Sudhir Batham and Others Vs M.P. State Level Committee and Others

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

S.P. Khare, J.

This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the report dated 27.3.2002 of Respondent No. 1 State Level Committee (hereinafter to be referred to as the Committee) and subsequent orders of the Respondents No. 3 and 4 based thereon and for a direction to Respondent No. 2 Maulana Azad College of Technology, Bhopal to reinstate the Petitioners in service with all consequential benefits.

The Petitioners were the employees of Maulana Azad College of Technology, Bhopal. Petitioner No. 1 Sudhir Batham was appointed on 9.8.1988. Petitioner No. 2 Ranjeet Singh was appointed on 3.3.1992 and Petitioner No. 3 Manmohan Rajak was appointed on 18.31992. They were confirmed on 23.2.1996. They belong to dhobi caste. They secured employment as Scheduled Caste candidates on the basis of the certificates issued in their favour by the competent authorities. They claim that they and their forefathers were residents of Bhopal dhobis residing in Bhopal, Sehore and Raisen districts are included in the list of Scheduled Castes given in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 issued under Article 341 of the Constitution of India. The services of the Petitioners were terminated by order dated 20.4.2000. It was done on the report dated 20.1.2000 of the Collector, Bhopal that the caste certificates issued in favour of the Petitioners are false and fictitious. They challenged the termination order by filing Writ Petition No. 2666 of 2000 before this Court. During the pendency of that writ petition, the Collector, Bhopal communicated to the Respondent No. 2 Maulana Azad College of Technology that the caste certificate issued in favour of Petitioner No. 1 Sudhir Batham is genuine and he belongs to Scheduled Caste. It was further reported by the Collector that the enquiry in respect of the caste certificates of Petitioners No. 2 and 3 Ranjeet Singh and Manmohan Rajak was under process. By order dated 26.6.2001 in the writ petition, the committee was directed to verify the caste certificates issued to the Petitioners after giving them an opportunity of hearing as per decision of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patila and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, . The committee was directed to decide the controversy within three months. It was directed that in case the committee finds that the Petitioners belong to Scheduled Caste, they "shall be reinstated in service", subject to any order of the competent authority/Court.

The Petitioners appeared before the committee and submitted the certificates issued in their favour earlier along with affidavits and documents to support their plea that their forefathers were residents of Bhopal at the time the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 came into force. All these documents and affidavits were sent by the committee to the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal (SP) for investigation and inquiry as per procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision referred above. The S P, after the investigation and inquiry, submitted his report dated 11.9.2001 (Annexure P-2) before the committee. It is a detailed and exhaustive report. According to this report, the Petitioners were born at Bhopal and their primary education took place at Bhopal. The report is very clear and specific on the point that the Petitioners and their forefathers were residents of Bhopal and the caste certificates issued in their favour are genuine. It appears from this report that the Petitioners, after the termination of there services, had brought their grievance to the notice of the Chief Minister of the State and his Secretariate by the letter dated 24.2.2000 directed Collector, Bhopal to make a fresh inquiry in this respect. The Collector, Bhopal, after a fresh and minute inquiry, sent the reports dated 26.7.2000 and 8.1.2001 in which it was stated that the caste certificates issued in favour of the Petitioners are genuine and they and their forefathers were residents of Bhopal. A report was called from Collector, Indore and he confirmed that Petitioners Sudhir Batham and Ranjeet Singh are not residents of Indore. A report was called from Naib-Tehsildar, Sohagpur, District Hosongabad regarding Petitioner No. 3 Manmohan Rajak and it was confirmed by the report dated 7.11.20�0 that he was not resident of that district. The S.P. mentioned in his report that Petitioners Sudhir Batham and Ranjeet Singh gave the address of their relative Vijay Kumar of Indore to claim Leave Travel Concession. The S.P. further reported after enquiry that Petitioner Manmohan Rajak was residing at Bhopal upto the year 1975 and then he shifted to village Guramkhedi, District Hoshangabad from where he passed the Higher Secondary Education and then he came to Jabalpur for graduation and after that came back to Bhopal in the year 1992. He gave the address of his brother residing at Hosongabad when his service book was prepared.

