Pradeep Pandurang Kolhe vs State Of Maharashtra And Another

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 5383 Bom
Judgement Date : 1 August, 2017

Bombay High Court
Pradeep Pandurang Kolhe vs State Of Maharashtra And Another on 1 August, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
                                                                                                   wp.4006.02

                                                        1



                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                              WRIT PETITION NO. 4006/2002

*        Pradeep s/o  Pandurang Kolhe 
         Aged about 42 years,  occu:  service
         R/o Ganesh Colony, Amravati.                                                   ..PETITIONER.

                                                  VERSUS

1)       The  State of Maharashtra 
         Through its  Secretary 
         Irrigation Department 
         Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

2)       Committee for Scrutiny  and 
         Verification of Tribe Claims 
         through its  Chairman 
         Amravati.                                                            ..RESPONDENTS
                                                                                           . 

...................................................................................................................
         Mr. N.R.Saboo, Advocate for the petitioner 
         Mrs.Geeta   Tiwari,   Assistant   Government   Pleader   for 
         respondent Nos.1 & 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                 CORAM :  R.K. DESHPANDE &
                                                                  MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
                                                 DATED :    1       st
                                                                       August,  2017
                                                                                    


ORAL JUDGMENT:  (Per R.K.DESHPANDE, J.)

The petition challenges the order dated 26.8.2002 passed by the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims at Amrvati invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner for 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:28:52 ::: wp.4006.02 2 category. The petitioner was employed in the Department of Irrigation as Junior Engineer on 12.4.1982 against a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe category. Upon invalidation of caste claim, he apprehended the termination from service and, therefore, approached this Court challenging the order impugned. This Court has protected the service of the petitioner by passing an order of status quo and subsequently interim relief in terms of prayer cause (iii) staying the operation of the order was continued.

2. We have gone through the order passed by the respondent no.2-Committee. We find that the Committee has relied upon two documents - one in the name of Vasudeo Tukaram in which the entry dated 8.8.1946 was of 'Koshti' and the other of Ashok Tukaram in which the entry dated 19.6.1953 was of 'Koshti'. The police vigilance cell report described these two persons as real paternal uncles of the candidate. Applying the affinity test, the Committee rejected the caste claim and also about ten documents which were filed by the petitioner in support of his claim 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe category.

3. During the pendency of this petition, the petitioner filed ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:28:52 ::: wp.4006.02 3 Civil Application No.1691/2017 for amendment of the petition introducing the plea that one of his blood relatives, namely, Bhaskar Mahadeorao Kolhe was granted the validity certificate dated 5.12.2012 by the said Committee. We allow the said amendment application. The amendment be carried out within a period of one week from today.

4. The petitioner denied the relationship with Vasudeo Tukaram and Ashok Tukaram. The document i.e. certificate of validity is produced on record in the name of Bhaskar Kolhe. The petitioner has to establish the relationship with Bhaskar Kolhe. Similarly, the question of the relationship of the petitioner with Vasudeo Tukaram and Ashok Tukaram is also required to be gone into. Hence, we are of the view that the matter will have to be remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee for decision afresh after an enquiry.

5. In the result, we allow this writ petition, quash and set aside the order dated 26.8.2002 passed by the respondent no.2- Committee. The matter is remanded back to the said Committee for enquiry and decision afresh. The petitioner to appear before the Committee on 28th August, 2017. The Committee to conduct enquiry and decide the ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:28:52 ::: wp.4006.02 4 matter within a period of eight months thereafter. The Committee shall permit the petitioner to produce additional documents if any, on record in support of the claim for Halba/Halbi Scheduled Tribe. If warranted, the petitioner shall also be permitted to lead oral evidence in the matter.

6. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

                         JUDGE                        JUDGE
sahare




     ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2017                   ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:28:52 :::