Writ Petition No. 2425 of 2012

15th October, 2012

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar

Cases Cited:
Priyanka Omprakash Panwar Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008(2) ALL MR 13=2008(2) Bom.C.R. 100 [Para 5]
Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao Vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College, (1990) 3 SCC 130 [Para 7]
State of Maharashtra Vs. Union of India, (1994) 5 SCC 244 [Para 8]

JUDGMENT

-A. A. Sayed, J. :- The case of the Petitioner is that he was admitted to the BAMS course in the Respondent No. 3 college from the management quota which was reserved for OBC. The Petitioner claims to belong to the 'Momin Ansari' caste which is recognized as an OBC in Uttar Pradesh from where he originally hails. According to the Petitioner, the said caste is recognized as OBC in the State of Maharashtra also and the same benefits as available in Uttar Pradesh are also given in the State of Maharashtra to the said caste. The Petitioner submitted his Application for enrollment and eligibility in the prescribed form to Respondent No. 1 University on 15/16 December 2010. However, Respondent No. 1 vide its decision dated 24 December 2010 held that the Petitioner did not fulfill the criteria for registration and enrollment. Respondent No. 1 observed that the Petitioner had not submitted his caste validity certificate and that the Petitioner had secured less than 50% marks in his Higher Secondary examination. The Application of the Petitioner was consequently returned to the College. The Petitioner has averred in the Petition that the college was informed by the University that the Petitioner was granted admission in the open category quota in the OBC category because the caste validity certificate was not submitted by him.

2. The Petitioner then approached the Pravesh Niyantran Samiti, Respondent No. 2. However, the Committee in its meeting held on 20 April 2011 did not approve the admission of the Petitioner on the ground that the caste validity certificate and non-creamy layer certificate were not submitted by him as a result whereof, it was not possible for the Committee to verify the correctness of claim of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has thus filed the Petition impugning the decision of the Committee as well as the decision of the University.

3. The Information Brochure of Asso-CET for Academic Year 2010-11 relied upon by the Petitioner, clearly provides that a candidate belonging to the Backward class is required to submit a caste validity certificate. It further provides that the candidate is required to produce the non-creamy layer certificate before the last date of filling up the preference form failing which the category claim of the candidate will not be granted. It is an admitted position that the Petitioner had not produced the caste validity certificate and the non-creamy layer certificate before the Committee. It is also undisputed the Petitioner had not produced the caste validity certificate even before the University.

4. The Maharashtra Schedule Castes, Schedule Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of ) Caste Certificate Act, 2000, (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) governs the regulation of the issuance and verification of Caste Certificates to the persons from the reserved class. Section 6(2) of the said Act provides that after obtaining the Caste Certificate from the Competent Authority, any person desirous of availing of the benefits or concessions to the reserved class interalia to secure admission to an educational institution is required to make an application well in time in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed to the concerned Scrutiny Committee for the verification of such Caste Certificate and issue of a validity certificate. Under section 10, any admission to an educational institution secured on the basis of a false caste certificate which is cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee stands cancelled.

5. The aforesaid provisions were interpreted by a Division Bench of this Court in Priyanka Omprakash Panwar v. State of Maharashtra, 2008(2) Bom.C.R. 100 : [2008(2) ALL MR 13] where the Division Bench held as follows :

