In Re: Keshav Lakshman

award of compensation - the code of criminal procedure (act x of 1872), section 209--complainant. - maharashtra scheduled castes, 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. 1. the court thinks that the subordinate judge, and not the karkun, keshav, must be regarded as the complainant in the proceedings before the magistrate. the subordinate judge acted judicially, and, on that ground, would not be subject to the penalty provided in section 209 of the criminal procedure code. the karkun, if he made a false report to the subordinate judge, or gave false evidence before the magistrate, is punishable otherwise; but, not being the complainant, he also is not liable to have the payment of compensation awarded against him under section 209 of the criminal procedure code.2. the court reverses the order of the magistrate, which directed that keshav lakshman should pay rs. 5 to aba valad krishna as compensation.