In Re: Rachappa Tippanna

.....scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against the post reserved for member of schedule tribe his caste certificate was invalidated subsequently held, his appointment would not be protected. the observations/directions issued by supreme court in para 36 of judgment in the case of state v millind reported in 2001 91) mah. lj sc 1 is not the law declared by supreme court under article 141 of the constitution of india. said observations/directions are issued in exercise of powers under article 142 of the constitution and also have no application to the cases relating to appointments and are restricted to the cases relating to admissions. the protection, if any, to be granted in the fact and circumstances of case would depend upon exercise of discretion by supreme court under article 142 of the constitution. said powers under article 142 of constitution is not available to the high court. hence no protection can be granted by high court even in cases relating to admissions. .....on the question, it is said, that where a magistrate grants such sanction, without taking all the evidence which the complainant is willing to adduce, the magistrate acts without jurisdiction. but, without going so far, i am of opinion that, before granting any sanction under section 211, the magistrate ought to observe all the formalities prescribed in sections 201-203 of the code of criminal procedure. in other words, he should examine the complainant, and then afterwards he might refer the matter to the police, and when the police report is received by him, then he may determine whether the complaint is true or false. that gives him jurisdiction to exercise his discretion and determine the question as to the truth or otherwise of the complaint. there is nothing in the code of criminal procedure which compels a magistrate in express terms to examine any or all witnesses whom the complainant wishes to adduce, before dismissing a complaint and granting sanction under section 211i. it may be contrary to justice to do that, but whether it is so or not must depend on the circumstances of each case. in this particular case what the magistrate did was that he examined the complainant, and then he referred the matter to the police. the police made a report, and on this report and the examination of the complainant the magistrate granted sanction. the magistrate, i think, had jurisdiction in granting sanction under section 211, and i see no reason upon the merits to interfere with it. the rule is discharged.knight, j.2. i would not go so far as to say that the numerous decisions referred to, culminating in the full bench case of queen empress v. sheik beari ilr (1887) 10 mad. 232, are wrong on this point; but, i think, they are certainly open to criticism. i concur in the order proposed by my learned colleague in the special circumstances of this case.