"The Legislature has stepped in and enunciated as a matter of high public policy, a statutory provision for the invalidation of all benefits which have been obtained on the basis of a false caste claim to belong to a reserved category. Where a person has been employed on the basis of a false caste claim, the Legislature has provided for discharge from employment. Where a person has been admitted to an educational institution on the basis of a false claim, the Legislature has provided for invalidation of the admission. The Legislature has in sub-section (3) of Section 10 gone further by enacting that the degree, diploma or any other educational qualification "shall also stand cancelled" on the cancellation of the Caste Certificate. An electoral disqualification has been enacted in sub-section (4). These stringent provisions have been enacted by the Legislature in public interest in order to ensure that the benefits which are created for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other reserved categories are truly made available only to those persons who belong to the communities and tribes for whom the reservation exists. There is a tendency for imposters to claim the benefit of reservation by feigning to belong to a reserved community. Once admitted to an educational institution, every effort is made to continue in the educational institution often by recourse to dilatory tactics and over a period of time, a plea is made for the protection of the admission since by the passage of time, the student may have pursued the course of studies even to the conclusion. The Court has often times stepped in to protect admission on equitable considerations particularly having regard to the fact that the student may have substantially completed the course of studies or may have secured a degree on the basis of admission. The balance between the equitable consideration of protecting the interest of a student who has pursued his education and the public interest in protecting the reserved categories against the usurpation of their constitutional entitlements by imposters has now been made by the State Legislature. The Court in the exercise of the power of judicial review has due deference to legislative policy. The Court does not prescribe legislative policy nor does it enact law. The Court must assume that the legislature is cognisant of the needs and welfare of society. The legislature was also cognisant of the outlays publicly made on education and the investment made by the State in equipping students to become doctors, engineers and other professionals. The Legislature has expressly stipulated that a degree or diploma obtained on the basis of a caste claim which is invalidated shall stand cancelled. In the face of an express legislative provision, this Court shall not be justified in exercising its equitable jurisdiction. Considerations of equity that guide the Court in constitutional adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution must be in accordance with the law enacted by the Legislature. So long as the law continues to be valid, the High Court would not be justified in issuing directions which run contrary to the plain intendment of the Legislature. It is the constitutional duty and obligation of this Court to give a purposive meaning and interpretation to the provisions of the enactment made by the State Legislature in 2000. Stringent provisions have been made to protect the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other reserved categories. To dilute those provisions by importing equitable considerations for a candidate who has usurped benefits would be to defeat the law. The legislation was in this case conceived in the interests of protecting the constitutional scheme of reservations from usurpation by those who are not entitled. It is the plain duty of the constitutional Court to enforce the law. The doctrine of the separation of powers in a democracy demands no less."

6. It was thus obligatory upon the Petitioner to have got the correctness of his caste claim verified by producing the caste validity certificate and the petitioner cannot be heard to say that it was not possible for him to produce the same. In these circumstances, no fault can be found in the decision of the University and that of the Committee and the petition is liable to be dismissed on this count alone.

7. The Petitioner passed his High School examination held by the Secondary Board in Uttar Pradesh and he migrated to the State of Maharashtra only at the time of admission to Respondent No. 3 College. This is fairly admitted before this Court by Counsel for the Petitioner. So far as the rights of migrants in the field of education are concerned, the issue is no longer res integra. In Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College, (1990) 3 SCC 130 the Supreme Court observed as follows:

"But when a Scheduled Caste or Tribe migrates, there is no inhibition in migrating but when he migrates, he does not and cannot carry any special rights and privileges attributed to him or granted to him in the original State specified for that State or area or part thereof. ... The expression "in relation to that State" would become nugatory if in all States the special privileges or the rights granted to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes are carried forward. It will also be inconsistent with the whole purpose of the scheme of reservation. ....."

8. In a subsequent judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Action Committee on issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra v. Union of India, (1994) 5 SCC 244 while reiterating the same principle it was held as follows :

"We may add that considerations for specifying a particular caste or tribe or class for inclusion in the list of Scheduled Castes / Schedule Tribes or backward classes in a given State would depend on the nature and extent of disadvantages and social hardships suffered by that caste, tribe or class in that State which may be totally non est in another State to which persons belonging thereto may migrate. Coincidentally it may be that a caste or tribe bearing the same nomenclature is specified in two States but the considerations on the basis of which they have been specified may be totally different. So also the degree of disadvantages of various elements which constitute the input for specification may also be totally different. Therefore, merely because a given caste is specified in State A as a Scheduled Caste does not necessarily mean that if there be another caste bearing the same nomenclature in another State the person belonging to the former would be entitled to the rights, privileges and benefits admissible to a member of the Scheduled Caste of the latter State "for the purposes of this Constitution"."

The principles laid down in the aforesaid Supreme Court Judgments would apply in the present case and the Petitioner being a migrant would not be entitled to the benefits available to the Momin Ansari OBC caste in the State of Maharashtra, notwithstanding the fact that the nomenclature of the caste is the same as that in Uttar Pradesh.

9. It was sought to be contended that the Petitioner can be allowed to continue to prosecute his education in the open caegory. Indubitably, the Petitioner had secured 47% marks in his Higher Secondary exam and the cut-off marks for considering the eligibility under the open category quota was 50%. The Petitioner, thus, in any event, did not fulfill even the eligibility criteria for being considered under the open category. We also note that the impugned decision of the University was taken 24-12-2010 and the above Petition is filed only sometime in March 2012. There is no explanation for this delay found in the Petition.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the Petition. The Petition shall accordingly stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.