The Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justices A. S. Chandurkar and G. A. Sanap while denying a tribe claim opined that without complying with the mandatory requirement (Clause 26.3 & 26.4 of the Chapter II of Secondary Schools Code) the entries in the General Register cannot be changed.
Facts
The petitioner took her school education from Nagpur wherein the caste of the petitioner was recorded as ‘Halba’. Based on the copy of the School Leaving Certificate the Executive Magistrate had granted the Caste Certificate of ‘Halba’ Scheduled Tribe to the petitioner. The petitioner applied for the employment in Irrigation Department of the State of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai against the seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe category and joined the post on selection. The petitioner’s father also had his caste recorded as ‘Halba’. Based on the School Leaving Certificate Sub Divisional Officer had granted the Certificate of ‘Halba’ Scheduled Tribe to the father of the petitioner. Her father was also appointed as ‘Clerk’ in Central Railway at Chandrapur on the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner relied upon the certificate of ‘Halba’ Scheduled Tribe issued in favour of her father to substantiate her claim.
Procedural History
The Caste Certificate of the petitioner, on her appointment, was sent for verification to the respondent No.2 – The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, by respondent No.1. In the inquiry conducted by the Committee, the petitioner was granted an opportunity to present her case. The Police Vigilance Cell’s report was served upon her. She filed her reply to the said report. The petitioner pointed out that her father belongs to ‘Halba’ caste, and the said caste was recorded in his school record by scoring out the incorrect caste namely ‘Koshti’. The respondent No.2 invalidated the ‘Halba’ Scheduled Tribe claim of the petitioner.
Contentions Made
Appellant: The decision of the Committee is not sustainable in view of the concrete evidence placed before it. The inquiry conducted by the Committee was not according to law. It was prayed for setting aside the order of the Committee and declaration of her caste being ‘Halba’ Scheduled Tribe.
Respondent: They supported the order passed by the Committee. The school record of her father was found insufficient and not reliable to accept the claim of the petitioner. There was no other evidence to substantiate the claim and was rejected by recording cogent reasons. The petitioner was not entitled to get the benefit of the reservation based on the Caste Certificate.
Observations of the Court and Judgment
The Bench observed that:
“It is seen that initially the caste of the father of the petitioner was mentioned as ‘Koshti’. It was scored and in its place caste ‘Halba’ was substituted. Perusal of this extract would show that there is no mention about the application/affidavit submitted at the time of making this change. The month and year of this correction has also not been mentioned. The name of the person responsible for making this entry has not been mentioned in the register. It is also not mentioned whether this correction was made either before or after leaving the school by the father of the petitioner. The remark’s column is blank. It is pertinent to mention that when such correction is made there must be reference of the above particulars. The particulars are missing from this entry. No separate affidavit was filed before the Caste Scrutiny Committee to explain this drawback. It is seen that on the basis of this entry, the Police Vigilance Cell’s mentioned in report that this entry was corrected to mislead the Government without providing the information of the grandfather of the petitioner and his other particulars.”
While agreeing with the opinion of the Committee and dismissing the petition, the Bench observed that:
“The petitioner could have procured voluminous documentary evidence with regard to her forefathers to substantiate her claim that her caste was ‘Halba’. The Caste Certificates of the brother and father was not scrutinized by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and validated. In the absence of the validity report of the Caste Scrutiny Committee in respect of the Caste Certificates of brother and father of the petitioner much weightage was not given to the same by the Caste Scrutiny Committee.”
Case Name: Ku. Nanda Dhanraj Moundekar vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr
Citation: Writ Petition No. 3905 of 2000
Bench: Justice A. S. Chandurkar, Justice G. A. Sanap
Decided on: 28th December 2021
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :