wp1714.00.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1714/2000
PETITIONER : Kishor Shankarsingh Bais,
aged about 36 years, Occupation - service -
Primary School Teacher at Panchayat Samiti
Tiwsa, resident of Daryapur, Tahsil
Daryapur, District - Amravati.
...V E R S U S...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. The Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Adivasi Bhavan,
Giripeth, Nagpur, through its Member
Secretary.
2. The State of Maharashtra, through
its Secretary, Tribal Development
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
3. Zilla Parishad, Amravati, through its
Chief Executive Officer, Tahsil and District -
Amravati.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Ashwin Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner
Mrs. A.R. Kulkarni, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATE : 23.11.2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)
1. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the respondent no.1 - The Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner who is belonging to Scheduled Tribe Community Thakur was ::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:15:25 ::: wp1714.00.odt 2 selected through a duly selection process and adopted by the Regional Subordinate Service Selection Board and was appointed by respondent no.3 - Zilla Parishad by order dated 28/1/1998 as primary school teacher in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040/-. It is submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed at Tiwsa and was then transferred to other school at Dhanodi and thereafter was transferred at Hingni Mirjapur. It is submitted that in response to the communication issued by the Block Education Officer dated 11/3/1993 the petitioner forwarded his caste certificate along with the documents in support of his claim to the Additional Commissioner Tribal Development Department. The petitioner in response to the communication also appeared for the personal interview to substantiate his claim for Thakur Scheduled Tribe. The Caste Scrutiny Committee by order dated 7/11/1997 invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ petition No.879/1998. During the pendency of the petition, it was observed that the formality as set out in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madhuri Patil is not followed, namely, calling for vigilance cell's report and furnishing a copy thereof to the petitioner. A pursis to that effect was filed. The order of the Scrutiny Committee was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Committee for fresh consideration.
::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:15:25 :::
wp1714.00.odt 3
2. Shri Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner to substantiate his claim submitted the documents before the Committee. The learned Counsel submitted that these documents were included one of the most important document, i.e., a document of pre independence era showing the social status of the grand-father of the petitioner as Thakur. Learned Counsel further submitted that the father of the petitioner was illiterate person. He submitted that the petitioner is the first generation in his family who obtained the education. He submitted that the other family members such as uncle, father, grand-father and great grand-father were all illiterate persons. The learned Counsel then submitted that the petitioner submitted all the documents supporting his claim before the Scrutiny Committee. Learned Counsel fairly submitted that though these documents include certain documents in respect of the uncle of the petitioner, the grand-father of the petitioner and father of the petitioner, the family tree of the petitioner was not placed before the Scrutiny Committee. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed on record the family tree for our perusal and for consideration of the documentary evidence submitted before the Scrutiny Committee. Learned Counsel then submitted that the respondent no.1 - Scrutiny Committee by order dated 25/4/2000 invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner on the ground ::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:15:25 ::: wp1714.00.odt 4 that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim in affinity test. Learned Counsel vehemently submitted that the decision of the Committee is clearly unsustainable for the reason that the Committee could not have arrived at that conclusion only by relying the affinity test. Learned Counsel further submitted that in view of the judgment of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court the affinity test is one of the criteria to assess the claim of the candidate but the affinity test could not be a sole criteria to assess the claim. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the decision of the Committee without going into the documentary evidence and only with passing reference that the documents are rejected, cannot throw the petitioner out of consideration.
3. Mrs. Kulkarni, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 and 2 opposes the petition.
4. We have gone through the material placed on record. The order impugned in the petition of the Scrutiny Committee refers to the documents submitted by the petitioner. These are the documents, namely, copy of caste certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate, Daryapur, dated 28/1/1992, copy of primary school leaving certificate of the candidate dated 17/10/1992, copy of secondary school leaving certificate in the name of Shamsingh Bais, dated 30/6/1990, copy of caste certificate issued in favour of one Shamsingh Bais dated 14/2/1992, copy of caste ::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:15:25 ::: wp1714.00.odt 5 certificate issued in the name of Rajesh Bais dated 20/2/1989, copy of birth extract issued in the name of Siraj Thakur, dated 3/1/2000, copy of sale-deed in the name of Govind Lattusingh, copy of death extract issued in the name of candidate's father, dated 17/1/2000, copy of secondary school leaving certificate of the candidate Harbans Bahadursingh Amarpalsingh Thakur dated 2/2/1990, copy of primary school leaving certificate issued in the name of Ku. Bharti Harbansingh Thakur dated 30/4/1983, copy of secondary school leaving certificate issued in the name of Ku. Bharti Harbansingh Thakur, dated 18/5/1991, copy of caste certificate issued in the name of Ku. Kavita Harbansingh Thakur, dated 2/10/1990, copy of caste certificate issued in the name of Ku. Bharti Thakur, dated 21/1/1991, copy of 7/12 extract issued in the name of Ashoksingh Thakur, copy of secondary school leaving certificate issued in the name of Rahul Ashoksingh Bais, dated 9/6/1998 and original copy of the affidavit sworn by the candidate dated 17/11/1997.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that though the document at serial no.6 referred to as the copy of birth extract in the name of Shivpal Thakur issued by Tahsildar, Anjangaon dated 3/1/2000 the document is of 12/12/1927. He submitted that this document was having a great importance and was decisive document in favour of the petitioner as this document was of pre independence era. ::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:15:25 :::
