, the child would acquire the caste status of his father, in the instant case, from the various school leaving certificates issued by the Schools, where the petitioner had studied from the Standard-I to Standard-XII, it clearly appears that he had never studied at the village Bhuvar of his mother. Indisputedly, he had studied at different schools situated at Taluka place like Devgadh Baria or at District place like Godhra. The petitioner had also studied at the School called Bhupendra Kumar Madhyamik Vidyalay, Chopada Buzarg, Taluka Godhra, District Panchmahal in the year 1993-94, which school was run by the father of the petitioner and that too, in the name of the petitioner himself. From the said evidence it was clearly established that the petitioner had got an advantageous start in life from his father, who belonged to the forward community at the relevant time. There was no evidence produced by the petitioner worth the name before the Scrutiny Committee that he had suffered any humilities or deprivations or indignities as the other members of the “Bhil” community to which his mother belonged, would have suffered. 15. A faint attempt was sought to be made by the learned Sr. There was no evidence produced by the petitioner worth the name before the Scrutiny Committee that he had suffered any humilities or deprivations or indignities as the other members of the “Bhil” community to which his mother belonged, would have suffered. 15. A faint attempt was sought to be made by the learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Mihir Thakore for the petitioner, relying upon an affidavit filed by the maternal grandfather of the petitioner to submit that his daughter i.e. the mother of the petitioner was deserted by the father of the petitioner at the time of the birth of the petitioner, however, the said submission of Mr.Thakore can not be accepted as the said affidavit gets falsified by the other documentary evidence on record. From the various School Certificates on record it was established that the petitioner had never studied at the School at Bhuvar, which was the village of his mother and had studied at various Taluka and District places. The said facts stated by the respondent No.2 in the affidavitin- reply, have not been disputed by the petitioner in his affidavit-in-rejoinder. The only contention raised in the rejoinder is that merely because the petitioner had studied at different places to get the education, it would not change his caste status. It is significant to note that if the petitioner was actually deserted by his father, his father would not have opened the school in the name of the petitioner, where the petitioner had also studied in the year 1993-94. It also appears that the father of the petitioner owned a fairprice shop at Village Viraniya, as a member belonging to SEBC and subsequently, it was transferred to the petitioner as his legal heir. It is also not disputed by the petitioner that his real brother Shri Govindbhai Vechatbhai Khant held the status of SEBC i.e. the status of his father and not of his mother. Thus, from the attending facts and circumstances, it clearly transpires that the Scrutiny Committee, after taking into consideration all the evidence on record and relevant material, had recorded the findings that the petitioner had failed to rebut the presumption by leading cogent evidence that he did not get any advantageous start in his life from his father and on the contrary suffered deprivations, humilities, indignities as suffered by the other members of the “Bhil” community. 16. The reliance placed by the learned Sr. 16. The reliance placed by the learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Mihir Thakore for the petitioner on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465 to submit that the petitioner was not given opportunity to cross-examine the witness, and therefore, the impugned order was in violation of principles of natural justice, is also wholly misconceived. Admittedly, there was no witness examined by the other side, and therefore, there was no question of giving opportunity to cross-examine any witness. As rightly submitted the learned Additional Advocate General Mr. P.K. Jani, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Sukhwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Haryana, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 367 , there is no procedure, whereby the party is expected to tender a witness for cross-examination only, without there being any examination-in-chief. Mr.Jani has also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Telestart Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Special Director of Enforcement, reported in (2013) 9 SCC 549 in support of his submission that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice as all the documents relied upon by the respondents were duly supplied to the petitioner and the opportunity was given to the petitioner to rebut and explain the said documents. Mr.Thakore was also not in a position to dispute the fact that there was no request made by or on behalf of the petitioner to the Scrutiny Committee to examine or cross-examine any witness. 17. It was lastly contended by Mr. Thakore that Shri Upadhyay, who was a member of the Vigilance Cell was also a member of the Scrutiny Committee. However, the learned AAG Mr. P.K. Jani having shown the original order passed by the Scrutiny Committee to the Court as well as to the learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Thakore for the petitioner to show that Mr. Upadhyay was not a party to the proceedings of or to the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee, Mr. Thakore had not pressed into service the said issue. 18. Advocate Mr. Thakore for the petitioner to show that Mr. Upadhyay was not a party to the proceedings of or to the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee, Mr. Thakore had not pressed into service the said issue. 18. In view of the above, the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner having wrongly obtained the caste certificates showing him as a member of scheduled tribe “Hindu Bhil”, though his father belonged to a non-scheduled tribe, the certificates have been rightly cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee after duly considering the evidence on record and the relevant material as well as considering the legal position settled by the Supreme Court from time to time in this regard. 19. In that view of the matter, the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.