Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1572 (GUJ)

MRUNAL PRADIP CHAUDHARI v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2024-07-18

PRANAV TRIVEDI, SUNITA AGARWAL

body2024
JUDGMENT : SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J. 1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in rejecting the application for interim relief filed by the petitioner holding that the petitioner has failed to make out a prima facie case in her favour for grant of interim relief. 2. The relevant facts, noted by the learned Single Judge and brought before us are that the writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 09.05.2024 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in cancelling the Caste Certificate certifying that the petitioner belongs to ‘Teli’ caste, which is notified as Socially and Educationally Backward Class (hereinafter referred to as the SEBC) vide Notification dated 01.04.1976 of the Labour, Social Welfare and Tribal Development Department and a subsequent Government Resolution issued by the State Government from time to time. With the cancellation of Caste Certificate of ‘Teli’ community, the provisional admission granted to the petitioner in the reserved category in the Respondent – College, which is a self financed college, stood cancelled. 3. Challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner that the caste certificate was issued on submission of relevant documents by the petitioner, which clearly proved that the grand-father of the petitioner was resident of the State of Gujarat. The evidence produced before the Competent Authority for issuance of caste certificate were duly produced before the Scrutiny Committee, which have not appreciated the documents in the correct perspective. 4. These documents, as narrated in the order of Caste Scrutiny Committee are as under: “1. Copy of the school leaving certificate number 00851 dated 4/8/2021 of the applicant, which shows caste as “Hindu Teli” and birthplace as Dhule, Maharashtra. 2. Copy of the caste certificate number 2759/2022 dated 8/9/2022 given by the District Deputy Director (V.J.) Bhavnagar, which states caste as “Teli.” 3. Copy of the school leaving certificate number 435 dated 16/5/94 of the candidate's father, Mr. Chaudhary Pradip Hiraman. 4. Copy of the school leaving certificate number 6708 dated 26/11/2008 of the candidate's grandfather, Mr. Chaudhary Hiraman Tanku. The candidate was informed by letters dated 14/02/2023 and 25/05/2023 to present evidence regarding residency. Accordingly, the candidate appeared and presented the previously submitted evidence along with the following new evidence on 21/2/2023 and 29/5/2023. 5. Chaudhary Pradip Hiraman. 4. Copy of the school leaving certificate number 6708 dated 26/11/2008 of the candidate's grandfather, Mr. Chaudhary Hiraman Tanku. The candidate was informed by letters dated 14/02/2023 and 25/05/2023 to present evidence regarding residency. Accordingly, the candidate appeared and presented the previously submitted evidence along with the following new evidence on 21/2/2023 and 29/5/2023. 5. Copy of the certificate number 1310 dated 30/12/1976 of the candidate's relative grandfather, Mr. Chaudhary Gopal Rajaram, from Maharashtra Education Board High School, Bhadra, Ahmedabad.” 5. The submission is that from the documents submitted by the petitioner before the Caste Scrutiny Committee in evidence to establish that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of belonging to caste ‘Teli’, it is evident that the grand-father and father of the petitioner were residents of the State of Gujarat and there being no dispute about the fact of them belonging to ‘Teli’ community, there was no justification for cancellation of caste certificate. 6. The submission, thus, is that the learned Single Judge has erred in denying benefit of admission in reserved category based on the caste certificate issued on 08.09.2022 as per the statutory rules namely the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Courses (Regulation of Admission in Undergraduate Courses) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules 2017). It was submitted that it is not the case of the Respondent that the petitioner has provided a false or fabricated document, inasmuch as, it was verified and established that the caste certificate was issued by the Competent Authority. The order for cancellation of caste certificate suffers from perversity and was required to be stayed so as to save the admission of the petitioner in the medical course, who have secured good marks in the entrance examination. 7. It was lastly argued that the petitioner has total 507 marks whereas, cut off marks of the general category candidates in the college in question is 515. There are other colleges in the State where the petitioner could have got admission even in general category, inasmuch as, she has attained higher marks than the last selected candidate of general category in those institutions. The learned Single Judge has, thus, erred in refusing to consider the request of the petitioner to save her admission in the medical courses obtained after clearing the entrance examination. 8. The learned Single Judge has, thus, erred in refusing to consider the request of the petitioner to save her admission in the medical courses obtained after clearing the entrance examination. 