Sarangappa S/O Siddheshwarappa ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, The Sc, ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 285 Bom

JUDGMENT

D.G. Karnik, J.

1. Rule, returnable forthwith. The learned A.G.P. appears and waives service on behalf of the Respondents No.1 to 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner craves leave to delete the Respondent No.4. Leave granted. As all other Respondents appeared and waived the service, petition is taken up for final hearing with consent.

2. The petitioner claims to be belonging to "Mala Jangam", which is declared as Scheduled Caste in the Presidential Order issued in the year 1950. The petitioner obtained admission to D.Ed. Course in District Education & Training Institute, Nanded, claiming the benefit of "Mala Jangam" - scheduled caste. The caste certificate issued by him was sent to the Scrutiny Committee (Respondent No.2 herein) for verification. The Scrutiny Committee, by its order dated 2nd October, 2001, invalidated the caste certificate. Prior to the order, the Respondent No.2 had called for the report of the vigilance cell. Copy of the report of the vigilance cell is produced at Exhibit-C to the petition. The Scrutiny Committee, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, invalidated the caste certificate principally on the following grounds.

(i)The evidence produced by the applicant was of a recent origin. No evidence, which was prior to the year 1950, when "Mala Jangam" was notified as a scheduled caste, nor any evidence of the period immediately after the year 1950, is produced by the petitioner.

(ii)Petitioner had produced a certificate of Junior College of his father of the year 1979-80, which showed caste of the petitioners father as "Jangam" and not as "Mala Jangam".

(iii)The petitioner had not produced the School Leaving Certificate or evidence regarding primary education of the petitioners father. Adverse inference was drawn and it was held that the said record was not produced because that record must be showing the caste of the petitioners father as "Mala Jangam".

(iv)The report of the vigilance committee is not favourable to the petitioner.

3. It is true that almost all the documents produced by the petitioner except a deed of partition, are of recent origin. It is also true that normally the evidence of recent origin has a less probative value because the candidate, in order to get benefits, can claim, in the recent documents, that he belongs to scheduled caste. Normally the evidence, which is prior to the declaration of the caste as scheduled caste, has greater probative value than the evidence of recent origin. The petitioners father himself was admitted to the primary school some time in the year 1968 or thereabout. Therefore, the evidence of 1968, even if it would have been produced, could have been discarded by the Caste Scrutiny Committee on the ground that it relates to a period which is remote by 18 years from the date of declaration of "Mala Jangam" as a scheduled caste. The Vigilance Cell had visited the primary school of the petitioners father and even had spoken to the Head Master. The Head Master of the School has stated that the old records were not available in the school. If the records were not available, certainly petitioner cannot be blamed for non production of record of primary school of the petitioners father.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner handed in the Printed Book titled as "Report of the Census of India 1961, Vol-II, Part V-B (10) containing Ethnographic Notes in respect of Andhra Pradesh. The book appears to be published by or under the authority of Government of India. On page no.1 of the said report, the caste "Mala Jangam" is described. My attention was drawn to para 1 on page no.1 of the said book, which reads as follows:

However, during the field study, it is ascertained that Mala Jangams are different from Malas and claim superiority over Malas. Very little is known about the origin of Mala Jangam. They are generally called Jangam/Janaglu." (Underline supplied) Thus, the said report of the year 1961 itself clarifies that Mala Jangams are also known as Jangams or Jangalus. Therefore, the fact that the caste of the petitioners father was reported as "Jangam" in the Junior College record is not inconsistent with the stand of the petitioner that he belongs to "Mala Jangam" caste.

5. A document, which is admittedly written on a stamp paper issued by the Government of India and styled as a "Partition Deed" was produced before the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The document is in "Urdu" and its true translation was produced, in which the caste of the executant, who is stated to be grand father of the petitioners father, is shown as "Mala Jangam". The translation is not disputed by the respondents. The Scrutiny Committee did not place reliance on it because no date was written on that document. However, on the stamp paper itself, the year of printing of the Stamp Paper is inscribed as "1939". This means that the stamp paper was purchased in the year 1939 or thereabout. The partition deed, which is written on the stamp paper purchased in the year 1939 would generally be of the year 1939 or thereabout. This document is executed long prior to the Presidential Declaration of 1950 declaring "Mala Jangam" as a scheduled caste. Thus, long prior to the Presidential Declaration, petitioners great grand father was described as belonging to "Mala Jangam" caste. The Scrutiny Committee, therefore, clearly erred in not placing reliance on that document. Another reason for the Scrutiny Committee in not placing reliance on this document is that the document is not registered. The inquiry before the Caste Scrutiny Committee was not regarding the validity or otherwise of the document of partition deed. The document is admittedly written on a Government Stamp Paper purchased in the year 1939. The Caste Scrutiny Committee, therefore, erred in not relying upon this partition deed, which describes the caste of the petitioners great grand father as "Mala Jangam". The Scrutiny Committee further erred in coming to the conclusion that the report of the vigilance cell is against the petitioner. In fact, in concluding paragraph (which is para 7) of the report, the Vigilance Cell has clearly stated as follows:

"On the basis of the entries relating to the petitioner, his brother, uncle, paternal aunt in the school records and entry in the service book of the father, entry of the caste of petitioners great grand father in the partition deed, entry in the Certificate issued by the President of the Caste Sanstha, decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee regarding the caste of the paternal sisters son (Atebhau) and also on the basis of house inquiry, it appears that petitioner belongs to "Mala Jangam"

caste. However, there are no entries in the revenue records prior to the year 1950, regarding the caste.

6. This conclusion is not clearly against the petitioner. Absence of entry of the caste in the revenue records is not a circumstance against the petitioner because it is not even the respondents contention that entries of castes are made in the revenue records. On the basis of other records, the vigilance cell had reported the probable caste of the petitioner as "Mala Jangam".

7. Thus, all the four grounds, on which the Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidated the Caste Certificate of the petitioner, are clearly erroneous. The Caste Scrutiny Committee, should have, therefore, validated the caste of the petitioner.

8. In view of this, Rule is made absolute. The Respondent No.2 is directed to issue Caste Validity Certificate to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No order as to costs.