Order of High Court held unsustainable based on erroneous appreciation of facts: The Supreme Court of India
A serious error was committed by high court while examining the claim of appellant under rule 6(1) (c) which deals with the migration for the purpose of education, employment etc. based on a caste certificate from the state of origin, being ineligible in the state of Maharashtra if the migration was after the deemed date. The aforesaid was declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Aruna v. State of Maharashtra [ CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 44574458 OF 2021] which was decided upon by a single judge bench comprising Justice Navin Sinha on 27th July 2021.
The facts of the case are as follows. The appellant who wanted to apply for the post of President of Municipal Corporation was declined by the District Caste Verification Committee or the verification of her caste certificate due to which she was held disqualified retrospectively. The counsel for appellant contended that she had rightly obtained the caste certificate from the competent authority from the state of Maharashtra. On the contrary it was contended by the counsel for respondent that the retrospective disqualification of the appellant merits no interference as she failed to submit her verified caste certificate within the stipulated time.
The court perused the facts and arguments presented. It was of the opinion that “The High Court committed serious error of record in examining the claim of the appellant under Rule 6(1)(c) which deals with migration for the purpose of education, employment etc. based on a caste certificate from the State of origin, being ineligible in the State of Maharashtra if the migration was after the deemed date. The High Court grossly erred in failing to appreciate that the appellant held a valid caste certificate from the competent authority in the State of Maharashtra under Rule 6(1)(a) in Form 10 in accordance with the prescribed procedure. the genuineness and validity of which was not in question before it. Furthermore, the appellant was not seeking the reserved status for the purpose of education or employment. The High Court arrived at a completely wrong conclusion by reason of an erroneous appreciation of the facts. The order of the High Court is therefore held to be unsustainable.” Therefore, it deemed fit to declare that relief to the appellant should be moulded to be prospective in nature with regard to her caste status as “Munnur Kapu” in the state of Maharashtra.