SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Geeta
Vs
State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
(H. K. Sema and V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ)
Appeal (Civil) 6055 of 2005
16.05.2007
JUDGMENT
H. K. SEMA, J.
1. The challenge in this appeal is
to the order dated 25-8-2004 passed by the High Court in W.P.No. 28707 of 2003,
dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.
2. The short question arises for determination in this appeal is, as to whether
the appellant Geeta belongs to Majhi Tribe, which is Scheduled Tribe or
Nishad/Mallah, which is not Scheduled Tribe.
3. We have heard the parties.
4. The appellant was granted Scheduled Tribe Certificate dated 29.8.1986 by the
District Magistrate Lucknow. The order reads:-
FORM OF CASTE CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that Kumari Geeta daughter of M.S. Nishad of village/town
D-72, Nirala Nagar in District/Division Lucknow of the State Uttar Pradesh
belong to the Majhi Tribe which is recognized as a Scheduled Tribe. Under:-
The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 (as amended by the Scheduled
Castes & Scheduled Tribes lists (Modification) Order, 1956)
2. This certificate is issued on the basis of the Scheduled/Tribe certificate
issued to Shri M.S. Nishad father of Kumari Geeta of Village/Town Kripalpur in
District Satna of the State Madhya Pradesh, who belong to the Majhi/tribe which
is recognized as a Scheduled Tribe in the State Madhya Pradesh issued in the
Distt. Magistrate Satna (name of prescribed authority vide Letter No.87114 dated
03.11.77.
Signature
C.S.Singh
Designation on Officer Incharge (Certificate) (with seal of office) District
Magistrate, Lucknow
Place: Lucknow
Date: 29.08.1986
5. It would appear from the order itself that she was given Scheduled Tribe Certificate on the basis of Scheduled Tribe Certificate issued to the father of the appellant Shri M.S. Nishad by the District Magistrate, Satna in the State of M.P. by an order dated 3.11.1977
6. At this stage, we may point out that the said Scheduled Tribe Certificate
dated 3.11.1977 issued to the father of the appellant Shri M.S. Nishad has also
been cancelled subsequently. The appellant's father was also placed under
suspension. It is brought to our notice that the order dated 28.2.1995 has been
challenged in W.P. No.192(SB) of 1995 in the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad
High Court and the same is still pending.
7. Be that as it may, it is clear that the Scheduled Tribe Certificate issued
in favour of the appellant on 29.8.1986, that the appellant belongs to Majhi
Tribe, which is recognized as Scheduled Tribe in the State of M.P., was issued
by the District Magistrate, Lucknow, on the basis of the Scheduled Tribe
Certificate issued by the District Magistrate, Satna, in favour of her father
by an order dated 3.11.1977.
8. On the strength of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate, the appellant applied
for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police from the reserved quota of
Scheduled Tribes. She was selected from the reserved quota and included in the
merit list. Thereafter, by an order dated 28.3.2001 she was appointed as Deputy
Superintendent of Police and is still continuing in the said post.
9. An inquiry was initiated against the appellant preceded by a complaint. On
the basis of the Inquiry Report, the services of the appellant was sought to be
terminated by an order dated 9.4.2001 inter alia on the ground that the caste
certificate issued to her father has been cancelled by the Collector, Satna in
1995. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed O.A.No.1426 of 2001 before the
Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed in limine by an
order dated 26.4.2001. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred Writ Petition
No. 2237 of 2001 before the High Court, which was dismissed on 13.5.2002, with
the direction to conduct an inquiry whether the appellant belongs to Majhi
Tribe or not.
10. Pursuant to the direction of the High Court, show cause notice was issued
to the appellant, by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Investigating Committee,
Madhya Pradesh.
11. After show cause notice, the High Level Caste Screening Committee was
constituted in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of Kumari
Madhuri Patil vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, Â with the
following Members:
(i) Principal Secretary/Secretary, Government Of Madhya Pradesh, Adhim Jhathi
Kalyan Vibhagh. ..Adhyaksh
(ii) Commissioner, Tribal Development Member Madhya Pradesh Secretary
(iii) Secretary, Madhya Pradesh State Scheduled Tribes Commission, Bhopal.
Member
(iv) Member/Representative, Adhim Jhathi Member Anusandhan Sansthan.
12. After giving an opportunity and hearing the appellant and after examining
the documents, the High Level Caste Screening Committee, by its order dated
18.9.2003 came to the following findings:
"5. After scrutiny of inquiry report of Superintendent of Police,
Satna, report of Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Lucknow,
Uttar Pradesh, order of Collector Satna, Caste (Nirjatiya) information,
statements, statement of other persons, educational qualifications and other
documents, the Screening Committee has arrived at following conclusions:
(i) She has not made available any such authentic documents or facts to the
Committee on the basis of which it could be proved that she belongs to Majhi
caste
.
