Bombay High Court
Neha Ballabhdas Gahalot vs Chairman, Caste Scrutiny ... on 18 January, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006 (6) BomCR 378
Author: P J.N.
Bench: P J.N., J A.H.
JUDGMENT
Patel J.N., J.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner took admission in Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil Medical College for Women, Pimpri, Pune for prosecuting her study in M.B.B.S. Course in the category of O.B.C. on the basis of her caste claim that she belongs to caste "Nai". The petitioner's caste claim was referred to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for verification. The Caste Scrutiny Committee vide its order dated 21.10.2000 invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner holding that she does not belong to caste Nhavi (OBC) mainly for the reason that in the case of her relatives their caste is mentioned in the birth register and school leaving certificate in the case of her uncle as "Nai' and in the case of her father as 'Marwadi Nhavi', whereas in her school, i.e. Agriculture English School, Arvi her own caste is written as Nhavi - Barbar (OBC) which was found to be tampered. This Court while entertaining the petition by its order dated 11.1.2001 directed the Scrutiny Committee to re-examine the caste claim of the petitioner in the light of the observation made by this Court in the said order. Therefore, the Caste Scrutiny Committee again undertook the exercise and passed an order on 20.2.2001 wherein two orders came to be passed as the members of the Committee were not in agreement with each other. One of the members who was also the Divisional Social Welfare Officer held in favour of the petitioner and found that the petitioner belongs to caste which falls under category of O.B.C. but the same has been described by different names and find place at serial number in the list of castes notified as Other Backward Class but does belong to caste 'Barbar' which is known in vernacular as 'Nhavi', Nai and so on, whereas the other two members found that the petitioner has not been able to substantiate her claim that she belongs to caste 'Nhavi'.
3. Mr. Gopal Mishra, learned Counsel for petitioner, brought to our notice the notification under which list of OBC is published where persons belonging to caste at serial No. 108 are described as 'Navi, Nhavi (Salgani, Hajam)' and that serial No. 276 -'Hajam, Kalseru, Navlinga, Kanshi, Nabhik, Nai'.
4. In our view, merely because the caste of the petitioner and her relatives, i.e. uncle and father have been differently described, they still come under Other Backward Class.
5. It is the contention of the learned A.G.P. that the school leaving certificate of the petitioner's father records his caste as Marwadi Nhavi and the word "Barber" has been manipulated. If we see the description of the document as given in the impugned order, the caste of the petitioner's father has been recorded as 'Marwadi Nai'. "Nai" comes under Other Backward Class. The prefix to the word 'Nai' does not make the petitioner ineligible for validating her caste claim. It only indicates the geographical region to which the petitioner's family belonged. To further clarify that a person who is originally a native of Uttar Pradesh may be known in the State of Maharashtra as Pardeshi Nai. Therefore, we accept the decision of the Divisional Social Welfare Officer validating the caste claim of the petitioner being the correct approach in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner belongs to OBC for the reason that the other two members have taken a hypertechnical view without properly appreciating the material on record.
6. In the circumstances, the petition deserves to be allowed. We make the rule absolute in terms of prayer Clause (1) with no order as to costs.
