Bombay High Court
Kailas Totaram Bahekar And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 27 July, 2016
Bench: R.M. Borde
wp758.15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.758 OF 2015
1) Kailas s/o Totaram Bahekar,
Age-52 years, Occu:Service,
R/o-Hanuman Mandir,
Near Rane Floor Mill, Buldhana,
Tq. & Dist-Buldhana,
2) Vijay s/o Pratap Pawar,
Age-41 years, Occu:Service,
R/o-Shivshankar Nagar,
Chikhali Road, Buldhana,
Tq. & Dist-Buldhana,
3) Ramesh s/o Sampat Sakhare,
Age-52 years, Occu:Service,
R/o-Tambulwadi, Post-Sakegaon,
Tq-Chikhali, Dist-Buldhana.
...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Social Justice and Special
Assistance Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai,
2) The Divisional Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad,
Division No.1, Aurangabad,
Through its Member Secretary,
::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:23:04 :::
wp758.15
2
3) Pruthavising s/o Bhagwansing Rajput,
Age-50 years, Occu:Service,
R/o-Ganesh Nagar, Malkapur Road,
Buldhana, Tq. & Dist-Buldhana,
4) The Executive Magistrate, Gangapur,
Tq-Gangapur, Dist-Aurangabad,
5) The Vice President/Managing Director,
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, Mumbai,
6) The Divisional Controller,
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, Buldhana Division,
Buldhana, Tq. & Dist-Buldhana
...RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Abasaheb D. Shinde Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. P.S. Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.
1, 2 and 4.
Mr. S.S. Thombre Advocate for Respondent No.3.
Mr. D.S. Bagul Advocate for Respondent Nos.5 & 6.
...
CORAM: R.M. BORDE AND
A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.
DATE : 27TH JULY, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER R.M. BORDE, J.] :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the
wp758.15
parties, taken up for final disposal.
2. The Petitioners are objecting to the
validation certificate issued in favour of
Respondent No.3 certifying that he belongs to
Rajput Bhamta, Vimukta Jatis. It is the contention
of the Petitioners that Respondent No.3 has
secured promotion on the basis of his caste status
as belonging to Rajput Bhamta, Vimukta Jatis
though his induction in the employment at initial
stage was as an open category candidate.
Respondent No.3 also claimed first promotion as
open category candidate, however while claiming
second promotion he has claimed the same as a
candidate belonging to reserved category.
3. We have perused the original record
produced by the learned A.G.P. appearing for
Scrutiny Committee. Although in the order passed
by the Scrutiny Committee it is recorded that
Vigilance Cell Inquiry has been conducted, on
wp758.15
perusal of the record we do not find Report of
Vigilance Cell Inquiry. There is also no record to
show that matter was ever referred for Vigilance
Cell Inquiry. Though Respondent No.3 placed
reliance on the old documents to substantiate his
caste status, there is no verification of the
documents with reference to the original record.
When a candidate belonging to reserved category
places reliance on the certified copies of certain
documents for substantiating his caste status
claim, it is necessary to direct an inquiry
through the Vigilance Cell and to find out the
authenticity of the certified copies on which
reliance is placed. In the instant matter, though
Respondent No.3 has produced old record for
substantiating his caste status claim, no efforts
have been made to find out the authenticity of the
said record with reference to the original
documents. In view of these circumstances
appearing in the matter, we deem it appropriate to
direct fresh inquiry in the matter by the Scrutiny
wp758.15
Committee.
4. The order passed by the Scrutiny
Committee validating the caste certificate
veriofication claim of Respondent No.3 is quashed
and set aside and the matter stands remitted back
to Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee for re-
consideration. The Scrutiny Committee, after
referring the matter to Vigilance Cell and after
receipt of the Vigilance Cell Inquiry Report and
in observance of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta
Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and
Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance
and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012
and after extending opportunity of hearing to
Respondent No.3 to substantiate his caste claim,
shall proceed to decide the matter afresh.
Appropriate decision shall be taken accordingly as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within SIX
MONTHS from today.
wp758.15
5. In the meanwhile the Respondent employer
shall not take any adverse action against
Respondent No.3 merely on the ground of his
failure to submit validation certificate and
appropriate action if deemed necessary, be taken
dependent upon the outcome of the Inquiry in
respect of the caste certificate verification
claim of Respondent No.3 by the Scrutiny
Committee.
6. Rule is made absolute to the extent as
specified above. There shall be no order as to the
costs.
[A.I.S.CHEEMA, J.] [R.M. BORDE, J.]
asb/JUL16
