Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
13. The aforesaid finding recorded by the High Level Caste Screening Committee was assailed by the appellant before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in W.P. No. 28707 of2003. which was dismissed by the impugned order. B Hence the present appeal.
14. The forceful contention urged before us by the counsel for the appellant is that no opportunity was afforded to prove her caste before the High Level Caste Screening Committee and as such the finding recorded by r- the High Level Screening Committee is vitiated for non-observance of principles c of natural justice. We do not agree.
15. Show cause notice was issued on 28.7.2003. It is not the case of the appellant that she has not received the show cause notice.
16. She was asked to appear at 11.30 A.M. on 14.8.2003 along with all D necessary documents to prove her caste before the Committee. Paragraph 6 of the show cause notice reads:- "6. In this regard, the certificates/documents which you wish to produce alongwith your response should be properly verified necessarily. In case of non-appearance on the fixed date, it will be deemed that you have nothing to say regarding your doubtful caste certificate and Investigation Committee will be free to take final decision in your matter on the basis of available records."
17. The next date fixed for hearing was 18.9.2003 on which date the impugned order was passed. In our view, therefore, adequate opportunity has F been afforded to the appellant of personal hearing as well as. to produce documents in support of her caste. In our view, it is sufficient compliance of y principles of natural justice.
18. We may notice that both her father and the appellant are well educated. The appellant's father was said to have been born on 1.1.194 7. No G birth certificate was produced. No documents whatsoever were produced prior to 3.11.1977 to prove that they belong to Majhi Tribe, which is Scheduled Tribe. … ….
19. Counsel for the appellant invited our attention to Anthropological Survey oflndia prepared by one Majumdar D.N., 'The Racial Basis of Indian H Social Structure', Eastern Anthropologist published in Oxford University Press ._,. …. GEETA v. STATEOFM.P. (H.K. SEMA,J.) 1994. He particularly referred to the "tenn Majhi" means boatman. He has also observed that Majhi take part in agricultural operations, fetch water, and also take part in social and religious activities. He has also referred to the observation that the major economic resource of the Majhi is land. Their traditional occupation was fishing, some worked as boatmen. By this learned counsel would like to show that the finding recorded by the High Level Caste Screening Committee is erroneous. In our view, these are not authenticated documents. It is not prepared by the competent authority. No such reliance can be placed for deciding the Tribal status of the appellant.
20. Counsel also brought to our notice the Urban and Non-urban Region Mutation Register in which the family tree of Marakahn alias Mulu Majhi is shown. It is clear that Aaraji No.607, area 33 D. Village Madhavgarh is recorded in the name of Lessee Bisheshar, s/o Marakhan Mallah, Atma Ram. This would also show that she belongs to Mallah/Nishad.
21. Even in the midst of hearing of this appeal, we granted more time to the appellant, to produce any document, which will establish her tribe as Majhi, which is Scheduled Tribe, prior to 3.11.1977, but she utterly failed. This would clearly show that the Tribe Certificate showing the appellant as Majhi Tribe obtained on 29.8.1986 on the basis of Tribe Certificate of her father obtained on 3.11.1977 are without any documentary proof and manufactured documents.
22. Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the decision of this Court in Kurnari Madhuri Patil v. Addi. Commissioner, Tribal Development, [ 1994] 6 SCC 241. In that case the Scheduled Tribe Certificate was fraudulently obtained and admission was secured in Medical College. The candidate completed her course of study and sought permission to appear only in the fin·a1 examination. In the particular facts and circumstances of that case the Principal of the college was directed to allow her to appear in the examination as a special case without making it a.precedent. Therefore the decision in Madhuri (supra) was in particular facts and circumstances of that case. Secondly, here is the case where an undeserved candidate occupies the post of deserving candidate in the reserved quota meant for them. In such a situation, the deserving candidate is pushed out of the queue and the constitutional guarantee reserving the post for the deserving candidate is frustrated. This must be stopped with a strong hand.
23. In the result, there is no merit in this appeal and is, accordingly, dismissed. Parties are asked to bear their own costs. RP. Appeal dismissed. c