Kiran Sahadeorao Raoo vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 936 Bom

JUDGMENT

S.A. Bobde, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.

2. This petition is directed against the order dated nil, passed by the respondent No. 2 committee, by which, the Committee has negatived the petitioner's claim that he belongs to 'Halba', Scheduled Tribe.

3. The only point urged on behalf of the petitioner, by Mr. Madkholkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, which deserves acceptance, is non-compliance of Guideline No. 5 laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kum. Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, . It is obvious from the report of the Police Vigilance Cell that the cell has made an enquiry only from the entry of school admission register, wherein the caste of petitioner's father is recorded as 'Koshti'. Guideline No. 5, as aforesaid, reads as under:

"5. Each directorate should constitute a Vigilance Cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in overall charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The Vigilance Officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian as the case may be. He also should examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in the proforma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the concerned castes or tribes or tribal communities, etc."

It is clear from the aforesaid guideline that the Supreme Court has made it clear as to the nature of enquiry, which the Caste Scrutiny Committee is expected to conduct and the Police Vigilance Cell of the Committee must interview and record statements of the candidate, his parents or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate. Moreover, there must be an enquiry into the anthropological and ethnological traits with reference to the ceremonies, rituals etc., being followed in the candidate's family. In the instant case, the Committee admittedly, has not done so, the impugned order of the Committee deserves to be set aside and matter needs to be remanded to the Committee to decide the same afresh in accordance with law.

4. In the result, the impugned order of the respondent No. 2-Committee, is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Committee with a direction to decide the same afresh within a period of four months, after the petitioner appear before it, in accordance with law. The petitioner to appear before the Committee on 23rd September, 2002. Needless to mention that the Police Vigilance Cell of the respondent Committee shall ensure compliance of Guideline No. 5 laid down by the Apex Court, as referred to above.

5. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that in case after remand of the matter the order of the Committee is adverse to the petitioner, then the protection as granted to the petitioner, may be continued for a period of two weeks thereafter. This protection, according to the learned Counsel, is necessary in view of the fact that it is common experience of the candidate, whose caste claims are to be decided by the Committee, that the employer sends order of termination alongwith the order of the Scrutiny Committee simultaneously and in that event the candidate does not get time to challenge the order.

6. According to Mrs. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the committee, such time may not be granted to the petitioner in view of the observations of the Supreme Court, particularly, in Guideline No. 15 of Madhuri Patil's case (supra), where the Supreme Court has observed that upon invalidation of the caste claim of the candidate, the committee should communicate the order of the educational institution or the appointing authority by registered post with acknowledgement due, with a request to cancel the admission or the appointment. That thereafter the educational institution should cancel the admission or appointment, without further notice to the concerned candidate and debar the candidate for further study or continuance in the office in the post.

7. Mr. Madkholkar, learned Counsel, rightly points out that in Guideline No. 11 of the said judgment in Madhuri Patil's case, the Supreme Curt has observed that: The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

8. It is therefore, clear that the Supreme Court has recognised the right of such candidate to approach the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It would indeed leave for the candidate, with a fate of the decision if in the meanwhile his admission or appointment is cancelled/terminated, as the case may be, if he does not get time to approach the High Court against the order invalidating the caste claim.

9. In the circumstances, I am of view that the petitioner should be granted two weeks time to approach this Court, if the order of the Committee goes against him. The Caste Scrutiny Committee would be well advised upon passing of the order, to immediately communicate the same to the candidate and employer or educational institutions simultaneously. In this view of the matter, in the present case, interim protection granted by this Court shall continue till the respondent-Committee decides the matter and for a period of two weeks thereafter, if the decision of the Committee goes against the petitioner.