Summary
The High Court exceeded certiorari review by reweighing documentary evidence and substituting its factual view for a procedurally sound, reasoned Caste Scrutiny Committee decision. Vigilance assistance was not binding or compulsory for every document. Validating the appellant’s genealogical claim to the listed Mochi caste did not alter the Presidential Order or transfer another State’s reservation status. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court judgment and restored the Committee’s validation order without costs.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could reassess the Committee’s evidence as an appellate fact-finder.
- Whether every document required Vigilance Cell verification.
- Whether restoration would impermissibly alter the Presidential Order or apply another State’s reservation status.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaCertiorari is supervisory, not an ordinary factual appeal; the reasoned Committee findings disclosed no perversity or procedural defect justifying their replacement. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23)
- Sections 6, 7 and 9, Maharashtra caste-certificate regulation and verification Act, 2000The statutory Scrutiny Committee verifies and decides caste claims, has prescribed inquiry powers, and its decisions remain subject to limited Article 226 review. (¶¶ 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 22, 23)
- Rules 13(2) and 17, Maharashtra caste-certificate regulation and verification Rules, 2012Vigilance material assists the Committee and is not binding; where satisfied by the material, the Committee need not mechanically refer every document for vigilance inquiry. (¶¶ 11, 12, 20, 21, 22, 23)
- Article 341; Scheduled Castes Order, Entry 11 for Maharashtra, Constitution of IndiaThe claim was to Mochi, expressly listed for Maharashtra, verified through genealogy rather than judicial addition of a sub-caste or importation of another State’s status. (¶¶ 6, 7, 24)
Held
- The Committee considered the parties’ objections and evidence after remand, examined the college record and tenancy material and gave reasons for its conclusions. The High Court’s contrary evaluation of handwriting, ink and documentary credibility was an appellate reappraisal rather than correction of a demonstrated jurisdictional error or perverse finding. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23)
- Certiorari does not permit substitution merely because the writ court regards relevant evidence as inadequate or prefers another reasonable view. Fact-finding remains with the designated Committee, subject to review for legally recognised defects; the Court did not make Committee decisions immune from Article 226. (¶¶ 10, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23)
- Vigilance Cell inquiries provide internal assistance and their findings do not bind the Committee. Under the prescribed procedure, satisfaction on the documents can support validation without mechanically sending every item for vigilance verification. The High Court’s criticism based on non-referral was therefore unwarranted here. (¶¶ 11, 12, 20, 21, 22)
- The original college register was presented and the Committee addressed the requested cross-examination of its presenter, who was not automatically the applicant’s witness. The Supreme Court found the parties had been heard and due procedure followed, rather than establishing a general rule excluding cross-examination in all such proceedings. (¶¶ 14, 22, 23)
- The Presidential Order cannot be amended directly or indirectly. But the appellant claimed Mochi, listed at Entry 11 for Maharashtra, and the Committee verified that genealogical claim. This did not require adding an unlisted sub-caste or recognising another State’s reservation certificate. (¶ 24)
- The appeals were allowed, the High Court judgment set aside and the Committee’s 3 November 2017 validation order restored. Pending applications were disposed of without costs. (¶ 25)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court judgment set aside and Scrutiny Committee’s 3 November 2017 caste-validation order restored. Pending applications disposed of; no costs.