S.H. Kapadia, J.
1. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 28th March, 1988 by which the Scrutiny Committee came to the conclusion that the petitioner does not belong to Mahadeo Koli, Scheduled Tribe and, accordingly, his claim came to be invalidated. The decision of the Scrutiny Committee has since been upheld by the Appellate Authority also vide Judgment dated 30-3-1983 in Caste Appeal No. 130/1988.
2. The facts giving rise to this Writ Petition, briefly, are as follows :--
3. On 5th July, 1982 a Caste Certificate came to be issued by Taluka Executive Magistrate in favour of Madhav Yadavrao Shankpale (brother of the petitioner herein). According to that Certificate, Madhav was declared to be belonging to Mahadeo Koli Caste which falls under Scheduled Tribes. That Certificate came to be referred for verification to the Director of Social Welfare, Pune. Pending verification, Yadavrao, father of the petitioner, applied to the Taluka Executive Magistrate and obtained a Certificate on 8th January, 1983 to the effect that he belongs to the caste -- Mahadeo Koli. This was in view of the fact that Yadavrao, father of the petitioner, who had joined the Government service as an employee wanted to change the service record in which his name was enrolled on 1st September, 1966. On the date of enrolment, Yadavrao was shown in the service roll as belonging to Koli Caste which falls under O.B.C. On the basis of the said Certificate dated 8th January, 1983 Yadavrao got the entry in the service roll altered from O.B.C. to Scheduled Tribe sometimes in July 1983. On 14th October, 1982 Director of Social Welfare invalidated the Caste Certificate issued by the Taluka Executive Magistrate in favour of the brother of the petitioner herein. Against the said decision of the Director of Social Welfare, Madhav preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. In the said appeal Madhav, brother of the petitioner, relied upon the abovementioned service record of his father Yadavrao and on that basis the Appellate Authority overruled the decision of the Director of Social Welfare and validated the claim of Madhav.
4. Now coming to the facts of the present case, it may be mentioned that the Taluka Executive Magistrate, Biloli, Dist. Nanded, issued a Caste Certificate in favour of the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner belongs to Koli Mahadeo Caste, which is recognised as a Scheduled: Tribe at Sr. No. 29 under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 1970. The petitioner appeared in the 12th Std. Examination held in March-April, 1988 and prior to that, he passed his SSC Examination sometimes in the month of March-April, 1986. The Head Master of the School where the petitioner studied up to SSC also issued a certificate stating that the petitioner belongs to Mahadeo Koli Caste. For seeking admission to the professional courses, the petitioner approached the Scrutiny Committee for verification of his tribe claim. He submitted as many as 15 documents before the Scrutiny Committee in support of his claim and also the affidavits of Shankar Gangaram Amberao, Laxmi Sambhaji Khanderay and Arjun Sambhaj'i Khanderay. Amongst the 15 documents submitted were the copies of caste certificate of his elder brothers Mohan, Madhav, Shankar and younger brother Mangesh and sisters Miss. Vijaya and Miss Nanda as well as the extract of the first page of his father's service book, a copy of caste certificate dt. 8-1-83 issued by the Taluka Executive Magistrate in favour of his father, a copy of the order issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, in favour of Shri Madhav Yadavrao -- elder brother of the candidate, a copy of judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 753/84 regarding the caste claim of Shankar Gangaram Amberao and the School Leaving Certificate issued in his favour by the Zilla Parishad High School, Biloli. It is required to be noted that the caste certificate issued to Mangesh younger brother] and sisters Miss. Vijaya and Miss. Nanda came to be issued on the same day i.e. 18-6-1987 and the extract of the service book in respect of the petitioner's father gives the name of petitioner's father as Yadav Mahadu Mavalge. The petitioner appeared before the Scrutiny Committee on 11-1-1988 and the Scrutiny Committee has also conducted Field Enquiry through the Research Assistant who had submitted a report, stating that Madhav Yadavrao Shankpale was shown to be belonging to the caste 'Koli', Tara Sambhajirao Khanderay was also shown to be belonging to the caste 'Koli' and the petitioner was shown to be belonging to the caste 'Mahadeo Koli' in the school record of Primary Girls School at Biloli.
