Bombay High Court
Wilfred Rajendra Shelke vs Divisional Caste Certificate ... on 8 December, 2016
Bench: R.M. Borde
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3436 OF 2015
Wilfred s/o Rajendra Shelke,
Age : 20 years, Occu. Education,
R/o Shreenath Society. No. A-2,
Tapkir Nagar, Thergaon, Pune,
Tq. Pune, District Pune PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Divisional Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee No. 1,
Nashik Division, Nashik,
through its Member Secretary
2. The Principal,
Rajarshi Shahu College
of Engineering,
S. No. 80, Pune-Mumbai Bypass
Highway, Tathawade, Pune - 33
3. The Sub Divisional Officer,
Sangamner RESPONDENTS
----
Mr. Hemant U. Dhage, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. A.S. Shinde, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 3
None for respondent No. 2, though served
----
CORAM : R.M. BORDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 8th December, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : R.M. BORDE, J.):
Heard.
2 wp3436-2015
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With
the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the
petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal at
the admission stage.
3. The petitioner is objecting to the decision,
dated 10th March, 2015, rendered by respondent No. 1 -
Scrutiny Committee, thereby invalidating the
petitioner's caste certificate certifying that he
belongs to Mahar Scheduled Caste.
4. The school record of the petitioner, his
father, uncle, grandfather and other near relatives,
indicates their caste as Mahar. There is no contra
evidence placed on record to demonstrate that the
petitioner belongs to any other caste than the caste
claimed by him. The only ground for rejection of the
petitioner's claim is that the Vigilance Officer, in his
report, has recorded that the father of the petitioner,
his uncle, cousin grandfather and grandfather were the
members of the Church. Merely recording that the
ancestors of the petitioner were the members of the
Church, would not lead to an irresistible conclusion
that they have converted themselves to Christianity or
3 wp3436-2015
that they have snapped ties with Hindu religion. There
is no evidence showing the petitioner's conversion to
Christianity. Since there is no evidence of conversion
of the petitioner to Christianity, there arises no
question of his re-conversion and re-induction into
Hindu religion.
5. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that
the members of Mahar caste accept him as the member of
the said caste and his relatives, who belong to Mahar
caste, have not snapped ties with him. On the contrary,
the petitioner is accepted as member of Mahar caste. In
the absence of positive evidence in respect of
conversion of the petitioner to Christianity, it cannot
be inferred that the petitioner has adopted Christian
religion and snapped ties with Hindu religion.
6. It is contended that the conversion, if any is
only nominal and for all practical purposes, the family
belongs to Hindu religion. It is further pointed out
that the disadvantages which are peculiar to Scheduled
Caste, which is sadly a feature of Hindu religion,
continue and the family faces such disadvantages and
difficulties faced by the lower castes from amongst
4 wp3436-2015
Hindus.
7. In this context, reliance can be placed on a
judgment in the matter of C.M. Arumugam v. S. Rajgopal
and others reported in (1976) 1 SCC 863. In paragraph
no. 12 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has observed
thus :
" It seems that the correct test
for determining this question is the
one pointed out by this Court in
Chatturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani v.
Moreshwar Prasahram. Bose, J.,
speaking on behalf of the Court in
this case pointed out that when a
question arises whether conversion
operates as a breakaway from the
caste , what we have to determine
are the social and political
consequences of such conversion and
that, we feel, must be decided in a
common sense practical way rather
than on theoretical and theocratic
grounds. The learned Judge then
proceeded to add :
Looked at from the secular
point of view, there are three
factors which have to be
considered : (1) the reactions of
the old body, (2) the intentions of
the individual himself, and (3) the
rules of the new order. If the old
order is tolerant of the new faith
and sees no reason to outcaste or
excommunicate the convert and the
individual himself desires and
intends to retain his old social and
political ties, the conversion is
only nominal for all practical
5 wp3436-2015
purposes and when we have to
consider the legal and political
rights of the old body, the views of
the new faith hardly matter.
What is, therefore, material to
consider is how the caste looks at
the question of conversion. Does it
outcaste or excommunicate the
convert or does it still treat him
as continuing within its fold
despite his conversion: If the
convert desires and intends to
continue as a member of the caste
and the caste also continues to
treat him as a member,
notwithstanding pointed out by this
Court, "the views of the new faith
hardly matter." This was the
principle on which it was decided by
the Court in Chatturbhuj Vithaldas
Jasni's case (supra) that Gangaram
Thaware, whose nomination as a
scheduled caste candidate was
rejected by the Returning Officer,
continued to be a Mahar, which was
specified as a scheduled caste,
despite his conversion to the
Mahanubhav faith."
8. As laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter
of K.P. Manu, Chairman Scrutiny Committee for
Verification of Community Certificate, reported in AIR
2015 Supreme Court 1402, three things need to be
established by a person who claims to be a beneficiary
of a caste certificate, namely (i) There must be
absolutely clear-cut proof that he belongs to the caste
6 wp3436-2015
that has been recognised by the Constitution (Scheduled
Caste) Order 1950; (ii) There has been reconversion to
original religion to which the parents and earlier
generations had belonged; and (iii) there has to be a
evidence establishing acceptance by the community.
9. While considering somewhat similar facts/
situation like one in the present matter, the Supreme
Court, in the case of M. Chandra Vs. M. Thangamuthu,
reported in (2010) 9 SCC 712, observed that in order to
claim benefits of reservation under the Constitution
(Scheduled Caste) Order, 1950, a person must establish
that the caste to which he belongs is notified in the
Presidential Order and he is not professing a religion
different from the Hindu, the Sikh or the Buddhist.
10. If findings of the Committee are carefully
perused, the finding of facts recorded by the Committee
that the petitioner is Christian by religion is without
any basis and the said finding is perverse, unjust,
inasmuch as, there is no documentary evidence on record
which would suggest that the petitioner professes
Christianity by way of conversion. The Committee has not
kept in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in
7 wp3436-2015
the aforementioned authoritative pronouncement and
proceeded to invalidate the claim of the petitioner only
on the basis of Vigilance Cell's report.
11. In the instant matter, since there is no
evidence in respect of conversion, there arises no
question of reconversion to the original religion. There
is sufficient evidence placed on record to demonstrate
that petitioner belongs to Mahar caste and that the
people of the community accept petitioner as a member of
Mahar caste.
12. The Scrutiny Committee has overlooked the basic
principles while declining to grant validation
certificate in favour of petitioner. The order passed
by the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the caste
certificate issued to petitioner is erroneous and
deserves to be quashed and set aside and the same is
accordingly quashed and set aside. The respondent
Committee is directed to issue caste validation
certificate in favour of petitioner certifying that he
belongs to Mahar Scheduled Caste, in the prescribed
proforma, as expeditiously as possible, preferably
within a period of four weeks from today.
8 wp3436-2015
13. Rule is made absolute accordingly. In the facts
and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order
as to costs.
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL] [R.M. BORDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
npj/wp3436-2015