The Committee took into account the detailed and well considered report of the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal and also the two subsequent reports of the Collector, Bhopal confirming that the Petitioners are residents of Bhopal and their parents also resided there but did not agree with them. The Committee discarded the reports of the S.P. and the Collector and also the affidavits and the documents submitted by the Petitioners. The Committee accepted that the Petitioners were born at Bhopal and their primary education took place at Bhopal. But according to the Committee there was no material to show that the parents or the forefathers of the Petitioners were residing at Bhopal in the year 1950 and therefore, the committee was of the view that the Petitioners cannot be held as belonging to Scheduled Caste. From the report of the committee it appears that a fresh report dated 22.1.2002 (fourth one) was called from Collector, Bhopal in which it is stated that the primary education of Petitioner Ranjeet Singh took place at Indore whereas according to the investigation and enquiry done by the S.P. he was bom at Bhopal and had his primary education also in Gandhi Vidya Niketan Higher Secondary School, Bhopal and then he went for further education to Indore. The Collector, Bhopal in his report dated 22.2.2002 does not refute that Ranjeet Singh was born at Bhopal. It is vaguely stated that he had his primary education at Indore but he does not give the name of the school (as per para 12(3) of the Committee''s report).

So far as Petitioner Manmohan Rajak is concerned, the report of ths S.P. after inquiry is that he was born at Bhopal and he passed the primary school certificate from Nutan Vidyalaya, Shahidnagar and then he went to Hoshangabad. The Collector, Bhopal, in his report dated 22.1.2002 does not deny that Manmohan Rajak was born at Bhopal or educated at Bhopal but he says that there is no record of issuing any caste certificate in his favour. It appears that reference was made to wrong certificate whereas the number of the certificate relating to this Petitioner is 396/90.

The committee rejected the report of the S.P., the two earlier reports of the Collector, the affidavits and other documents on the ground that these were based on the material furnished by the Petitioners which cannot be said to be "fully reliable". In para 12, the committee expressed the view that there is no document to establish that the parents of the Petitioners or their forefathers resided at Bhopal in the year 1950 and therefore held that the Petitioners cannot be held to be residents of Bhopal. The committee buttressed its view from the entries in the service books of the Petitioners in which the addresses of Indore and Hoshangabad are given.

The petitioners'' case is that the findings of the committee in its report are highly perverse and unreasonable. It is pointed out that the Committee or any of its members did not record the evidence of any witness. They did not go to the locality to make any inquiry. They did not procure any document. There was no material at all to reject the well reasoned and date-based report of the S.P. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that the committee could not in fairness disagree with the investigation and inquiry made by the S.P. as there was no cogent material to the contrary. The report dated 22.1.2002 of the Collector, Bhopal is said to have been prepared by a Deputy Collector without making any inquiry and could not be relied upon in preference to the two earlier reports of the Collector dated 26.7.2000 and 8.1.2002.

The return filed on behalf of the Respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 does not give parawise reply. According to these Respondents the committee has considered the entire material objectively and its findings are not open to interference by the Court. This is also the stand taken by the Respondent No. 2. It is submitted that there can be no reappreciation of evidence by this Court.

The learned Counsel for both the sides have been heard at length. Before proceeding to deal with the case in hand it is necessary to look at the legal position clarified by the Supreme Court in various decisions. In the recent Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind AIR 2001 SC 393 it has been madej clear that it is permissible under Article 341 and 342 of the Constitution "to specify castes or tribes in relation to parts of the State and not to the entire State". In Kumari Madhuri Patila and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, the procedure for issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval has been laid down. The State Governments have been directed to constitute a committee. One of the members of the committee should be such "who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates". As per point No. 5 in this judgment "each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in overall charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the two or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He also should examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged, in the pro forma. Then as per point No. 7 : "In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given or procured are found to be false or fraudulently obtained. Then para 14 of the judgment is very instructive which reads as under :

14. 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 Anr. 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 recorded the finding. Each case must be considered in the backdrop of its own facts.

In Gayatrilaxmi Bapurao Nagpure Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, it has been observed that the rejection of the Appellant''s claim especially when there is no other evidence placed contra to suspect the proof produced by the Appellant and without appreciating the vital document placed before the Committee, was not correct. The High Court also erred in dismissing the writ petition filed by the Appellant by simply accepting the conclusions reached by the Committee without appreciating the probative value of the documents placed before it. In this case, except the documents produced by the Appellant, nothing has been produced by the authorities concerned to arrive at a different conclusion. By a wrongful denial of the caste certificate to the genuine candidate, he/she will be deprived of the privileges conferred upon him/her by the Constitution. Therefore, greater care must be taken before granting or rejecting any claim for caste certificate. Though in cases of this type, the burden heavily lies on the applicant who seeks such a certificate, but that does not mean that the authorities have no role to play in finding out the correctness or otherwise of the claim for issue of a caste certificate. The authorities concerned must also play a role in assisting the Committee to arrive at a correct decision.

