1906WP1202.15-Judgment 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1202 OF 2015
PETITIONER :- Ku.Hira D/o. Panjabrao Dahilkar, Meden
Name, Sau. Hira Ramchandra Yeskar, Aged
about 36 years, Occ. Service, R/o. Jagdamba
Mata Colony, Ward No.6, Karanja Ghadge,
District Wardha.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Zilla Parishad, Wardha, Through it's Chief
Executive Officer.
2) The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla
Parishad, Wardha.
3) The Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee
No.1, Nagpur Division, Nagpur through its
Member Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. P. B. Patil, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. P. D. Meghe, counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. K.L.Dharmadhikari, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent No.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE
, JJ.
DATED : 19.06.2017 O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.) By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the scrutiny committee dated 05/02/2015 invalidating the claim of the petitioner of belonging to Nhavi Banjara (Vimukta Jati). ::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2017 00:40:59 :::
1906WP1202.15-Judgment 2/4
2. The petitioner was appointed on a post meant for the vimukta jatis and her caste claim was referred to the scrutiny committee for verification. Since the caste claim of the petitioner was rejected without granting an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence in support of her caste claim, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.1182 of 2011. The said writ petition was partly allowed and the scrutiny committee was directed to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within six months after granting an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence. After this court partly allowed the writ petition on 14/07/2011, the petitioner was permitted to examine some witnesses and cross-examine some others. It is the case of the petitioner that the last witness was cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner on 14/08/2013. It is stated that after the evidence was tendered by the petitioner and some of the employees of the school were examined, the petitioner was not granted an opportunity of hearing. It is submitted that after the evidence was recorded in pursuance of the order in Writ Petition No.1182 of 2011, dated 14/07/2011, it was necessary for the scrutiny committee to have called the petitioner for hearing so that the petitioner could have showed cause in respect of the alleged interpolation/over writing on certain documents. It is the case of the petitioner that after the evidence of the witnesses was recorded, it was incumbent on the part of the scrutiny committee to have afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2017 00:40:59 :::
1906WP1202.15-Judgment 3/4
3. Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the scrutiny committee submitted, by referring to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the scrutiny committee that since this court had directed the scrutiny committee to permit the petitioner to tender evidence, the scrutiny committee had permitted the petitioner to do so. It is however fairly admitted that it does not appear from the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the scrutiny committee that the petitioner was heard after the evidence of the parties.
4. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that after the matter was remanded to the scrutiny committee, four witnesses were examined. The petitioner had examined certain witnesses and had also cross-examined some others. If the scrutiny committee wanted to rely upon the evidence of the witnesses to invalidate the caste claim of the petitioner, it was necessary for the scrutiny committee to have granted an opportunity to the petitioner to explain as to why the evidence of the four witnesses should not have been accepted. After the evidence was tendered, it was necessary for the scrutiny committee to have afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner so that the petitioner could have shown cause as to why the evidence of the witnesses should not be accepted. Since an opportunity was not granted to the petitioner to do so, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2017 00:40:59 :::
1906WP1202.15-Judgment 4/4 Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order of the scrutiny committee is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the scrutiny committee for deciding the caste claim of the petitioner afresh on merits after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner undertakes to remain present before the scrutiny committee on 17/07/2017 so that issuance of notice to the petitioner could be dispensed with. The interim relief granted in favour of the petitioner on 05/03/2015 would continue to operate till the caste claim of the petitioner is decided. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2017 00:40:59 :::