J.H. BHATIA, J.

1. The petitioner claims to be a member of Mahadeo Koli, which is a Scheduled Tribe, and accordingly, she obtained the Tribe Certificate which was referred to the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee, by the impugned order dated 22.2.2007, rejected her clam. By this petition, she seeks to set aside the said order and direction to issue validation certificate to her. It may be noted that earlier this petition was dismissed by this Court by the order dated 14.8.2007. That order was challenged by the petitioner in the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6146 of 2008. The Honble Supreme Court remanded the matter back to this Court to hear the parties, particularly in view of the two conflicting entries in the Birth Certificate and the school record of her grandfather.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record. On perusal of the record, we find that in the school record, her uncles Suryakant and Chandrakant, aunts Shashikala and Hemlata and her father Kesarinath were shown to be Hindus. The School record does not show that they belong to Mahadeo Koli Tribe. Krishnabai Shrawan Shivdikar, aunt of her father, was shown as `Koli. The school record shows that caste of her grandfather Raghunath Shrawan was initially shown as Koli at the time of admission in the Nursery School, but later on, at the time of admission in the Primary School, his caste was shown as Koli Mahadeo. Thus, except one entry in respect of her grandfather, all the records in respect of other relatives, reveal that they were either Koli or Hindu. Koli is the other Backward Caste, but admittedly not a Scheduled Tribe and it is not a part of Koli Mahadeo Tribe.

3. It may be noted that in the school record, the date of birth of her grandfather Raghunath was shown as 2.10.1931. However, there is also a Birth Certificate issued by the Public Health Department of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, from the Births Register. It shows his date of birth to be 5.11.1931. Fathers name of child was shown as Shrawan Mangali and mothers name was Budibai. There is address as H-No.39, Sewree Koliwada, which is a part of Mumbai. The occupation of the father was shown as fishing and the caste was recorded as Son Koli.

4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the said Birth Certificate is not in respect of her grandfather. In the school record, name of father of her grandfather Raghunath is shown to be Shrawan Mangal Shivadikar, resident of Shivadi Koliwada. The petitioner has not produced any other birth certificate of her grandfather nor she has produced any document to show that there was some other person by the same name Raghunath Shrawan Shivdikar, who was born on 5.11.1931, while her grandfather was born on 2.10.1931. The Birth Register is required to be maintained as per the statutory provisions of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1986. Section 20 makes a provision as to who can give notice of birth of a child. Section 27 provides for punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both, for wilfully giving false information about birth or death to be inserted in such a register. Thus, under the threat of punishment against any false information, one has to furnish the information about the birth or death of a person under Section 20. Under Section 9 of the said Act, a copy of an entry given from the birth or death register is admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving birth or death of a person without calling the original record before the Court. The entries are taken by the officer entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining the Birth Register. When such an entry is taken by a public servant in the ordinary course of discharging his official functions, it can be presumed under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that the entry was correctly taken. Many a times date of birth at the time of admission of a child in school is wrongly recorded, particularly when parents are illiterate and birth certificate is not produced. Therefore, merely because in the school register, the date of birth is shown as 2.10.1931, while in the birth certificate it is 5.11.1931, it cannot be held that the entry in Birth Register does not relate to her grandfather, particularly when all the other information relates to her grandfather. As noted above, she has not produced any record to show that there was any other person by same name nor she has produced any birth certificate of her grandfather to establish that the certificate collected by the Vigilance Cell of the Scrutiny Committee does not pertain to her grandfather. Even the school record about the initial admission of her grandfather Raghunath in the school shows that caste was recorded as Koli and not Mahadeo Koli. Only at some later stage, when he was admitted in the Primary School, his caste was recorded as Mahadeo Koli Therefore, much importance cannot be given to the caste shown in his school record.