The approach of the Committee keeping in view of its object and the constitution should be inquisitorial and not adverserial. It should not deal with the matter as if it is a Court trying a criminal case where the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Its duty is to ascertain the truth and in doing so it can record the evidence or procure the relevant documents. It has to deal with the material including the reports of the S.P. and the Collector objectively and dispassionately. There should be proper evaluation of the evidence. The finding should not be perverse or unreasonable. The Court would interfere in its finding only if it is perverse or is such which no reasonable man would arrive at on the material before it. If the finding has been reached after proper appreciation of evidence, the Court would not sit in appeal over it. The Committee must attach due weight to the report of the S.P. or vigilance officer which is submitted after proper investigation and inquiry if it is in favour of the candidate unless there are good grounds and sufficient material to take a contrary view. If there is no material to arrive at a different conclusion the report of the S.P. or vigilance officer if it inspires confidence must be accepted. Unscrupulous persons who come forward to obtain the benefit of reservations should be firmly dealt with but at the same time it should be kept in view that by a wrongful denial or cancellation of the caste certificate to the genuine candidate there would be greater havoc and he would be denied of the privileges conferred upon him by the Constitution.

Now coming to the case in hand it is not in dispute that the Petitioners are ''dhobis'' and they were born at Bhopal and their primary education took place there. Dhobis who were residents of Bhopal come in the category of ''Scheduled Caste'' as per Presidential Order. The only disputed point is whether parents of the Petitioners were residents of Bhopal in the year 1950 when the order was promulgated because the caste of a person is determined on the basis of the caste of their parents. Caste is acquired by birth. As the Petitioners were born at Bhopal after the year 1950 and they were initially educated at Bhopal it can be reasonably presumed that their parents resided at Bhopal in 1950 and prior thereto. It is well settled that if a state of affairs is shown to exist the presumption of its continuity backward and forward can be drawn. Ambika v. Ram Ekbal AIR 1966 SC 605. The caste certificates were issued in favour of the Petitioners by the competent authorities and they must have done so after proper inquiry as according to Section 114(e) Evidence Act the official acts are presumed to have been done rightly and regularly. ( S.R. Bommai and others Vs. Union of India and others etc. etc., . The Petitioners served the Respondent No. 2 for about a decade and then without any hearing to them the Collector communicated to the Respondent No. 2 that the caste certificates issued in their favour are not genuine. Their services were terminated. The Collector was directed to make a deeper probe by the Chief Minister''s Secretariate and then came his two reports in succession that the certificates are genuine and the Petitioners are residents of Bhopal as their parents resided there in the year 1950. Before this somersault by the Collector, the axe had fallen on the Petitioners. On a direction by this Court the Committee came to be seized of the issue. The Petitioners produced the certificates, documents and affidavits of the persons concerned before the Committee. The entire material was made over to the S.P. and he conducted the investigation and inquiry as per procedure laid down by the Supreme Court. The S.P. submitted a detailed report which is very informative and based on the relevant date and material. Was there a good ground to differ from it ? As per dictum of the Supreme Court it should have been ordinarily accepted. It could be ignored only for weighty reasons. The Committee or any of its members especially the officer who had "intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates" did not proceed to hold any independent enquiry. The Committee called for a fourth report from the Collector which is very vague and cryptic as compared to the well reasoned report of the S.P. The Collector also did not make any fresh inquiry of his own. The Committee rejected the report of the S.P. and the documents and affidavits submitted by the Petitioners without any rebuttal and without any cogent material to the contrary by finding some minor discrepancy here and there. There was not a single witness or relevant document to outweigh the report of the S.P. The entry in the service book was duly explained and that explanation was accepted by the S.P. The real rebuttal of the case of the Petitioners would have been to demonstrate by evidence that if the parents of the Petitioners were not residing at Bhopal in the year 1950 then where they were residing ? The report of the Committee on this point is conspicuously silent. The Petitioners had an uphill task of proving a state of affairs which existed fifty years ago. Admittedly they do not belong to that strata of society who are possessed of well documented material to prove a fact. The view taken by the Committee is highly technical and perverse and there were not sufficient reasons to discard the report of the S.P. which was well reasoned supported by the two reports of the Collector. It is in this state of affairs, this Court has a duty to interfere to advance the cause of justice. Such a report of the Committee is not binding on the Court in view of the two decisions of the Supreme Court referred above. The parents of the Petitioners had their abode and habitation at Bhopal as they (Petitioners) were admittedly born there and the parents must have been residing there even prior to 1950 as it is not shown that they were living elsewhere before that year. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 went to other places Indore and Hoshangabad for higher education but on that basis they could not cease to be residents of Bhopal.

In the result this petition is allowed. The report dated 27.3.2002 of the Respondent No. 1 Committee and the action taken by the Respondents No. 3 and 4 on the basis of that report are quashed. It is declared that the Petitioners belong to Scheduled Caste. The order by which the services of the Petitioners have been terminated by the Respondent No. 2 is also quashed. The Petitioners will be reinstated in service by the Respondent No. 2 immediately with all consequential benefits including the arrears of salary, etc. as if their services were never terminated.