5. After examining the documents and also considering the Field Report as well as the oral interview of the petitioner, the Scrutiny Committee found that the date of enrolment of the petitioner's father in the service was 1st September, 1966 and he was shown to be belonging to the caste 'Koli' (OBC) in his service record till 1983 and that the change in the service record has been made by prefixing the word 'Mahadeo' before the words 'Koli'. The Committee observed that this was done intentionally in order to get concessions extended to Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe. The Scrutiny Committee did not consider the other documents in respect of the petitioner's brothers and sisters and the caste claim of the petitioner came to be rejected by the Scrutiny Committee vide its order dt. 28-3-88. The decision of the Scrutiny Committee came to be challenged before the Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Nasik, in Caste Appeal Case No. 130/1988 and by order dt. 30-3-1989, the appeal was dismissed by confirming the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee. This petition came to be filed on 6-6-88, challenging the rejection of the tribe claim and for seeking directions for admitting the petitioner to the First Year MBBS Course for the academic year 1988-89 from the reserved quota for Scheduled Tribes. This Court had granted Rule and there was no order for interim relief.
6. Before proceeding further, we would like to mention an important fact. In the petition, the extract of the service roll has been annexed as Exhibit-D to the petition. The said extract has been marked as true copy by the Advocate on record Shri S. B. Talekar. It has been duly signed by him. In the alleged true copy, against the Caste Column the words Koli Mahadev are mentioned. Similarly against the column Tribe, the words mentioned are Scheduled Tribe. We regret to say that the Advocate has certified the extract as true copy without verifying the same with the original. This fact is very pertinent because an affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 on 8th September, 1989 in which Xerox copy of the service roll has been annexed. It is interesting to note that the Xerox copy clearly indicates the entry O.B.C. which is encircled and below that the words incorporated are 'Scheduled Tribe' against the Column of Tribe. Similarly the word which is not legible against the word 'Caste', the words 'Koli Mahadev' have been incorporated. However, while annexing Exhibit-D to the petition the encircled portions which are very relevant have been omitted from the extract at Exhibit-D and it is indeed surprising that although the Writ Petition came to be amended in 1992, after the affidavit-in-reply came to be filed, no steps were taken to inform the Court that there is a mistake in the true copy which is annexed at Exhibit-D to the petition. We are, therefore, of the view that earlier Division Bench of this Court was misled by the extract of the service roll annexed at Exhibit-D. We hope that in future the Advocate will take care to endorse the copy as true copy after verifying it with the original. Till today, there is no explanation from the petitioner also as to what was the word which is encircled against the Column Caste on which the words 'Koli Mahadev' have been mentioned.
7. The chain of events as described herein above and as reflected in the impugned orders shows that the sons of Yadavrao were seeking admissions to the professional courses around 1982-83 and at that stage, Yadavrao applied for correction of his service record by obtaining a certificate from Taluka Executive Magistrate stating that he belongs to Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe. Thereafter, Yadavrao approached the Chief Executive Officer, Biloli Municipal Council for correction in the service record in respect of his caste and the said correction was effected on 21-8-83. On the basis of this change in the service roll, Yadavrao's sons claimed the benefit as belonging to Mahadeo Koli. The decision of the appellate authority in favour of Madhav is also based on the service roll of his father Yadavrao and the certificates obtained from various authorities in favour of the petitioner also proceeded on the basis of service roll of his father. All these certificates have undoubtedly been issued in 1983 or thereafter. So far as the certificates of petitioner's elder brother Mohan and Shankar are concerned, the Committee has not accepted the same, as the tribe claim of these two brothers has not been verified by the competent authority at any time. Same is the case regarding the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner's younger brother Mangesh and two sisters Miss. Vijaya and Miss. Nanda. The Scrutiny Committee did not place reliance on the caste certificate of Laxmi Sambhaji Khanderay as well as Arjun Sambhaji Khanderay for the reasons that both of them are the cousins of the petitioner from the maternal side and their tribe claim was not verified by the competent authority. In addition, during the course of investigation, it was found that the caste of Tara Sambhaji Khanderay was recorded as 'Koli' in her school record and this Tara is the real sister of Laxmi and Arjun Khanderay. Similarly, the Scrutiny Committee did not consider the documentary evidence in respect of Shankar Gangaram Amberao as well as judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 753/84 as the said Shankar is also related to the petitioner from his maternal side (son of mother's younger sister). The extract of Admission Register, issued by the Head Master, Primary Kanya Shala, Biloli, showed that caste of Madhav (elder brother of the petitioner) as well as Laxmi arid Tara Sambhaji Khanderay (maternal cousins of the petitioner) was entered as 'Koli' (OBC). Madhav's caste claim was invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee and the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, had allowed the Appeal No. 3013/1983 on the grounds that (a) Mohan's elder brother has sought admission to Medical College on the basis of a caste certificate showing him belonging to Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe, (b) his father's service book mentions his caste as Mahadeo Koli and (c) Laxmi Sambhaji who is his nearest relative has recorded her caste in the school record as Mahadeo Koli. It is, therefore, clear that all the three grounds -- on the basis of which the appeal of Madhav was allowed and his claim of belonging to Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe was accepted -- were grossly erroneous and all the three documents did not have any probative value. No reason has been given as to why till 1983 or any time during 1978 to 1983, the father of the petitioner did not move for correction in the service roll. The facts, on the other hand, indicate that it was only when the elder son Madhav sought an admission to the medical course that the record was sought to be altered. The Scrutiny Committee, therefore, rightly did not place reliance on the verified claim of Madhav. It is also not known as to how the petitioner's father changed his surname from 'Mavalge' to 'Shankhpale' because in the service book his surname is shown as 'Mavalge', as is clear from the extract of the service roll. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the Scrutiny Committee was right in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner did not belong to Mahadeo Koli Caste and his claim that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe was, therefore, rightly rejected.
