Sau. Shobha W/O Nivrutti Nadge vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 7396 Bom

                                                                                wp3978.13
                                                  1




                                                                                        
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, 




                                                                
                    NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                           WRIT PETITION NO.3978 OF 2013




                                                               
    Sau. Shobha W/o Nivrutti Nadge,
    Aged about 46 Major,
    Occupation Assistant Teacher,
    R/o Samras Pura, 




                                                      
    Achalpur, District Amravati.                                  ..... Petitioner.
                                       ig   ::  versus  ::

    1.  State of Maharashtra,
                                     
    through its Secretary,
    Department of Tribal 
    Development, Mantralaya,
    Mumbai. 
            


    2.  The Scheduled Tribe Caste
         



    Certificate Scrutiny
    Committee, through its 
    Member Secretary, Amravati.





    3.  Block Development Officer,
    Panchayat Samiti, Warud,
    Distict Amravati.

    4.  Panchayat Samiti,





    Chekaldara, Taluka-
    Chekaldara, District Amravati.

    5.  Block Education Officer,
    Panchayat Samiti Chikaldara, Amravati.                 ..... Respondents.




                                                                                      .....2/-




             ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2016                       ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2016 00:25:22 :::
                                                                                 wp3978.13
                                               2




                                                                                        
    =======================================
                  Shri A. Deshpande, Counsel for the Petitioner.




                                                                
                  Shri A.D. Sonak, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 
                  and 2/State.
    =======================================




                                                               
                                 CORAM :  B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
                                                KUM. INDIRA K. JAIN, JJ.

DATED : DECEMBER 16, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel Shri A. Deshpande for the

petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri A.D. Sonak

for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. Civil Application (CAW) No.2624 of 2016, taken out by

the petitioner for final disposal of the writ petition, is listed today.

According to the petitioner, the controversy is covered by the Division

Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Priya s/o Pravin Parate

..vs.. Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificates Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur

and others, reported at 2013(1) Mh.L.J. 180. The similar application

was listed before this Court on 25.1.2016. As the petitioner was

found to be in service, the Division Bench had declined grant of early

.....3/-

wp3978.13

hearing of the writ petition. The application, thereafter, moved vide

Civil Application No.2624 of 2016, was considered on 13.12.2016 and

looking to the nature of controversy, the matter came to be adjourned

to today with notice that the Court may dispose of the matter finally.

3. Accordingly, we have heard learned counsel Shri A.

Deshpande for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government

Pleader Shri A.D. Sonak for respondent Nos.1 and 2/State. Nobody

appears for respondent Nos.3, 4, and 5.

4. The petitioner born on 4.8.1967 has got caste certificate,

showing that she belongs to "Halbi" Scheduled Tribe, on 22.5.1990.

On the basis of that caste certificate, she got employment as an

Assistant Teacher on 21.9.1991.

5. The Scrutiny Committee has, while verifying her caste

claim, passed impugned order on 16.12.2003 and held that old

documents produced by her, showing that caste was recorded as

"Halbi", are not admissible and valid. The reason given is, report of

.....4/-

wp3978.13

vigilance cell and affinity test.

6. According to learned counsel Shri A. Deshpande, these

reasons are not relevant. He invites our attention to the discussion in

the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Priya s/o Pravin

Parate (supra) to point out the unique position of "Halbi" people in

Amravati District.

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri A.D. Sonak

for respondent Nos.1 and 2/State invites our attention to the vigilance

cell report and paragraph No.14 of the impugned order to

demonstrate that affinity test is not satisfied. He contends that when

caste by same name that is "Halbi" is recognized as Scheduled Tribe

and also as upper caste, mere production of old documents is not

sufficient.

8. We have perused the papers. The Scrutiny Committee

has, at Serial No.6 in paragraph No.2 of its order, mentioned a

document dated 5.1.1939 wherein caste of the male child born to

.....5/-

wp3978.13

Vithoba Ramji Halbi is recorded as "Halbi". This entry is on 5.1.1939.

There are other documents also which mention same caste in case of

one Natthuji Motiram Halbi on 2.10.1957. In School Leaving

Certificate of Vijay Natthuji, caste is recorded as "Halba" on

30.4.1964.

9. These two documents, at Serial Nos.6 and 7, are looked

into by the Scrutiny Committee in paragraph No.13 (C). It has found

that the vigilance report and the affinity test rendered those

documents irrelevant.

10. Perusal of the vigilance cell report shows that it is one

page document and on scrutiny, said Cell found that records mention

caste as "Halbi". It has also taken note of fact that in record of

maternal uncle Shrikrushna Champat Dharmik, caste is recoded as

"Halbi-Koshti". It has, thereafter, mentioned that traits and customs

of the petitioner do not match with the "Halbi" Tribe. With this

remark, the proceedings were forwarded to the Scrutiny Committee.

.....6/-

wp3978.13

11. Thus, the old documents, in which caste is recorded as

"Halbi" only, are not found to be tampered with by the Vigilance

Authorities. Similarly, the date on which caste of the maternal uncle

came to be recorded as "Halbi-Koshti" is not mentioned anywhere in

the report.

12. In this situation, the reference can be made to the

judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Arun

Vishwanath Sonone ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and others, reported

at 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457 wherein the controversy is settled and in

absence of any finding of fraud or tampering either while procuring

caste certificate or while procuring employment, candidates like the

petitioner have been extended benefits of protection in employment.

The petitioner definitely is entitled to that benefit and protection.

13. However, here, the law, laid down by the Division Bench

in its judgment in paragraph Nos.10 and 11,in the case of Priya s/o

Pravin Parate (supra), squarely applies for the reasons recorded

therein. It is is apparent that caste recorded as "Halbi" in document

.....7/-

wp3978.13

or certificate in 1939 could not have been brushed aside on the

reasons which are unsustainable.

14. In this situation, impugned order dated 16.12.2003 is

liable to be quashed and set aside. We find that the petitioner is

entitled to grant of validity. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed

by making the Rule absolute in terms of prayer clause 1 of the writ

petition with a direction to the Committee to issue necessary validity

to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. No

costs.

                       JUDGE                                           JUDGE





    !!  BRW  !!

                                          





                                                                                        .....8/-





                                                                             wp3978.13





                                                                                    
                                                            
                                    C E R T I F I C A T E

I certify that this Order/Judgment uploaded is a true and

correct copy of original signed Order.

Uploaded by : Bhushan R.Wankhede. Uploaded on :- 20/12/2016 (Personal Assistant)

...../-