1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No. 2368 of 2011
Petitioner : Santosh son of Keshav Tirmanwar, aged about
43 years, Occ: service, resident of Ashutosh
Niwas, VIP Road, Kinwat, District Nanded
versus
Respondents : 1) The State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
2) The Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, other Backward Category, Denotified Tribes & Nomadic Tribes Caste Certificates Verification Committee No. 1, Amravati Division, Amravati, through its Member-
Secretary
3) The Deputy Director of Land Records, Aurangabad Division, Near Collector Office, Aurangabad ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2017 00:31:31 ::: 2 Shri S. K. Pardhy, Advocate for petitioner Shri V. A. Thakare, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondents Coram : Smt Vasanti A Naik V. M. Deshpande, JJ Dated : 10th March 2017 Oral Judgment (Per Smt Vasanti A Naik, J)
1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.4.2011, passed by the respondent no. 2 Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating the claim of the petitioner of belonging to "Yellammalawandalu" scheduled caste.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the Revenue Department on 21.8.1990 on a post reserved for the scheduled castes. The petitioner was promoted in due course of his service. The respondent- employer sent the caste claim of the petitioner to the Scrutiny Committee for verification. The Scrutiny Committee did not decide the caste claim of the petitioner within a reasonable time and hence, the petitioner made a representation to the Scrutiny Committee for deciding the same. In the year 2010, a vigilance cell enquiry was conducted in the caste claim of the petitioner and the Scrutiny Committee, on an appreciation of the material on record, invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner by the ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2017 00:31:31 ::: 3 impugned order dated 21.4.2011. This order of the Scrutiny Committee is challenged by the petitioner in the instant petition.
3. Shri Pardhy, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Scrutiny Committee was not justified in invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner by holding that the petitioner had not produced any document prior to the year 1950 to show that the petitioner was a resident of the concerned area. It is submitted that the petitioner had produced the extract of the Admission Register to show that the father of the petitioner was born in the year 1946 and he was admitted to the Zilla Parishad School at Kinwat in the year 1955. It is submitted that the grand- father of the petitioner was working as a labourer at Kinwat and hence, there was no documentary evidence in respect of his grand-father. It is submitted that the caste validity certificate is issued in favour of the cousin brother and cousin sister of the petitioner by the Caste Scrutiny Committee at Aurangabad. It is submitted that the Scrutiny Committee has wrongly discarded the caste validity certificate issued in favour of the cousins of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not proved that he was the resident of Kinwat before the deemed date. It is submitted that the Vigilance Cell has given a favourable report in favour of the petitioner and according to the vigilance cell, the petitioner's caste is "Yellammalawandalu".
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2017 00:31:31 ::: 4
4. Shri Thakare, the learned Assistant Government Pleader supported the order of the Scrutiny Committee. It is submitted that the petitioner had not produced any documents prior to the year 1950 to prove that the petitioner or his parents were ordinary residents of the area falling within the jurisdiction of the respondent no. 2-Committee. It is stated that nothing is brought by the petitioner before the Scrutiny Committee to point out that the father or the grand-father of the petitioner was the permanent resident of Kinwat. It is submitted that the caste validity certificates issued in favour of the cousins of the petitioner were also not considered as those were granted by the Aurangabad Committee and the cousins of the petitioner were the residents of Nanded.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the documents annexed to the writ petition, we find that the Scrutiny Committee has committed an error in invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner. The petitioner has produced the old document of the year 1955 to show that the petitioner's father was admitted in the Zilla Parishad School at Kinwat in the year 1955. The said document shows that the father of the petitioner was born in 1942. It could be gathered from the said document that the petitioner must have been born ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2017 00:31:31 ::: 5 and brought up in Kinwat. The said document is not disputed by the Scrutiny Committee. The said document and the other documents tendered by the petitioner were verified by the Vigilance Cell and the Vigilance Cell, after making an enquiry in the caste claim of the petitioner, found that the petitioner has proved his affinity to "Yellammalawandalu" scheduled caste. The Vigilance Cell has observed that the petitioner belongs to the said caste. The report of the Vigilance Cell could not have been lightly discarded by the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee took an unreasonable view in the matter by holding that the petitioner has not proved his residence at Kinwat on the deemed date. There is material on record to show that the petitioner had applied even for the documents of the year 1949, but the said documents were not supplied to the petitioner, after finding that the relevant record of the year 1949 was in a tattered condition. If the record pertaining to the relatives of the petitioner, as claimed by the petitioner, was in a tattered condition and the petitioner could not receive the copy of the said record, the petitioner cannot be blamed. The petitioner has reasonably established on the basis of the extract of Admission Register in respect of the father of the petitioner that the petitioner's father was resident of Kinwat on the deemed date. The two cousins of the petitioner had received the caste validity certificate. Their caste is held to be "Yellammalawandalu" scheduled caste by the Aurangabad Scrutiny ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2017 00:31:31 ::: 6 Committee. In the circumstances of the case, it was necessary for the Scrutiny Committee to have validated the caste claim of the petitioner. The Scrutiny Committee, however, erroneously rejected the caste claim of the petitioner by holding that the petitioner had not produced the material on record to show that the petitioner was a permanent resident of Kinwat. In the circumstances of the case, the order of the Scrutiny Committee cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside. It is hereby held that the petitioner has proved his claim of belonging to "Yellammalawandalu" scheduled caste. The Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue a caste validity certificate in favour of the petitioner within two months.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
V. M. DESHPANDE, J SMT VASANTI A NAIK, J
joshi
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2017 00:31:31 :::