1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 30-7-2001 in Writ Petition No. 5199 of 1999 passed by the High Court of Judicature of the Bombay Bench at Aurangabad, whereby the High Court has dismissed the writ petition and confirmed the order dated 25-5-1998 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee wherein the appellant's claim as belonging to “Munnerwarlu” Scheduled Tribe was invalidated.

2. The appellant who claims that he belongs to the caste of “Munnerwarlu” had completed his Engineering course as a Scheduled Tribe candidate. He had obtained caste certificate declaring that he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe of “Munnerwarlu” and had taken advantage of the same. The certificate obtained was sent for validation before the Scrutiny Committee.

3. The Scrutiny Committee invalidated the certificate after recording a finding that the appellant did not belong to the specified caste in the Schedule but was belonging to the caste of Munur.

4. It will be useful for us to refer to the findings recorded by the Scrutiny Committee which read as under:

“The Scrutiny Committee has perused all the documents furnished by the candidate as well as the informations furnished by the candidate's father during the course of personal hearing. The candidate has furnished the school leaving certificates and birth extract pertaining to him, wherein the caste is recorded as Munnervarlu.

In order to verify the correctness of the school records of the candidate, the school and home enquiry has been conducted by the Vigilance Officer of the Scrutiny Committee. The Vigilance Officer has made the enquiry and furnished his enquiry report to the Scrutiny Committee. The Vigilance Officer has visited the school where the candidate's father and uncle were studied and obtained their school admission extract. In the school admission extract of candidate's father, the caste is clearly recorded as ‘Munur’. So far as these school records are concerned, these are pretty old and these are maintained by the public authority in the daily course of business and hence carried more evidential and probative due to determine the original caste status of the candidate's family i.e. Munur.

So far as school records of the candidate are concerned, it is clear that the caste status in the candidate's school records are intentionally changed from Munur to Mannervarlu to grab the concessions meant for the Scheduled Tribe community.

The Vigilance Officer has also enquired about the traits, characteristics, customs to the candidate's grandfather. The candidate's grandfather stated that ‘Telgu’ is the dialect of their family. Yallamma, Pochamma, Mhaisamma are the deities of their community. The surnames of candidate's relatives are Shahapurwad, Adulwad, Bagulwar, Akolwar, Totawar, Alwar Bodhgire, Maldode, Pallewad, Totewad, etc.”

5. The order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 25-5-1998 was challenged by the appellant before the High Court in revision in Writ Petition No. 5199 of 1999, which came to be dismissed by the High Court vide the impugned order dated 30-7-2001.

6. In the present appeal, the appellant challenges the legality and correctness of the said judgment. The contentions raised before us are that the Scrutiny Committee went beyond its jurisdiction in cancelling the certificate as there was documentary evidence as well as ocular evidence to support the certificate in favour of the appellant.

7. The High Court ought to have appreciated the fact that the caste certificate of the uncle of appellant, Ramlu Ganpati, who was belonging to the same caste, has been placed on record. The uncle was given the benefits of being a Scheduled Tribe candidate and as such, the appellant was entitled to similar benefits on the basis of the impugned certificate. The appellant thus submitted while relying upon the certificate that the order of the Scrutiny Committee was liable to be set aside.

8. Lastly, while relying upon the judgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind (2001) 1 SCC 4 [LQ/SC/2000/1837 ;] : 2001 SCC (L&S) 117, it is contended that even if the contentions of the appellant are not accepted still on the basis of the principles stated by the Constitution Bench of the Court, the appellant should be given the benefit for future service as the appellant has entered in the State service under the general category and not as a reserved candidate.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that there is hardly any merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant. The affinity test was completed by the Vigilance Officer as well as by the Scrutiny Committee. The certificate has to be validated only after it proves factually and legally correct at the two stages; firstly, at the stage of issuance and secondly, at the stage of verification. If it fails the affinity test at either of these stages, the validity of the certificate cannot be sustained.

10. The reasoning recorded by the Scrutiny Committee is in consonance with the law stated by a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Shilpa Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 3 Bom CR 497. The view taken by the Scrutiny Committee is based on the appreciation of evidence which has rightly not been interfered with by the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, the certificate of the uncle of the appellant which has been heavily relied upon by the appellant, is of no use inasmuch as the said certificate is not validated by the Scrutiny Committee. Thus the said certificate cannot form part of the record as a valid and cogent piece of evidence.

11. Having rejected both these contentions, now we may refer to the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Milind (2001) 1 SCC 4 [LQ/SC/2000/1837 ;] : 2001 SCC (L&S) 117. Undoubtedly, on the facts of that case, having regard to the passage of time, interim orders passed by the Court and other related affairs the Court had issued a direction that appointment that has become final shall remain unaffected. In that case, the candidate had obtained the MBBS degree as a candidate under the reserved category and had even got employment on that basis.

12. However, in the present case the appellant had got admission and completed his Engineering course as a reserved candidate but entered the government service as a general category candidate without taking any advantage or benefit of the caste certificate. In these circumstances and undisputed facts of the case, though we see no reason to interfere in the judgment of the High Court under appeal but would issue a direction that in the event the appellant has entered the government service as a candidate under the general category, no prejudicial action shall be taken against him on the basis of the caste certificate in question.

13. The Scrutiny Committee has already invalidated the caste certificate of the appellant, thus the appellant would not be entitled to take any advantage of his alleged claim as belonging to the caste of “Munnerwarlu”.

14. With the above observations, this appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.