High-Level Caste Scrutiny Committee Has Jurisdiction Only When ‘Correctness’ of Caste Certificate Is at Issue, Not When the Certificate Itself Is ‘Forged’: MP HC

The Jabalpur Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently iterated the clear distinction that exists between ‘forged’ documents and documents that can be regarded as ‘doubtful or false’. While adjudicating a plea raised by one of the candidates seeking a direction to appoint him to the post of ‘Patwari’, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia refused to set aside the enquiry report filed by Sub Divisional officer, Shohagpur as to the veracity of the Caste Certificate produced by the petitioner candidate.

“If the allegations are that although the caste certificate was issued by the competent authority but it was obtained by misrepresenting or placing false facts, then the said caste certificate will be placed in the category of doubtful or false certificate requiring adjudication of its genuineness by the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee but where the caste certificate was not issued by any authority at all and it was created by somebody or the beneficiary, then the said document cannot be said to be false document but it has to be placed in the category of ‘forged’ document”.

While approving the act of SDO, Shohagpur who submitted a report to the Shahgol District Collector that the caste certificate relied upon by the petitioner candidate is indeed a ‘forged’ document, the court underscored that the petitioner cannot seek solace in the contention that the jurisdiction lies with the Higher Power Caste Scrutiny Committee and not the Sub Divisional Officer to determine whether the caste certificate is ‘forged’ or not. Though the petitioner majorly relied upon Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors., (1994) 6 SCC 241, Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia clarified that the decision in Madhuri Patil only envisages instances where the ‘correctness’ of a caste certificate that has been indisputably issued by a competent authority is in question. The jurisdiction that lies with the Higher Power Caste Scrutiny Committee cannot be invoked when the caste certificate itself has not been issued by a competent authority and when it can only be categorised as a ‘forged document’, and not a ‘doubtful or false document’.

“Thus all non-genuine documents cannot be placed in the category of forged documents and therefore, the forged documents must be covered by the conditions indicated in Section 463 and 464 of IPC. Once, the SDO, Shohagpur, District Shahdol had given a finding that the caste certificate relied upon by the petitioner was never issued from his office, then it is clear that in fact the petitioner had relied upon a forged document and under these circumstances the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Madhuri Patil (supra) would not apply as it is applicable only to decide as to whether the caste certificate issued by the competent authority is genuine one or not.”

In the enquiry report that has been challenged by the candidate, Shohagapur SDO has stated that the contentious caste certificate was not issued from his office though the caste certificate placed for perusal before the High Court mentions the issuing authority as Shohagapur SDO.

After referring to Section 463 (Forgery) of IPC and Section 464 (Making a False Document) of IPC as well as the dictum of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751, Justice Ahluwalia concluded that ‘the making of a false document in the name of an authority intending it to be believed that the document was made by the authority’ would amount to forgery.

“…Forgery is a process of creating or imitating objects or documents and it also includes making of homemade document to resemble with the real document. Forgery is form of fraud, which is liable to be dealt with iron hands”, the single judge bench added while dismissing the writ petition.

In this case, though the petitioner successfully cleared the Patwari examination in 2016, the authenticity of the petitioner’s domicile certificate was later called into question. The complaint that the petitioner candidate was not a permanent resident of Umariya was proved to be false. Later, another complaint was made to SDO, Pali (Umariya District) alleging that the candidate appeared in the examination by submitting a forged caste certificate. Upon enquiry on the complaint, SDO Shahdol reached the conclusion that the candidate originally belongs to ‘Vishwakarma’ caste whereas he had availed a forged caste certificate that stated his caste as ‘Agariya’ (Scheduled Tribe) in order to appear in the ‘Patwari’ Examination. This particular enquiry report was under challenge in this writ petition.

Advocate Vaibhav Pande appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Hintedra Kumar Golhani appeared for the respondents as the panel lawyer. Advocate K.K Agnihotri represented the intervenor.

Case Title: Abhishek Achary S/o Suresh Agariya v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr. Its Principal Secretary Revenue Dept. & Ors.

Case No: WP No. 28917 of 2021

Citation: 2023 Livelaw (MP)

Click Here To Read/ Download Order