Bombay High Court
Ku.Meera Narayan Jawanjal vs State Of Mah. & 2 Ors on 11 August, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment. wp681.05
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 681 OF 2005.
Ku. Meera Narayan Jawanjal,
Aged about 43 years, Occupation
Service, resident of Karanja (Lad)
District Washim. ..... PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Department
of Tribal Development, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2. The Committee for Scrutiny and
Verification of Tribe Claims,
Amravati Division, Amravati
through its Chairman.
3. The Medical Superintendent,
Rural Hospital, Kamargaon,
District Washim. ..... RESPONDENTS.
--------------------------
Shri R.M. Ahirrao, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms. S.Z. Haider, A.G.P. for Respondents.
--------------------------
Judgment. wp681.05
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
KUM. INDIRA JAIN
,
J J.
DATE : AUGUST 11, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)
The matter is part heard. Today during arguments
Shri Ahirrao, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has produced an affidavit dated 09.08.2016 sworn by
the petitioner. Certificate of validity issued to one Anand
Madhavrao Jawanjal on 09.06.2005 by the Scrutiny Committee
at Aurangabad Division, is produced along with it. Document
no.2 with that affidavit is Family Tree. Perusal of family tree
shows that Narayan, father of petitioner and Madhavrao father
of Anand are real brothers. Both are sons of Yashwant. We
have taken note of the fact that the petitioner is born on
02.07.1960 and she obtained caste certificate on 25.06.1984.
She has joined employment as Thakur, Scheduled Tribe
candidate in the year 1990, as such, the alternate argument
Judgment. wp681.05
advanced by Shri Ahirrao, learned Counsel about protection of
employment in absence of any finding of fraud or manipulation
in the impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee, could have
been accepted.
2. This Court has on 28.02.2005 while issuing Rule in
the matter, protected the employment of petitioner.
3. Learned A.G.P. has invited our attention to the fact
that all documents though old and mention caste as "Thakur"
there is every possibility that the said caste does not refer to
Thakur Scheduled Tribe. Hence, the Scrutiny Committee
applied affinity test and petitioner failed therein. Submission
is, therefore, petitioner belongs to an upper caste Thakur.
4. She is also seeking time to obtain instructions on
validity given to Anand Madhvrao Jawanjal, produced before
this Court today.
Judgment. wp681.05
5. However, as we find that matter is pending before
this Court since last more than 11 years and in the impugned
order the Scrutiny Committee mentions name of Madhav
(father of Anand) as also some documents in respect of
Madhav, we find it appropriate to place back the matter before
the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee may consider
the impact of validity given to Anand son of Madhavrao
Jawanjal, on caste claim of petitioner. Hence, only to facilitate
said consideration, we quash and set aside the order passed by
the Scrutiny Committee dated 24.12.2004, and restore the
matter back to its file. Petitioner is directed to appear before
the respondent no.2 Scrutiny Committee on 19.09.2016 and to
abide by its further instructions in the matter. The Scrutiny
Committee shall attempt to complete the verification in
accordance with the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes,
Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category
(Regulation of Issuance & Verification of) Caste Certificates
Act, (Act No. 23 of 2001), within a further period of one year.
Judgment. wp681.05
The petitioner shall while appearing before the respondent no.2
Scrutiny Committee, place on record the family tree with
proper affidavit and copy of validity given to her cousin Anand.
Interim order granted by this Court shall continue to operate
till the respondent Scrutiny Committee adjudicates the caste
claim of the petitioner, and shall be subject to it.
6. Writ Petition is thus, partly allowed and disposed of.
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
Judgment. wp681.05
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this judgment/order uploaded is a true and
correct copy of original signed judgment/order.
Uploaded by : R.G. Dhuriya.
ig Uploaded on : 12.08.2016
Pvt. Sec.
