Bombay High Court
Manoj Janardan Sonparote vs The Scheduled Tribe Caste ... on 18 April, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 wp32-05
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No.32 of 2005
Manoj s/o Janardan Sonparote,
Aged 30 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Saraswati Nagar. ... Petitioner.
-Versus.-
1.
The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificates
Scrutiny Committee, through its
Member Secretary, Irwin Chowk, Amravati.
2. Shir Shivaji Shikshan Sanstha
through its Secretary Shri ________
Amravati. .
3. The Principal
Dr. G.K. Mahavidyalaya,
Gadegaon ( Telhara),
District Akola.
4. The Deputy Director of Education,
Amravati Region, Amravati. ... ... Respondents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ashwin Deshpande, counsel for petitioner.
Mr. Lokhande, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 4.
Mr. Sambre, counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE : 18th April, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per B. P. Dharmadhikari, J.)
Heard advocate Deshpande, learned AGP for respondent nos. 1
and 4 and advocate Sambre for respondent nos. 2 & 3. Short submission of
2 wp32-05
advocate Deshpande is, when there are five documents establishing caste as
'Halbi', merely because the affinity test could not be satisfied, the caste claim
could not have been invalidated. He submits that those documents were
produced as document nos. 10 to 14 before scrutiny committee and though
only three of them find mention, there is total non-application of mind as to
its contents or impact. He has relied upon judgment of this court dated
1.9.2015 in W.P. No. 3063/2003.
2. Learned AGP submits that the documents are in relation to one
Vitthal Chinuji Halbi, Madhukar Vitthal Sonparote, Ruprao Vitthal Sonparote
and as such it was not necessary to look into each document. The relevant
documents i.e. documents at serial no. 10, 11 and 13 have been duly
evaluated. As the Affinity Test is not found to be satisfied and vigilance
report is adverse, the caste claim has been invalidated.
3. Advocate Sambre appearing for respondent nos. 2 & 3 (employer)
submits that it is for petitioner and respondent no. 1 to support their
respective contentions.
4. The document at serial no. 10 is birth certificate in which child is
shown to be born to Vitthal Chinuji Halbi on 10.8.1935. Scrutiny committee
has mentioned this document initially in paragraph 3 and then in paragraph
14 as document no. F. It is concluded that said document is not related with
3 wp32-05
the caste and therefore it is rejected. Document at serial number 11 in
paragraph no. 3 of the order of scrutiny committee is xerox copy of school
leaving certificate in respect of Madhuka Vitthal Sonparote where caste is
recorded as 'Halbi' on 8.4.1942. Similarly, document no. 13 is copy of school
leaving certificate in respect of Ruprao Vitthal Sonparote where caste is
recorded as 'Halbi' on 9.4.1945. These documents are considered in sub-para
A of paragraph 14 and scrutiny committee mentions that in view of vigilance
cell report and affinity test and record collected by vigilance cell, these
documents have been rejected.
5. In so far as document at serial no. 12 which is an abstract of
Dakhal Kharij Register in respect of Madhukar Vitthal Sonparote where caste
is recorded as 'Halbi' and profession is shown as weaving on 8.4.1942 and
document at serial no. 14 which is a similar abstract in case of Ruprao Vitthal
dated 29.4.1949, except their mention in paragraph 3 as documents no. 12
and 14 respectively, scrutiny committee has not thereafter referred to these
documents at all.
6. Perusal of vigilance report dated 16.2.2004 reveals that vigilance
cell authority has only collected personal information and conducted home
inquiry in respect of culture and customs. The vigilance cell authority has
nowhere stated that it has while verifying the documents produced by
4 wp32-05
petitioner, found any interpolation or tampering in any school record or
other records. Thus, vigilance cell report does not show that above
documents at serial nos. 10 to 14 are not genuine.
7. When authenticity of these documents or then claim of
relationship with persons to whom those documents are issued made by
petitioner is not found to be false, the scrutiny committee ought to have
given due credit to the above documents. Document at serial no. 10 is
discarded on the ground that it does not relate with the caste, however, we
find that word 'Halbi' appear in said document and fact that 'Halbi' is a caste
is not in dispute. Document at serial nos. 11 and 13 are rejected by pointing
out vigilance cell report, affinity test and record collected by vigilance cell.
We have already commented upon vigilance cell report which does not in
any way impinge upon the authenticity of document nos. 11 & 13. Affinity
test can be used only to conclude that though documents record a particular
caste, in view of evidence on affinity that document or that claim cannot be
accepted. Affinity test cannot be a reason to ignore the valid and binding
documents.
8. Moreover, documents namely document Nos. 12 & 14 have not
been considered at all.
9. Hence, when there are five documents on record wherein a caste
5 wp32-05
has been consistently recorded as 'Halbi', all documents are of
pre-independence period and claim of petitioner that those documents
pertain to his ancestors is not found to be incorrect, merely because affinity
test is not satisfied, the caste claim could not have been invalidated.
10 In this situation, we find that scrutiny committee has failed to
exercise jurisdiction vested in it in accordance with law and failed to look
into material documents and to examine their impact. This court on
7.1.2005 had issued notice in the matter protecting employment of the
petitioner and that interim order has been continued on 2.2.2005 while
issuing 'Rule' in the matter. Thus, the petitioner is continuing in employment.
11. In this situation, we quash and set aside the judgment dated
9.11.2004 delivered by respondent no. 1 Committee and direct it to issue
validity to petitioner as belonging to 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe. Said certificate
shall be issued within period of four months from today.
Writ petition is thus allowed and disposed of. Rule is made
absolute accordingly. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Hirekhan