(ii) On a special examination of caste issues also, it was found that she does
not belong to Majhi caste because the gothras stated by her are not found in
this caste and she did not narrate any tribal language. The occupations stated
like fishing, labouring, farming are also not characteristics of Majhi.
6. On scrutiny of aforesaid facts, the Committee found that the original caste
of Ku. Geeta Nishad "Mallah" confirms backward caste."
13. The aforesaid finding recorded by the High Level Caste Screening Committee
was assailed by the appellant before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in W.P. No.
28707 of 2003. which was dismissed by the impugned order. Hence the present
appeal.
14. The forceful contention urged before us by the counsel for the appellant is
that no opportunity was afforded to prove her caste before the High Level Caste
Screening Committee and as such the finding recorded by the High Level
Screening Committee is vitiated for non-observance of principles of natural
justice. We do not agree.
15. Show cause notice was issued on 28.7.2003. It is not the case of the
appellant that she has not received the show cause notice.
16. She was asked to appear at 11.30 A.M. on 14.8.2003 along with all necessary
documents to prove her caste before the Committee. Paragraph 6 of the show
cause notice reads:-
"6. In this regard, the certificates/documents which you wish to
produce alongwith your response should be properly verified necessarily. In
case of non-appearance on the fixed date, it will be deemed that you have
nothing to say regarding your doubtful caste certificate and Investigation
Committee will be free to take final decision in your matter on the basis of
available records."
17. The next date fixed for hearing was 18.9.2003 on which date the impugned
order was passed. In our view, therefore, adequate opportunity has been
afforded to the appellant of personal hearing as well as to produce documents
in support of her caste. In our view, it is sufficient compliance of principles
of natural justice.
18. We may notice that both her father and the appellant are well educated. The
appellant's father was said to have been born on 1.1.1947. No birth certificate
was produced. No documents whatsoever were produced prior to 3.11.1977 to prove
that they belong to Majhi Tribe, which is Scheduled Tribe.
19. Counsel for the appellant invited our attention to Anthropological Survey
of India prepared by one Majumdar D.N., 'The Racial Basis of Indian Social
Structure', Eastern Anthropologist published in Oxford University Press 1994.
He particularly referred to the "term Majhi" means boatman. He has
also observed that Majhi take part in agricultural operations, fetch water, and
also take part in social and religious activities. He has also referred to the
observation that the major economic resource of the Majhi is land. Their
traditional occupation was fishing, some worked as boatmen. By this learned
counsel would like to show that the finding recorded by the High Level Caste
Screening Committee is erroneous. In our view, these are not authenticated
documents. It is not prepared by the competent authority. No such reliance can
be placed for deciding the Tribal status of the appellant.
20. Counsel also brought to our notice the Urban and Non-urban Region Mutation
Register in which the family tree of Marakahn alias Mulu Majhi is shown. It is
clear that Aaraji No.607, area 33 D. Village Madhavgarh is recorded in the name
of Lessee Bisheshar, s/o Marakhan Mallah, Atma Ram. This would also show that
she belongs to Mallah/Nishad.
21. Even in the midst of hearing of this appeal, we granted more time to the
appellant, to produce any document, which will establish her tribe as Majhi,
which is Scheduled Tribe, prior to 3.11.1977, but she utterly failed. This
would clearly show that the Tribe Certificate showing the appellant as Majhi
Tribe obtained on 29.8.1986 on the basis of Tribe Certificate of her father
obtained on 3.11.1977 are without any documentary proof and manufactured
documents.
22. Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the decision of this
Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil vs Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development,
 . In that case the Scheduled Tribe Certificate was fraudulently obtained
and admission was secured in Medical College. The candidate completed her
course of study and sought permission to appear only in the final examination.
In the particular facts and circumstances of that case the Principal of the
college was directed to allow her to appear in the examination as a special
case without making it a precedent. Therefore the decision in Madhuri (supra)
was in particular facts and circumstances of that case. Secondly, here is the
case where an undeserved candidate occupies the post of deserving candidate in
the reserved quota meant for them. In such a situation, the deserving candidate
is pushed out of the queue and the constitutional guarantee reserving the post
for the deserving candidate is frustrated. This must be stopped with a strong
hand.
23. In the result, there is no merit in this appeal and is, accordingly,
dismissed. Parties are asked to bear their own costs.