8. Ms Manisha Lavkumar, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State Respondents namely the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would submit that the petitioner has obtained the caste certificate of caste ‘Teli’ notified as SEBC in the State of Gujarat, two months prior to the date of admission. The date of issuance of the caste certificate is indicated from the record as 08.09.2022. In three rounds of counseling, beginning from 29.10.2022, the petitioner had registered herself with the admission committee as SEBC candidate desiring admission on the seat reserved for SEBC category. To substantiate her claim of belonging to the SEBC category, the petitioner had provided the copy of the caste certificate along with the registration form, a copy whereof is attached as Annexure ‘R-4’ with the affidavit of Respondent No. 2 namely the Member Secretary, Admission Committee framed under the Rules 2017. It is, thus, clear that the petitioner while participating in the admission process based on her merit (NEET Score 507 marks) contested for 34 colleges in the choice filling. The copy of the choice filled by the petitioner is also attached as Annexure ‘R-5’ to the said Affidavit. 9. The petitioner, though, was entitled to avail admission as a General category candidate in 13 Institutions in the State, and as SEBC candidate in 14 Institutions out of 34 institutions, she had chosen for admission, as per her merit and the choice made by the petitioner upon conclusion of the first round itself, she was offered provisional admission in the Respondent No. 3 Institute. A copy of the provisional admission order issued by the Admission Committee appended at Page ‘194’ of the Paper-book has been placed before us to demonstrate that it was clearly notified therein that the admission of the petitioner against the reserved seat was provisional, subject to be finalized by the decision of the Director of Social Welfare, Commissioner of Tribal Developments/Director of Developing Caste. Meaning thereby that the admission of the petitioner against the seat allocated for SEBC candidate in the Respondent No. 3 Institution was subject to verification of the caste certificate submitted by the petitioner. 10. Meaning thereby that the admission of the petitioner against the seat allocated for SEBC candidate in the Respondent No. 3 Institution was subject to verification of the caste certificate submitted by the petitioner. 10. It is brought before us that as per the mandate of Rule (5) of the Rules 2017, the reservation testimonials of all the reserved candidates are verified by the competent authority. The verification of the petitioner’s testimonials was conducted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted in accordance with the judgment of the Apex Court as per Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner and Ors. (1994) 6 SCC 241 . The caste certificate of the petitioner came to be cancelled vide impugned order dated 09.05.2024. Upon receipt of the said order, the Respondent No. 2 passed consequential Order dated 20.05.2024 for cancellation of admission of the petitioner noticing that she is ineligible for reservation benefits. 11. The provisions of Gujarat Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificates) Act, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 2018) have been placed before us to submit that any person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes is required to produce the caste certificate in order to claim the benefit of reservation provided to such castes, tribes or classes, for admission into any educational institution. Sub-Section (4) provides that the competent authority on an application made by such person, after satisfying itself about the genuineness of the claim, issue a caste certificate in such form as may be prescribed, by following the procedure prescribed. Under Section 6 of the Act 2018, the Government is empowered to constitute one or more Scrutiny Committee(s), by notification in the Official Gazette, for verification of caste certificates issued by the Competent Authorities under Sub-Section (1) of Section 4, specifying the functions and the area of jurisdiction of each Caste Scrutiny Committee or Committees. Under Section 8 of the Act 2018, the Caste Scrutiny Committee may, suo motu, or otherwise call for the record and inquire into the correctness of such certificate and pass order to cancel or confiscate the certificate, if it is of the opinion that the certificate was obtained fraudulently, by following such procedure as may be prescribed, after giving the person concerned an opportunity of being heard. 12. 12. Section 9 of the Act 2018 states that in any proceedings before the competent authority (Issuing Authority) or the Scrutiny Committee, the burden of proving that the person belongs to any of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes shall be on such claimants/applicants. Section 10 of the Act 2018 confers power of the Civil Court to the Caste Scrutiny Committee or the Competent Authority while holding such inquiry so as to summon the witnesses, production of documents, receiving evidences etc. Section 11 (1)(a) formally provides that a person not being belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes, if secures or has secured admission in any institution against the reserved seat, on cancellation of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee, be liable to be debarred from the concerned educational institution, and any benefit enjoyed or derived by virtue of such admission by such person, shall be withdrawn forthwith. Any degree, diploma or any other educational qualification acquired by such person after securing admission in any educational institution on the basis of a caste certificate, which subsequently cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee, shall also stand cancelled. 13. With these provisions brought before us, Ms Manisha Lavkumar, the learned Additional Advocate General invited attention of the Court to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and Ors. Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Ors. (2017) 8 SCC 670 to submit that the Apex Court has denied the benefit of a provisional degree secured by claiming benefit of being a member of Scheduled Tribe, after 13 years of the admission to an Engineering course. The observations made by the Apex Court in Paragraph ‘31’ of the said decision have been placed before us wherein it is observed that the act of obtaining the benefit for designated castes, tribes and classes by an individual, who does not belong to the designated community on the basis of a false caste claim, constitute an egregious violation, even a fraud on the Constitution. Previous decisions of the Apex Court were noted therein in Paragraphs ‘31.1’, ‘31.2’ and ‘31.3’ to arrive at the said conclusion by the Apex Court, which are as under: “31.1. Previous decisions of the Apex Court were noted therein in Paragraphs ‘31.1’, ‘31.2’ and ‘31.3’ to arrive at the said conclusion by the Apex Court, which are as under: “31.1. In Anjan Kumar vs. Union of India, this Court held that: (SCC p. 265, Para 14) “14....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 far-reaching 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 hand of non-deserving candidate and in such cases it would be violative of the mandate of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.” 31.2. In State of Maharashtra vs. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar, this Court observed thus: (SCC p. 89, Para 23) “23. The makers of the Constitution laid emphasis on equality amongst citizens. The Constitution of India provides for protective discrimination and reservation so as to enable the disadvantaged group to come on the same platform as that of the forward community. If and when a person takes an undue advantage of the said beneficent provision of the Constitution by obtaining the benefits of reservation and other benefits provided under the Presidential Order although he is not entitled thereto, he not only plays a fraud on the society but in effect and substance plays a fraud on the Constitution. When, therefore, a certificate is granted to a person who is not otherwise entitled thereto, it is entirely incorrect to contend that the State shall be helpless spectator in the matter.” 31.3. Similar observations are contained in the judgment of this Court in Central Bank of India vs. Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir: (SCC p. 176, Para 14) “14....It would suffice to state that except in a few decisions, where the admission/ appointment was not cancelled because of peculiar factual matrix obtaining therein, the consensus of judicial opinion is that equity, sympathy or generosity has no place where the original appointment rests on a false caste certificate. A person who enters the service by producing a false caste certificate and obtains appointment to the post meant for a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or OBC, as the case may be, deprives a genuine candidate falling in either of the said categories, of appointment to that post, does not deserve any sympathy or indulgence of this Court. He who comes to the Court with a claim based on falsity and deception cannot plead equity nor the Court would be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour.” 14. On the claim of equity of such candidates, agitated before the Courts from time to time, it was observed therein in Paragraphs ‘21’ and ‘22’ as under: “21. The consequences which emanate from the cancellation of a caste certificate are distinct. The first is the withdrawal of benefits secured on the basis of a claim to belong to a designated tribe, group or class which has been held to be invalid. This is of a civil nature by which the applicant is deprived of the benefits of a false caste certificate which is cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee. The second consequence is the liability to be subject to a criminal prosecution. This is a criminal liability arising from an offence created by the legislature. 22. Several decisions of this Court have considered whether a person who has secured the benefit of public employment or admission to an educational institution on a reserved quota is entitled to retain the benefits obtained despite the invalidation of the claim to belong to the tribe or caste. In all such cases, equities are pressed in aid, chief among them being the lapse of time since the acquisition of benefits on the basis of a claim to belong to a designated caste or tribe. As decided cases indicate, the claim for equity is coupled with a “voluntary” undertaking that the person would not secure or claim any future benefits on the basis that he or she belongs to the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or socially and educationally backward class on the basis of which the original appointment or admission was obtained. As decided cases indicate, the claim for equity is coupled with a “voluntary” undertaking that the person would not secure or claim any future benefits on the basis that he or she belongs to the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or socially and educationally backward class on the basis of which the original appointment or admission was obtained. In the case of admissions to educational institutions, particularly institutions of higher learning, the additional ground which is often urged is that the withdrawal of benefits obtained in the past would amount to a societal loss since scarce productive resources of the nation are invested in providing for training and education to professionals in a discipline such as Medicine.” 