Subhash Piraji Jukte vs The State Of Mah. & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 7111 Bom

                                                   1




                                                                               
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT




                                                       
                                          BOMBAY

                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD.




                                                      
                               WRIT PETITION NO.5102 OF 2002
                                           WITH
                             CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4545 OF 2011
                                           WITH
                             CIVIL APPLICATION NO.164 OF 2009.




                                        
                             
              Subhash S/o Piraji Jukte
              Age 31 years, Occ.Service,
              R/o at and Post Lohgaon,
                            
              Tq. and Dist.Parbhani.
              Presently working as "Line-
              Helper" in MSEB,Sub-Division
              Georai, Dist.Beed.           ... Petitioner.
      

                               Versus

              1. The State of Maharashtra,
   



              through its Secretary,
              General Administration
              Department, Mantralaya,
              Mumbai-32.





              2. The Collector and Dist.
              Magistrate, Parbhani.

              3. The Sub-Divisional Officer
              and Deputy Collector(Land Reforms),





              Parbhani.

              4. Maharashtra State Electricity
              Board through its Executive
              Engineer O and M Beed,

              5. The Committee for Scrutiny
              and Verification of Tribe Claims,
              MS Aurangabad.                ... Respondents.




    ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2016                       ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2016 00:33:46 :::
                                                               2

                                       ...
              Mr.U.R.Awate, advocate holding for




                                                                                          
              Mr.S.B.Talekar, advocate for the petitioner
              Mr.P.S.Patil, Addl. Government Pleader for the
              State.




                                                                  
                                                        ...




                                                                 
                                          CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND
                                                  K.L.WADANE,JJ.

                                          Date    : 09.12.2016.




                                                
              PER COURT :


              1.
                              
                               Heard.
                             
              2.               Mr.Awate,          learned            counsel           for       the

              petitioner            submits      that    the         Scrutiny         Committee
      

              while        invalidating           the     tribe             claim        of      the
   



              petitioner             as    belonging               to      Mannerwarlu              -

Scheduled Tribe has given a perverse finding. The

Committee on the premise that the School record

of the petitioner is manipulated and insertion

has been made of the word "lu" has invalidated

the tribe claim. The learned counsel relied on

the Vigilance Report to submit that it is not the

case of interpolation. The learned counsel

submits that during the pendency of the present

Writ Petition, two of the cousins of the

petitioner have been issued validity certificates

as belonging to Mannerwarlu - Scheduled Tribe.

Even there are other cousins whose school record

also depict caste as Mannerwarlu - Scheduled

Tribe. The learned counsel submits that in the

column of caste as far as father's record is

concerned, the same appears as Hindu, however,

the same can not be said to be a contra evidence.

3. ig Mr.Patil, learned A.G.P. submits that

no error has been committed by the Committee

while invalidating the tribe claim of the

petitioner. The petitioner could not prove

affinity test. There is no corroborative

evidence and even interpolation appears in the

School record of the petitioner. Considering

over-all facts of the case, the Committee has

rightly invalidated the tribe claim of the

petitioner.

4. We have considered the submissions

canvassed by the learned counsel for respective

parties, so also have gone through the documents,

Judgment and the record.

5. The finding of the Committee about

interpolation in the School record of the

petitioner is not borne out from the report of

the Vigilance. The Vigilance in its report has

nowhere stated about interpolation in the School

record of the petitioner. On the contrary, the

Vigilance Report on verification has found the

caste mentioned in the School record as

"Mannerwarlu". ig The said entry is of the year

1977.

6. The petitioner during the pendency of

this petition has filed copies of the validity

certificates issued to one Jukate Vinod Shivaji

and Jukate Yashwant Balasaheb. The same appears

to have been issued in the years 2007 and 2008.

We do not have the evidence on the basis of which

the said validities have been issued nor the

genealogy submitted along with affidavit could

be verified. It is only the Vigilance who would

verify the same.

7. Considering above, we pass the

following order :

a) The impugned order is quashed and set

aside. The parties are relegated before the

Committee for deciding the claim of the

petitioner as belonging to Mannerwarlu -

Scheduled Tribe afresh. The parties shall appear

before the Committee on 18.1.2017. The

petitioner is entitled to file additional

documents. The Committee shall after following

due procedure ig and hearing the petitioner pass

order afresh on its own merits expeditiously.

b) Rule made partly absolute. No costs.

c) The Civil Applications also stand

disposed of.

(K.L.WADANE,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

asp/office/wp510202