Judgment:
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
1. Review has been sought of the judgment delivered by this Court on 19th December 2007. A Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court in order to impugn the correctness of the judgment. On 3rd November 2008, the following order was passed by the Supreme Court:
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition as he would like to move the High Court. Permission is granted. The special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn.'
2. The claim of the Petitioner to belong to the Khatik community, which is a Scheduled Caste, was invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The decision of the Scrutiny Committee was impugned in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before this Court. The Petition was dismissed by the Division Bench on 7th March 2005 holding that there was no error of law apparent on the face of the record in so far as the finding of the Scrutiny Committee was concerned. However, in pursuance of the liberty granted by the Division Bench to the Petitioner to submit a representation to the State in so far as her admission to the medical course is concerned, the Petitioner submitted a representation. The Petitioner was informed that her admission which was granted against the reserved category, namely as a member of a Scheduled Caste was cancelled pursuant to a direction of the Director of Medical Education and Research. That communication was impugned before this Court in a Writ Petition which resulted in the judgment dated 19th December 2007 of which a review has been sought.
3. While dismissing the Writ Petition, this Court has relied upon the provisions of Section 10(3) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulations of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificate) Act, 2000. Section 10(3) of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any Act, any Degree,Diploma or any other educational qualification acquired by a person after securing admission on the basis of a false Caste Certificate shall stand cancelled on cancellation of the Caste Certificate by the Scrutiny Committee. Similarly, under Sub-section (1) of Section 10, the invalidation of a Caste Certificate by the Scrutiny Committee will entail the debarment of the candidate from the Educational Institution. While dismissing the Writ Petition, this Court observed as follows:
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 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. ... 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.
4. In the Review Petition, the Petitioner has sought to contend that the judgment of this Court proceeds on the basis that the Petitioner accepted the report of the Caste Scrutiny Committee and consequently the invalidation of the Caste Certificate. The contention of the Petitioner is that the claim of belonging to a Scheduled Caste has never been given up. The Petitioner has also now sought to rely on a fresh Caste Certificate issued by the Deputy Collector of Thane.
5. There is no merit in the Review Petition. No ground for review has been made out on any of the available grounds, particularly under Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Firstly, the claim of the Petitioner to belong to a Scheduled Caste has been rejected by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the rejection has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court on 7th March 2005. The Petitioner filed a Review Petition before the Division Bench. The Review Petition was also dismissed by the Division Bench on 28th January 2009. The certificate on which reliance has been placed by the Petitioner (Exh.C to the Review Petition in the present case) is dated 29th March 2008. Obviously, the aforesaid certificate was issued much before the Division Bench rejected the Review Petition filed by the Petitioner against the judgment dated 7th March 2005 upholding the rejection of the caste claim by the Scrutiny Committee. In view of the rejection of the Review Petition by the Division Bench on 28th January 2009, the claim of the Petitioner to belong to a Scheduled Caste cannot once again be canvassed in these proceedings.
6. Secondly, and what is even more fundamental, the Petitioner filed an undertaking before this Court specifically stating that the Petitioner shall not claim any benefit of belonging to a Scheduled Caste in the State of Maharashtra for any purpose whatsoever. The relevant part of the undertaking dated 17th January 2006 reads as follows:
I, thus file this undertaking in this Hon'ble Court and put on record that in future neither myself nor any family member will claim any benefit of Scheduled Castes in the State of Maharashtra for any purpose whatsoever.
It was on that basis that the Petitioner, purely on equitable grounds sought the protection of the admission which was granted to the medical course. Such a protection, as we have already held in our judgment dated 19th December 2007, cannot be granted in the face of the bar contained in Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 10 of the Act.
In fact, even the submissions which have been noted in paragraph 4 of the judgment dated 19th December 2007 clearly record the statement that though the invalidation of the caste claim has attained finality, the Petitioner had sought an order for regularization of the admission.
Thirdly, the effect of the Act enacted by the State Legislature in the year 2000 has been considered in a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay K. Nimje (2007) 14 SCC 481. The Supreme Court referred to the provisions of Section 10 of the Act which entail the withdrawal of benefits secured on the basis of a false caste certificate. The Supreme Court held that the Legislative enactment in this case, the Act of 2000, would prevail over a Government Resolution to the contrary. Moreover, a person who has obtained an appointment on the basis of a false certificate cannot detain the benefit. The Supreme Court held that the judgments of the Court as also the provisions of the Statute which are enacted in the light of the Constitutional provisions contained in Articles 341 and 342 cannot be diluted either by a Government Resolution or otherwise. In the State of Maharashtra v. Raviprakash Babulalsing Parmar : AIR2007SC295 the Supreme Court held thus:
The Constitution of India provides for protective discrimination and reservation so as to enable the disadvantaged group to come on the same platform as that of the forward community. If and when a person takes an undue advantage of the said beneficent provision of the Constitution by obtaining the benefits of reservation and other benefits provided under the Presidential Order although he is not entitled thereto, he not only plays a fraud on the society but in effect and substance plays a fraud on the Constitution. When, therefore, a certificate is granted to a person who is not otherwise entitled thereto, it is entirely incorrect to contend that the State shall be helpless spectator in the matter.
In these circumstances, the judgment of this Court dated 19th December 2007 does not call for any review. There is no merit in the Review Petition which is accordingly dismissed.