15. The Apex Court has further noted the judgment in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) to note that in the said case, the Apex Court has laid down the principled rationale as to why a claim for equity by a person, who has not found to belonging to a designated castes, tribes and classes could not be countenanced. The relevant observation in Paragraph ‘16’ of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) are noted herein under: “16. Whether the appellants are entitled to their further continuance in the studies is the further question. Often the plea of equities or promissory estoppel would be put forth for continuance and completion of further course of studies and usually would be found favour with the courts. The courts have constitutional duty and responsibility, in exercise of the power of its judicial review, to see that constitutional goals set down in the Preamble, the fundamental rights and the directive principles of the Constitution, are achieved. A party that seeks equity, must come with clean hands. He who comes to the court with false claim, cannot plead equity nor the court would be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour. There is no estoppel as no promise of the social status is made by the State when a false plea was put forth for the social status recognised and declared by the Presidential Order under the Constitution as amended by the SC & ST (Amendment) Act, 1976, which is later found to be false. Therefore, the plea of promissory estoppel or equity have no application. When it is found to be a case of fraud played by the concerned, no sympathy and equitable considerations can come to his rescue. Therefore, the plea of promissory estoppel or equity have no application. When it is found to be a case of fraud played by the concerned, no sympathy and equitable considerations can come to his rescue. Nor the plea of estoppel is germane to the beneficial constitutional concessions and opportunities given to the genuine tribes or castes. Courts would be circumspect and vary in considering such cases.” 16. The learned Additional Advocate General has further invited attention of the Court to the judgment and order dated 25.08.2023 passed by the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 17469 of 2023, which was filed against the judgment and order of the High Court dated 06.06.2023 in Special Civil Application No. 6456 of 2023. The Apex Court, while requesting the High Court to decide the writ petition expeditiously, has deprecated the practice of granting admission by interim orders or making order for provisional admissions subject to the outcome of the writ petition. 17. Noticing the above, we may record that the decision to cancel the caste certificate has been taken by the Competent Authority namely the Scrutiny Committee constituted under the Act, 2018. The provisional admission order allocating seat to the petitioner in the Respondent No. 3 Institution recorded that the admission against the reserved category was provisional, subject to the final decision of the competent authority. The Scrutiny Authority had provided adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner while examining the correctness of the caste certificate. The documents filed by the petitioner in evidence, as noted hereinbefore, have been evaluated by the Scrutiny Committee and it had examined each and every evidence. It was noted that in the School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner her caste has been mentioned as ‘Hindu OBC’, and birth place is indicated as Dhule, Maharashtra. It is further noted that there is no SEBC Caste in the list of the State of Gujarat, which is known as ‘Hindu OBC’. 18. Another evidence of the school leaving certificate of the petitioner’s father recorded the caste as ‘Hindu Teli OBC’, the birth date as ‘01.06.1975’ and the birth place as ‘Gandhali, Ta.Amalner, State Maharashtra’. According to the said evidence, the petitioner’s father had been resident of the State of Maharashtra from birth until 1990. There is no evidence to establish of the petitioner’s father being resident of the State of Gujarat on or before 01.04.1978. According to the said evidence, the petitioner’s father had been resident of the State of Maharashtra from birth until 1990. There is no evidence to establish of the petitioner’s father being resident of the State of Gujarat on or before 01.04.1978. The third evidence of School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner’s grandfather shows as date of birth as ‘31.12.1949’ and the birth place as ‘Baroda’. However, the reason for leaving school on 03.06.1964 was mentioned therein as ‘moving elsewhere with his guardian’. This fact indicates that the petitioner’s grandfather, who was born on 31.12.1949, stayed in the State of Gujarat only until 1964 and there is no other evidence to establish him being a permanent resident of the State of Gujarat. The fourth evidence pertaining to a high school certificate of the petitioner’s relative, the same was not accepted as no supporting document to establish the relationship with the said individual had been produced. 19. The Scrutiny Committee, thus, reached at the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to produce any evidence to support her claim of belonging to the SEBC Caste, whose ancestors were residing in the State of Gujarat on or before 01.04.1978. 20. It may further be noted that the proceedings before the Scrutiny Committee was initiated and the date for appearance was notified to the petitioner and her father by registered mail on 01.08.2023, to appear before the Committee on 11.08.2023. On the said date, though the petitioner and her father appeared before the Committee, but requested for 15 days time to submit evidence. The decision was taken to grant opportunity to the petitioner and further date 13.10.2023 was notified when the petitioner and her mother appeared before the Committee and sought further time to submit evidence as no new evidence was brought by her on the said date. Another opportunity was granted to the petitioner and 21.11.2023 was fixed for producing evidence. On the said date, the petitioner’s mother had appeared and submitted two evidences as under: “6. A copy of the bill for purchasing gold from J.P. Jwelars, Near Bhavnagar, in the name of the candidate's grandfather, dated 7/3/1972. 