Bombay High Court
Laxmikant Chandulal Koturkar vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate ... on 4 April, 2016
Bench: A.V. Nirgude
1 WP 7247 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 7247 OF 2012
Laxmikant S/o. Chandulal Koturkar, Aged 57 PETITIONER
Years, Occupation Service, Plot No.8/B,
Scond Floor, Pagariya Apartment, Opp. Zilha
Udyog Kendra, Station Road, Aurangabad
V E R S U S
1) Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny RESPONDENTS
Committee, Through its Vice Chairman,
Kasmira Sadan, Railway Station Road,
Aurangabad
2) The Collector, Jalna
3) The Executive Magistrate, Jalna
4) The Additional Chief Conservator of Forests,
Maharashtra State
5) The Chief Conservator of Forersts,
Aurangabad Region
Mr. Suresh M. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. P.S. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.1
Mr. V.M. Kagne, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 - State
::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:58:26 :::
2 WP 7247 of 2012
CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE &
V.L. ACHLIYA, JJ.
DATE : 4th April, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: A.V. Nirgude, J.) :
1. The petitioner himself is present before this Court. Learned
counsel Shri Suresh M. Kulkarni identified him. We heard the submissions
at bar, perused the petition, impugned judgment and annexed documents.
2. The question that arose for our consideration in this case is,
whether the Tribe Scrutiny Committee committed any error in rejecting the
petitioner's claim that he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe which known as
'Chhatri'.
3. The documents repeatedly referred to him as "Chhatri"
(Tailor), thereby indicating that the word "Chhatri" was synonymous to
tailoring work. In all the documents, the word "tribe" is not used, but the
word "caste" is used. These documents thus did not prove or even indicate
that the petitioner's grand-father was a tribal. It indicated that he belonged
to a caste which is known as 'Telangi Chhatri' (Tailor).
4. The petitioner did not bring on record anything to indicate that
he has similarity with anthropological characteristics of tribals by name
"Chhatri". He indicated that his family originally belonged to Chandrapur
district. The Vigilance report also indicate that the petitioner and his family
3 WP 7247 of 2012
members' ancestors traditionally worked as 'tailor'. It is therefore clear that
even affinity test is not satisfactorily passed.
5. What is further peculiar in petitioner's case is that the
petitioner and even his near relatives were admitted to School and their
caste was not mentioned at all as "Chhatri". He and his relations were
described as 'Hindu'. This happened in respect of his all the family
members. No one mentioned his or her caste as 'Chhatri'. Everyone
avoided to mention caste as 'Tailor' or 'Shimpi' or 'Telgu Shimpi'. In view
of these circumstances, we reject the petitioner's claim that he belonged to
tribe 'Chhatri'. We do not see any error in the impugned judgment.
6. It is settled position in law that in a case involving proof of
caste claim, the burden of proving the caste claim is always upon the
person approaching the Committee for validation of his claim. He has to
produce the requisite documents in support of his claim. The Caste
Scrutiny Committee merely performs the role of verification of the claim
and therefore, can only scrutinize the documents and material produced
by the petitioner. We have no hesitation in observing that in the present
case the material produced by the petitioner do not prove his claim. The
Committee is not expected to gather the evidence on it's own to prove or
disprove the claim of the applicant. As discussed above, the material
placed on record i.e. School record as that of the petitioner, his close
relatives and family members do not support the claim of the petitioner.
In view of this, we do not find any error in the reasons and findings
recorded by the Committee. The reasons and findings recorded by the
Committee are found to be quite consistent with the material on record.
4 WP 7247 of 2012
We therefore not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the
Committee.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
petitioner has entered into Government service as a candidate from open
category. Throughout his service tenure, he has not claimed benefit as
belonging to the Scheduled Tribe. He joined the service as 'Accountant' in
the Forest Department on 30th July, 1982. He was promoted as 'Chief
Accountant' with effect from 18th August, 1995 from open category.
Thereafter, he was promoted as 'Office Superintendent' from open
category. Throughout he was treated as candidate from open category. In
the year 2011, as the post of 'Administrative Officer' became vacant and
reserved for Schduled Tribe, he was treated as Scheduled Tribe and
asked to get caste claim verified. It is contended that till his retirement, the
petitioner has not claimed any benefit as 'Scheduled Tribe'. Therefore,
even if for some time he claimed that he belonged to a Tribe, he did not
take benefit as Scheduled Tribe, and therefore, it is not necessary for him
to produce Caste Validity Certificate for seeking the service
benefits/pensionary benefits. He has submitted that the pensionary
benefits of the petitioner are withheld for want of production of Caste
Validity Certificate. In view of this, we are of the view that the retirement
benefits cannot be withheld for want of Caste Validity Certificate as the
petitioner has joined the service as a candidate from the open category
and all the subsequent promotions are claimed to be made from the open
category. In case the petitioner has not received any service benefits as a
candidate belonging to the Scheduled Tribe, the post retirement benefits
cannot be withheld for want of submission of Caste Validity Certificate. In
5 WP 7247 of 2012
view of this, we direct the respondent not to withheld pensionary benefits
available to the petitioner only because he did not produce Caste Validity
Certificate. However, it is clarified that if pensionary benefits are withheld
for any reason other than non-production of Caste Validity Certificate, then
the department will be at liberty to take the appropriate decision in the
matter.
8. In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, Civil Application No.
10775 of 2015 stands disposed of.
( V.L. ACHLIYA, J. ) ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. )
srm/4/4//16