8. Mr. Talekar, learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that as far as Marathwada region is concerned, Kolis residing in Marathwada region are Mahadeo Kolis. He further contended that, in the present matter, the school record relied upon at Exhibit R-3 of the Writ Petition shows that the petitioner was admitted in the Primary School on 10th July, 1976. He relied upon the Extract at Exhibit R-3 and contended that since the Presidential Order recognising Kolis as Mahadeo Kolis in the Marathwada region came into force in 1978 the Scrutiny Committee erred in rejecting the petitioner's claim of being Mahadeo Koli. He contended that on 10th July, 1976, petitioner got admission in the Primary School whereas the Presidential Order came into force in 1978 and, therefore, in any event, the said extract at Exhibit R-3 provides evidence of great value. We do not find any merit in the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Firstly, the extract relied upon at Exhibit R-3 shows that the Head Master of the Primary School has altered the record. The said extract has been signed by the Head Master. On 11th March, 1988 the Head Master has effected alteration and has even signed the altered entry. Secondly, the extract clearly shows that Madhav, brother of the petitioner, stood admitted in the same school on 4th July, 1970 when he was described as Koli and the petitioner herein was shown under the altered entry as Mahadeo Koli. It is for this reason that the Head Master has signed only against the altered entry in the case of the petitioner and not in the case of Madhav and Tara. One fails to understand as to why the Head Master corrected the entry pertaining to the petitioner only and not to Madhav. Taking into account the above facts, it is clear that the record has been changed after 1983 in order to obtain concessions from the policy of the Government. In the circumstances, we do not find merit in the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner that there was a genuine entry made in favour of the petitioner before 1978. The petitioner has not produced the school record. R-3 has been produced by the respondents. However, even R-3 shows that the entry has been altered after 1978. R-3 has been signed on 11th March, 1988. Hence, we are satisfied that the Scrutiny Committee was right in coming to the conclusion that the entire basis of the petitioner's claim is founded on the change effected in the service roll of the father during 1982-83 and that even the brothers of the petitioner have received the benefits of that change after 8th January, 1983 when the father obtained the Certificate from the Taluka Executive Magistrate declaring him to be Mahadeo Koli.
9. In the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commr., Tribal Development, reported in : AIR1995SC94 , the Supreme Court laid down that the Kolis have been declared to be O.B.C. in the State of Maharashtra. That Kolis are fishermen and they live mainly in the coastal region of Maharashtra whereas Mahadeo Kolis are not a sub-caste of Kolis. In 1942, the Bombay Government passed a Resolution by which Mahadeo Koli came to be notified as Scheduled Tribe. In the Presidential Order, 1950 the said position was reiterated. In 1976 Amendment Act, there was no substantial change except for removing the area restriction. In the said Judgment, the Supreme Court has laid down that the assumption of the Bombay High Court in the case of Subhash Ganpatrao Kabade that Mahadeo Koli was recognized for the first time under the 1976 Amendment Act was not correct and the Mahadeo Kolis were recognized as Scheduled Tribe even prior to 1976. Hence, we do not find any merit in the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner that in the Marathwada region, Kolis were recognized as Mahadeo Kolis only after 1978. The contention of the learned Advocate that as a consequence of the Presidential Order of 1978, the Kolis in Marathwada region became Mahadeo Kolis, is far-fetched and cannot be accepted as the main intention behind the Presidential Order of 1978 was to remove the area restrictions and not to correct the caste structure from OBC to Scheduled Tribe. In any event, even if the argument of the petitioner is accepted, still, on facts, the petitioner's record shows that in the school record change has been effected only after 1978. That the entry standing against the name of the petitioner has been altered by the Head Master in 1988. Hence, on facts, we do not find any merit in the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.