wp1714.00.odt 6 Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that document at serial no.7 is also a document of 6/2/1926 and the same is also of pre independence era. Learned Counsel submitted that though the Committee refers to the documents at serial nos.6 to 8, it only observed that on the background of socio-cultural traits, ethnic linkage, affinity test and police vigilance report, these documents are rejected. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Committee ought to have assessed the documents independently considering the potential value of the said documents. Learned Counsel submitted that such wholesome rejection of the Committee on erroneous appreciation of the documents is clearly untenable and unsustainable. Insofar as the documents referred to by the Committee at serial nos.6 to 8 are concerned, the document at serial no.8 is a document of post independence era but the document at serial nos.6 and 7 are concerned, they are certainly the documents of pre independence era. The document at serial no.6 which is placed on record at Exh.24 shows that it is the copy of birth and death of Kotwal register. The document is of the year 1927. The copy issued from the office of Tahsildar Anjangaon is a certified copy and the endorsement of Tahsildar is dated 3/1/2000, whereas the document is attested by the Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Daryapur. Learned Counsel for the petitioner was justified in submitting that the Committee treated this ::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:15:25 ::: wp1714.00.odt 7 document as if a document of post independence era only on the basis of the date 3/1/2000 which is the date on certificate of the Tahsildar. The document is issued in the name of Shivpal. The social status, i.e., caste shown in the document is Thakur. The another document, i.e., document at serial no.7 is the copy of sale-deed of the year 1926. This is also a pre independence era document in the name of Govind Ramsingh Lattusingh Thakur. Before the Committee, the petitioner submitted that along with claim he is submitting the documents to substantiate his claim and these documents are related to his parental relations, such as, grand-father, uncle, father and cousin uncle etc. While evaluating these documents, the other documents, namely, the document at serial nos.1, 4, 5, 12 and 13 where the copies of the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner, his sister, his brother and uncle etc. are looked into. The Committee observed that these are the documents supplied for scrutiny before the Scrutiny Committee. Then while assessing the other documents the Committee observed that these are the documents of post independence era and the caste recorded in these documents such as school leaving certificate etc. is as per the information given by the parents or guardians of the wards admitting them in the school. At the cost of repetition, it is stated that insofar as the important documents, i.e., at serial nos.6 and 7 which are the documents of pre independence era, ::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:15:25 ::: wp1714.00.odt 8 the Committee has just made a cursory remark and general observation without assessing the evidentiary value of these documents so as to decide the claim of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner was justified in submitting that the approach is unsustainable in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Learned Counsel was also justified in placing heavy reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Priya s/o Pravin Parate...Versus...Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificates Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur and others, reported in 2013 (1) Mh.L.J. 180 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anand....Versus...Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and others, reported in 2011 (6) Mh.L.J. 919. In the case of Priya s/o Pravin Parate (Supra) the Division Bench of this Court found that though the documents were submitted before the Committee of pre independence era the Committee failed to consider this material and the claim was rejected. In the present case also the documents are of pre independence era. It is nobody's case that these documents are either fraudulent or obtained by ill-means. It would be useful to refer to the observations of this Court in para 13 of the said judgment, which are as under :-
"13. It is nobody's case that the aforesaid documents are either fraudulent or fabricated one. In the report of the vigilance cell committee, veracity and genuineness of these ::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:15:25 ::: wp1714.00.odt 9 documents have not been doubted. In that view of the matter, in view of the documents of pre-Constitution era, which according to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court have a greater probative value, the claim of petitioners could not have been rejected."
6. Similarly, in the judgment in the case of Anand (Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court set out the broad parameters while dealing with the caste claim. Insofar as the affinity test is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court by considering the various aspects was pleased to hold that the affinity test may be used to corroborate the documentary evidence and should not be the sole criteria to reject the claim. Learned Counsel for the petitioner was justified in submitting that the rejection of the caste claim of the petitioner only on the basis of alleged failure of the petitioner to establish the affinity test without considering the documents, is unsustainable.
7. Considering these aspects of the matter, we find that the order impugned in the petition needs to be quashed and set aside. Hence, we allow the writ petition. The impugned order passed by the respondent no.1 - The Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Caste Scrutiny Committee to decide the claim of the petitioner afresh as expeditiously as possible and not later than twelve weeks from the date of the order of this ::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:15:25 ::: wp1714.00.odt 10 Court.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be permitted to submit the documents before the Caste Scrutiny Committee which were not earlier available with the petitioner but subsequently came to the knowledge of the petitioner and these documents support the claim of the petitioner. The learned Counsel also submitted that the petitioner though initially failed to submit the family tree before the Committee, the petitioner be permitted to place the family tree before the Committee so as to have a better appreciation of the documents placed before the Committee in support of the claim of the petitioner.
9. If the petitioner approaches the Scrutiny Committee with the request of placing on record these documents, the Scrutiny Committee may consider the request of the petitioner on merits.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:15:25 :::