5. The birth certificate of her grandfather shows the occupation of her great-grandfather as fishing and caste as Son Koli. Even her grandfather Raghunath admitted in his statement that the occupation of his community is fishing. This also provides corroboration to the entries in the Birth Certificate. The Scrutiny Committee noted that the applicant has also failed in the affinity test to prove she belongs to Mahadeo Koli, a Scheduled Tribe. It is well-settled that the characteristics and traits of a particular tribe are very important in deciding the affinity of a person to the particular tribe. In Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors. (1994) 6 SCC 241 , [LQ/SC/1994/798] the Supreme Court observed as follows in para 5 :-

5. ....Despite the cultural advancement, the genetic traits pass on from generation to generation and no one could escape or forget or get them over. The tribal customs are peculiar to each tribe or tribal communities and are still being maintained and preserved. Their cultural advancement to some extent may have modernised and progressed but they would not be oblivious to or ignorant of their customary and cultural past to establish their affinity to the membership of a particular tribe. The Mahadeo Koli, a Scheduled Tribe declared in the Presidential Notification, 1950,itself is a tribe and is not a sub-caste. It is a hill tribe, may be like `Koya in Andhra Pradesh. Kolis, a backward class, are fishermen by caste and profession and reside mostly in Maharashtra coastal area. Kolis have different sub-castes. Mahadeo Kolis reside in hill regions, agriculture, agricultural labour and gathering of minor forest produce and sale thereof is their avocation...

6. In the present case, the Scrutiny Committee has considered the statements of father and grandfather of the petitioner which clearly go to show that they have no knowledge about the traits or the peculiar customs and traditions of Mahadeo Koli Tribe. After minutely considering the material on recorded, the Scrutiny Committee came to conclusion that the petitioner had failed to prove her claim to Mahadeo Koli Tribe. Taking into consideration all the material on record, it is impossible to find fault with the findings of the Scrutiny Committee.

7. It has also been submitted that as per the order of this Court in Writ Petition No.2085 of 1986, decided on 17.6.1992 in respect of the petitioners aunt Hemlata Shivadikar, validation certificate was granted, but that has not been considered by the Scrutiny Committee. We may note that the said order was passed before the Scrutiny Committee was constituted to scrutinize the caste/tribe claims referred to it. After the Scrutiny Committee has been constituted, it is necessary for the Scrutiny Committee to examine the cases carefully and if while granting a certificate to any member of the family or a close relative earlier certain material was not before the competent authority or was not considered, the Scrutiny Committee can certainly look into all such material to scrutinize the claim. In Raju Ramsingh Vasave vs. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar & Ors. 2009(1) Mh.L.J. 1, in para 20, Their Lordships observed as follows :-

We do not mean to suggest that an opinion formed by the Committee as regards the caste of the near relative of the applicant would be wholly irrelevant, but, at the same time, it must be pointed out that only because, by mistake or otherwise, a member of his family had been declared to be belonging to a member of the Scheduled Tribe, the same by itself would not be conclusive in nature so as to bind another Committee while examining the case of other members of the family at some details. If it is found that in granting a certificate in favour of a member of a family, vital evidences had been ignored, it would be open to the Committee to arrive at a different finding.

8. It is further submitted that the petitioner had secured admission to Medical Course in 2003 against a reserved seat for the Scheduled Tribe on the basis of a claim that she belonged to Mahadeo Koli a Scheduled Tribe. It is contended that she has spent long time and also money on pursuing the said Course of MBBS and it will become a waste if her degree is not protected. The protection is sought on the basis of a direction given by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Milind &Ors. 2001 (1) Mh.L.J.(S.C.)1. However, we are unable to accede to this contention and request. Again in Raju Ramsingh Vasave (supra), in para 21, Their Lordships observed as follows :-

21. We reiterate that to fulfill the constitutional norms, a person must belong to a tribe before he can stake his claim to be a member of a notified Scheduled Tribe. When an advantage is obtained by a person in violation of the constitutional scheme, a constitutional fraud is committed.

In Ganesh Rambhau Khalale vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2009(2) Mh.L.J.788, Full Bench of this Court it was held that the observations/directions issued by the Supreme Court in para 36 of the Judgment in the case of State vs. Milind is not the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India and that the said observations/directions were issued in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.

9. In Priyanka Omprakash Panwar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.2008(1) Mh.L.J.715, a Division Bench of this Court considered the provisions of Section 10(3) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulations of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificate) Act, 2000 which contains a mandatory consequence that notwithstanding anything contained in any Act for the time being in force, a degree, diploma or educational qualification acquired by a person after securing admission to an educational institution on the basis of a Caste Certificate which is subsequently proved to be false shall also stand cancelled, on cancellation of the Caste Certificate by the Scrutiny Committee. Having considered the said provisions, the Division Bench refused to accede to the prayer for protection of the degree or educational qualification in view of the specific legal provisions applicable in the State of Maharashtra. When the petitioner has secured admission to a Medical Course on the basis of a caste claim which is found to be false, she cannot be given protection against cancellation of such admission.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, the Petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.