7. A copy of the bill from A.S. Construction Company, labor contractor, in the name of the candidate's grandfather, dated 7/3/1972.” 21. Both the aforementioned evidences were found to be unacceptable in the matter of determination of caste of the petitioner. 7. A copy of the bill from A.S. Construction Company, labor contractor, in the name of the candidate's grandfather, dated 7/3/1972.” 21. Both the aforementioned evidences were found to be unacceptable in the matter of determination of caste of the petitioner. Further time was granted to the petitioner to produce sufficient evidence. On 28.12.2023, the petitioner appeared before the Scrutiny Committee and filed an affidavit dated 26.12.2023, which was rejected as unacceptable. Lastly, the petitioner was informed to appear in person before the Scrutiny Committee on 03.04.2024 along with her father or guardian. Accordingly, the petitioner’s mother had appeared on 03.04.2024 and presented the following evidences: “9. A copy of the engineering college marksheet in the name of the candidate's father, Chaudhary Pradeep Hiramal. 10. A copy of the rent receipt in the name of the candidate's grandfather. 11. A copy of the property tax receipt paid to Bhavnagar Municipality in the name of the property owner, Mr. Chhotalal Girdharlal, for the house in which the candidate's grandfather lived.” 12. A copy of the medical case record in the name of the candidate's grandfather.” 22. None of the documents submitted by the petitioner could prove the petitioner’s ancestors being the permanent resident of the State of Gujarat for availing benefits as an SEBC caste namely ‘Teli’ residing in the State of Gujarat on or before 01.04.1978. 23. In view of the above, we do not find any error in the decision of the Scrutiny Committee to cancel the caste certificate of the petitioner stating her as belonging to ‘Teli’ Caste, which is notified as SEBC in the Notification dated 01.04.1976 and the subsequent Government Resolutions of the State. The consequential order of cancelling the admission of the petitioner cannot be said to suffer from any error of law, as it was an automatic consequence of the decision of the Scrutiny Committee to cancel the caste certificate, by operation of Section 11 of the Act 2018. 24. We may further note that the Rules 2017 pertaining to admission to undergraduate courses namely Professional Medical Educational Courses also provide that: “(9) The admission of a candidate of a reserved category on a reserved seat shall be valid subject to the verification of caste certificate by the authority empowered by the State Government in this behalf. 24. We may further note that the Rules 2017 pertaining to admission to undergraduate courses namely Professional Medical Educational Courses also provide that: “(9) The admission of a candidate of a reserved category on a reserved seat shall be valid subject to the verification of caste certificate by the authority empowered by the State Government in this behalf. In case the caste certificate is found invalid on verification, he shall not have right to claim his admission on reserved seat and if he has been already granted admission, such admission shall be cancelled. (18) Cancellation of admission on production of false documents: During verification of documents, if the Admission Committee finds any certificate or testimony or information submitted by any candidate, incorrect or false the candidature of such candidate shall be cancelled for that year and he shall be disqualified for admission for the period of next two years.” 25. We, therefore, do not find any error in the decision of the learned Single Judge refusing to grant an interim order to protect the provisional admission of the petitioner so to permit her to continue with the course. 26. Lastly, on the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner could not have been granted admission as against the General category seat, as she has obtained marks higher than the marks obtained by the General category candidate in any medical colleges of the choice given by her. To deal with this contention, suffice it to note that, a categorical statement has been made by Ms Manisha Lavkumar, the learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioner made a conscious choice to obtain admission in a self financed college against the reserved seat with the declaration and understanding that her admission against the reserved seat was subject to the verification of the caste certificate. 27. Once the caste certificate is found invalid on verification by the Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner has lost her right to claim admission on reserved seat and admission already granted was liable to be cancelled. For the argument pertaining to the chances of the petitioner getting the admission against the General category seats in other colleges, we may note that the said issue has now become academic. All seats of General categories in the 13 Institutions of choices made by the petitioner have been fulfilled during the admission process. For the argument pertaining to the chances of the petitioner getting the admission against the General category seats in other colleges, we may note that the said issue has now become academic. All seats of General categories in the 13 Institutions of choices made by the petitioner have been fulfilled during the admission process. No indulgence can be granted to the petitioner, at this stage. 28. Noticing the above, we do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner to seek an interim order, staying the effect and operation of the order of cancellation of caste certificate as also the admission of the petitioner in the MBBS Course. No error is found in the judgment and order dated 09.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal stands dismissed being devoid of merits. Accordingly, connected civil application also stands disposed of.