wp338.15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ig NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No. 338 of 2015
Iqbal Shabbir Shah,
aged 33 years,
occupation - service,
resident of Wakad,
Tq. Risod, Distt. Washim. ..... Petitioner.
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary,
Social Welfare Department,
Mantralaya,
Mumbai-400 032.
2. Caste Scrutiny Committee-2,
Second Floor,
Administrative Building,
Collectorate, Akola,
through its Chairman.
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Mehkar, Tq. Mehkar,
Distt. Buldana.
::: Uploaded on - 25/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/11/2016 00:48:47 :::
wp338.15
2
4. Shri Swami Vivekanand Shikshan
Sanstha,
Kolhapur's Law College,
Osmanabad Vidyanagari,
Osmanabad. .... Respondents.
*****
Mr. M. V. Samarth, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. Uke, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
None for the respondent no.4 though served.
*****
CORAM : B. R. GAVAI AND
V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
Date : 23rd November, 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT [Per B. R. Gavai, J.]:
01. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned Addl. Govt.
Pleader, Mr. Uke, waives service for respondent nos.1 to 3. The respondent no.4 though served, none appears for it. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By consent of parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this Judgment and Order.
02. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the Order dated 5th January, 2015 issued by the respondent no.2 -
::: Uploaded on - 25/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/11/2016 00:48:47 :::wp338.15 3 Committee thereby invalidating the claim of the petitioner of belonging to Chhapparband, which is notified as Vimukta Jati-A.
03. The petitioner was appointed in the respondent no.4-College as Assistant Professor against the post reserved for Vimukta Jati-A, since the petitioner claimed to be belonging to Chhapparband, which is a Vimukta Jati.
His claim was referred to the respondent no.2 for considering the validity thereof. The same is rejected by the impugned order. Hence the present petition.
04. Shri Samarth, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Members of the Committee have totally failed to take into consideration the report of the Vigilance Cell and have in a total mechanical manner rejected the claim of the petitioner. He relies on the Judgments of this Court in the cases of [1] Rais Shah Shaukat Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra & two others [Writ Petition No. 5160/2012; decided on 27th September, 2013], and [2] Badashah Vazirshah Vs. State of Maharashtra & two others [Writ Petition No. 5961/2014; decided on 12th March, 2015].
05. The perusal of the Vigilance Cell Report would reveal that the documents, which are placed on record by the petitioner, are not ::: Uploaded on - 25/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/11/2016 00:48:47 ::: wp338.15 4 only much prior to 1961, i.e., the year in which the Chhapparband was notified as a Vimukta Jati-A, but even prior to the Constitution showing the caste of the petitioner's forefathers to be "Chhapparband." Perusal of the Vigilance Cell Report would also reveal that the home enquiry was made by the Vigilance Cell and statements of various independent witnesses, including the Police Patil, were recorded. All the witnesses have supported the claim of the petitioner, stating therein that the forefathers of the petitioner was engaged in taking alms and, thus, belonging to Fakir/Chhaparband caste. Not only that, but the affinity test is also favourable to the petitioner. It could, thus, be seen that the Vigilance Cell totally supports the case of the petitioner. However, in the impugned order, by one line, the Vigilance Cell Report has been ignored.
06. The Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases has held that the persons belonging to Chhapparband caste used to have a suffix of "Shah" after their names and that their forefathers were Fakirs, engaged in seeking alms from the people. It could be seen from the report of the Vigilance Cell that all the forefathers of the petitioner have a suffix of "Shah'. The independent witnesses, including the Police Patil, have stated that the forefathers were engaged in taking alms. It could, thus, be seen that the present case ::: Uploaded on - 25/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/11/2016 00:48:47 ::: wp338.15 5 is squarely covered by the aforesaid two judgments of this Court.
07. In the result, the Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of Prayer Clauses [a] and [b]. Validity Certificate be issued within a period of four weeks from today.
Judge Judge
-0-0-0-0-
|hedau|
::: Uploaded on - 25/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/11/2016 00:48:47 :::