10. In the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil, : AIR1995SC94 (supra), the Supreme Court has laid down that in order to ascertain the caste one has to look to the caste of the parents because the caste is acquired by birth. In that matter, the school record of the father showed that, he belonged to the caste Koli whereas documents produced by the candidates showed the caste as Mahadeo Koli. The Supreme Court found that the school record of the father belonged to pre-independence era and as per the said record father belonged to Hindu Koli whereas record of the children showed them to be Mahadeo Koli. However, as the school record of the father had great probative value, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the record produced by the candidates was manipulated to secure the benefits of the concessions. In the present case, the candidate has not produced the school record of his father. The service record of the petitioner's father shows that he was employed in 1966 and till 8th January, 1983 and he was shown in the service record as Koli belonging to O.B.C. during that period. It is only after the said change in the service record of the father on the basis of the Certificate issued by the Taluka Executive Magistrate that the father was declared to be a Mahadeo Koli in the service record and the Certificates and record produced by the children thereafter show that they belonged to Mahadeo Koli, Under the above circumstances, the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case : AIR1995SC94 (supra), even on facts, would apply to the present case. In view of the above facts, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the literature cited on behalf of the petitioner with regard to Mahadeo Kolis in the Marathwada region. The matter is being decided only on the facts of this case.
11. In the case of Vandana d/o Narayan v. State of Maharashtra, reported in : AIR1998Bom226 , the Division Bench of this Court observed that after the enactment of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Amending Order, 1976 removing area restrictions, there has been a spurt of applications from persons claiming to be Scheduled Tribes. This is particularly in cases where children are on the verge of seeking higher education. In such cases, parents have applied for Certificates claiming to be Scheduled Tribes and this has happened particularly in large number particularly after the enactment of the said Amending Order, 1976. In the said Judgment, it has been further laid down that even if the candidate relies upon the documents pertaining to his father to show that he belonged to S .T. still the burden is on the candidate to show that the documents have probative value and that they have been issued by the Competent Authority or that the claim of the father has been adjudicated upon by the Scrutiny Committee. In the present case, the record of the petitioner's father shows that it was sought to be corrected in 1983 pursuant to the Certificate obtained by him from the Taluka Executive Magistrate. That Certificate was not verified by the Scrutiny Committee. In the circumstances, the Scrutiny Committee was right in not placing the reliance on the change in the record of the father's employment. It is for this reason that the Scrutiny Committee has also found that Madhav' s claim has been accepted by the Appellate Authority erroneously because Madhav's claim is also based on the change effected in the service roll of the father on or about 8th January, 1983. In the circumstances, the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vandana d/o Narayan : AIR1998Bom226 (supra) is also applicable to the present case. At this stage, it may be repeated that in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil : AIR1995SC94 (supra) also, the Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the caste of the person is decided on the basis of the caste of the parents. In the said Judgment, the Supreme Court has given weightage to the Certificates issued on the paternal side of the candidates. In the present case, as stated hereinabove, the Judgment of the High Court in the case of Amberao is not relevant as Amberao is the cousin of the petitioner from the maternal side. Similarly the Certificate issued in favour of Laxmi is also not relevant as Laxmi is the cousin-of the petitioner on the maternal side and, further more, it may be mentioned that the record of Tara, sister of Laxmi shows that she is a Koli belonging to O.B.C. and hence in view of the said conflict, the Scrutiny Committee was right in rejecting the Certificate issued in favour of Laxmi.
12. In the case of S. Nagrajan v. District Collector, Salem, reported in : [1997]1SCR220 , the Supreme Court has laid down that where the Collector, after detailed consideration of the evidence placed before him, concluded that the candidate was not a member of Scheduled Tribe, the Court under Article 226 should not interfere as it is not a Court of Appeal. In that matter, the Supreme Court held that a single Judge of the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the candidate's father was in Government service and he did not claim status of Scheduled Tribe as he belonged to a forward caste. In that matter, an interpolation in the school record was detected. In the circumstances, the Supreme Court observed that, in such cases, High Court under Article 226 should not intervene because by interpolation of the documents the candidate cannot claim the status of Scheduled Tribe. In the case of Ganesh Gulabrao Suroshe v. State of Maharashtra, reported in : [1997]2SCR1180 , the Supreme Court laid down that if the conclusion reached by the Scrutiny Committee is possible on the basis of the material on record then the High Court should not intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court further laid down that the Notification of the President under Article 342 of the Constitution subject to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1976 was conclusive and final. The Supreme Court further laid down that the Court cannot examine to find out the caste of the party and the basis of the Certificate issued and the limited area the Court can survey is whether the caste mentioned in the Presidential Notification would be applicable to the claimant or not. Mr. Talekar, however, relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gayatrilaxmi B. Nagpure v. State of Maharashtra, reported in : [1996]3SCR466 , in which the Supreme Court came to the conclusion on the facts of the case that the Scrutiny Committee had failed 'to consider the decision of the Assistant Secretary to the Government, Social Welfare Department in respect of the candidate's paternal cousin Shri Abinash Nagpure and in the circumstances the decision of the Committee was set aside. On facts, the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Nagpure's case (supra) has no application. Firstly, as observed hereinabove, in the present case, Amberao and Laxmi are maternal cousin of the petitioner and secondly, the record of Laxmi and her sister Tara is conflicting. Tara is shown as a Koli in her school record and Laxmi is shown as a Mahadeo Koli. Thirdly, in the present case, the record of the father shows that he was shown as Koli in the service record from 1966 to 1983. Further Exhibit R-3 also shows that Madhav, brother of the petitioner, stood admitted in the Primary School as Koli and not as Mahadeo Koli. Hence, the Judgment in the case of Gayatrilaxmi Nagpure : [1996]3SCR466 (supra) has no application to the facts of this case. Mr. Talekar, thereafter, relied upon the Judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Narayan Deoji Koli v. State of Maharashtra, reported in : 1990(1)BomCR557 . In that matter, the Division Bench of the High Court has laid down that the claim of the candidate cannot be negatived only on the basis of the School Leaving Certificate and that the Committee shall also consider other documents pertaining to near relations. On principle of law there is no dispute. In the case of Narayan Koli (supra), on facts, the Court found that the candidate's sister Kunda was shown as Mahadeo Koli in the school record and, therefore, the candidate's claim came to be allowed. In the present matter, the Appellate Authority, inter alia, reversed the decision of the Director of Social Welfare on the ground that the service record of the petitioner's father and which, as stated hereinabove, came to be altered pursuant to the Certificate issued by the Taluka Executive Magistrate which Certificate was required to be scrutinised by the Competent Authority. In the circumstances, the Judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Narayan Koli : 1990(1)BomCR557 (supra), has no application to the facts of this case. We may also mention that in the case of Madhav, the Appellate Authority has also relied upon the Certificate in favour of Laxmi which, as stated hereinabove, is not reliable. In the light of the above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the concurrent findings recorded by the Authorities below.
13. Before concluding, it may be mentioned that the petitioner filed Writ Petition on 6th June, 1988. In the said petition, vide prayer (D), petitioner sought admission to First Year M.B.B.S. Course from the reserved quota for Scheduled Tribe for academic year 1988-89. The Writ Petition was admitted by the earlier Division Bench on 27th July, 1988. However, interim relief was rejected. Learned Advocate for the petitioner states that since the interim relief came to be rejected, petitioner secured admission to the Engineering College from Open Category. Since the petitioner has secured admission from the Open Category, there is no question of recalling the degree obtained by the petitioner. However, we hereby uphold the cancellation of the social status of the petitioner as Mahadeo Koli. Accordingly, we hold that the petitioner will not be entitled in future for any benefits on the basis that he belongs to Mahadeo Koli. Further, the Scrutiny Committee-respondent No. 2 is hereby directed to reconsider the Judgment of the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad in the Case No. R.S. Desk, II O & M. MAG. 43/82 decided on 30th March, 1983 in favour of Madhav Yadavrao Shankpale in the light of this Judgment and decide his tribe claim afresh within a period of four months from the receipt of Writ of this Court.
14. Accordingly Writ Petition fails. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Writ to go forthwith.