Bombay High Court
Milindkumarukardaji Hedaoo vs State Of Mah Thru Its Secty. & 2 Ors on 6 June, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1/7 0606WP703.08-Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 703 OF 2008
PETITIONER :- Milindkumar Ukardaji Hedaoo, Aged 37
years, r/o Sarmaspura, Achalpur, District
Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :-
ig 1. State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Amravati Division, Amravati.
Through its Member-Secretary Having its
office at Amravati.
3. Union Bank of India, through its Deputy
General Manager, having its office at Zonal
Office, Pune.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S. S. Sanyal, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. V. P. Gangane, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Mr. Rajeev Chhabra, counsel for the respondent No.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 06.06.2016
2/7 0606WP703.08-Judgment
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A. Naik, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of
the respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee, dated 16/04/2007
invalidating the claim of the petitioner of belonging to Halbi Scheduled
Tribe.
2. The petitioner claimed to belong to Halbi Scheduled Tribe
and was appointed as a clerk-cum-cashier in the respondent No.3-Bank
on the basis of his caste claim, on 27/11/1990. The caste claim of the
petitioner was referred to the respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee for
verification. The petitioner produced several documents of the Pre-
Independence Era as also the recent documents to prove his caste claim.
The Scrutiny Committee, on an appreciation of the material on record,
by the impugned order dated 16/04/2007, invalidated the caste claim
of the petitioner on the ground that the document pertaining to the
grandfather of the petitioner, namely Mahadeo Vithuji mentioned caste
"Koshti" and not "Halbi". After the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the
caste claim of the petitioner, the respondent No.3-Bank terminated the
services of the petitioner. The petitioner was thereafter prosecuted for
an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code and it is
stated that the petitioner has been acquitted. However, the said facts
are not a matter of record in this writ petition. The petitioner has
3/7 0606WP703.08-Judgment
mainly challenged the order of the Scrutiny Committee by filing the
instant petition.
3. Shri Sanyal, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted by taking this Court through the various documents tendered
by the petitioner before the Scrutiny Committee that the Scrutiny
Committee has erroneously refused to give due weightage to the old
documents of the Pre-Independence Era, that clearly prove the caste
claim of the petitioner, while erroneously relying on a document of the
year 1918, which does not pertain to the grandfather of the petitioner.
It is stated that the Scrutiny Committee unnecessarily gave undue
weightage to the document, dated 02/12/1918, which had no concern
with the grandfather of the petitioner, Mahadeo Vithuji. It is stated that
the birth entry in the document, dated 02/12/1918 refers to one Vithu
Laxman Nandanwar and not Mahadeo Vithuji Hedaoo, the grandfather
of the petitioner. It is stated that the other weighty documents that
were produced by the petitioner before the Scrutiny Committee were
lightly brushed aside by giving undue weightage to the document,
which does not pertain to the grandfather of the petitioner. It is stated
that when the petitioner had produced voluminous evidence on record
to prove his caste claim, the Scrutiny Committee ought to have
validated the claim of the petitioner of belonging to Halbi Scheduled
Tribe.
4/7 0606WP703.08-Judgment
4. Shri V.P. Gangane, the learned Assistant Government
Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent-Scrutiny Committee,
supported the Committee's order. It is stated that the document of the
year 1918 was rightly considered by the Scrutiny Committee to hold
that the caste of the grandfather of the petitioner, namely Mahadeo
Vithuji was recorded as Koshti. It is stated that the old document of the
year 1918 has great probative value and, therefore, the said document
was considered by the Scrutiny Committee for invalidating the caste
claim of the petitioner. It is, however, fairly admitted by the learned
Assistant Government Pleader that there is no consideration of many
old documents by the Scrutiny Committee in the impugned order.
5. Shri Rajeev Chhabra, the learned counsel for the
respondent No.3-Bank, submitted that the petitioner was appointed on
the condition that he would produce the caste validity certificate. It is
submitted that the services of the petitioner were terminated after his
caste claim was invalidated. It is stated that certain other developments
have occurred after the Scrutiny Committee passed the impugned order
and this Court may not direct the respondent No.3-Bank to reinstate the
petitioner in service.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the order of the Scrutiny Committee, it appears that the
Scrutiny Committee has committed a serious error in invalidating the
5/7 0606WP703.08-Judgment
caste claim of the petitioner mainly on the basis of the document, dated
02/12/1918, which does not pertain to the grandfather of the
petitioner, namely Mahadeo Vithuji. The petitioner had filed the
genealogical tree before the Scrutiny Committee. The name of the
grandfather of the petitioner is Mahadeo Vithuji Hedaoo. The
document, dated 02/12/1918, that is relied by the Scrutiny Committee,
after it was unearthed by the Vigilance Cell, refers to Vithu Laxman
Nandanwar and does not refer to Mahadeo Vithuji Hedaoo. The said
document was seriously disputed by the petitioner. The petitioner had
specifically canvassed before the Scrutiny Committee that the
document, dated 02/12/1918 does not pertain to his grandfather and
pertains to Vithu Laxman Nandanwar. However, the said claim of the
petitioner was not considered by the Scrutiny Committee in the right
perspective and without giving any cogent reason, the Scrutiny
Committee observed in the impugned order that the document, dated
02/12/1918 pertains to the grandfather of the petitioner. The Scrutiny
Committee ought to have given due weightage to the document
pertaining to the grandfather of the petitioner, Mahadeo Vithuji, dated
09/07/1915 that recorded the entry of "Halbi". Also, no weightage
whatsoever was given to the old documents of the Pre-Independence
Era which showed that the tribe of the petitioner was "Halbi". The
Scrutiny Committee ought to have given enough weightage to the
document pertaining to Hiraman Kisanji, the cousin of the petitioner's
6/7 0606WP703.08-Judgment
grandfather as the entry pertains to the year 1928. So also, the other
documents of the year 1925 that pertain to the cousin of the
grandfather of the petitioner, namely Shri Akaram Kisanji Hedaoo were
not considered by the Scrutiny Committee in the right perspective.
Though a reference is made to the said documents in the impugned
order, none of these documents have been discussed by the Scrutiny
Committee while invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner. The
Scrutiny Committee also failed to consider that the document in respect
of the grandfather of the petitioner, namely Mahadeo Vithuji, dated
09/07/1915 clearly recorded "Halbi" in the caste column. It appears
that without giving due weightage to the old and weighty documents,
the Scrutiny Committee unnecessarily relied on the document, dated
02/12/1918 that does not pertain to the grandfather of the petitioner.
The document, dated 02/12/1918 clearly records the entry of the date
of birth of Vithu Laxman Nandanwar and not Mahadeo Vithuji Hedaoo.
The name of the grandfather of the petitioner is Mahadeo Vithuji
Hedaoo and the document on which heavy reliance was placed by the
Scrutiny Committee for invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner
relates to Vithu Laxman Nandanwar. We have perused the documents
that were placed by the petitioner before the Scrutiny Committee. In
almost every document, the caste of the petitioner and his near relatives
is recorded as "Halbi" Scheduled Tribe. The Scrutiny Committee did
not properly appreciate the material on record to decide the caste claim
7/7 0606WP703.08-Judgment
of the petitioner. In the circumstances of the case, the Scrutiny
Committee ought to have validated the caste claim of the petitioner.
This Court has taken a similar view in almost similar set of facts, in
several cases.
7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee is quashed
and set aside. The Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue a caste
validity certificate in favour of the petitioner within a period of two
months. Since the subsequent developments in respect of the petitioner
have not been brought on record in this case, the respondent No.3-Bank
should take an appropriate decision in respect of the reinstatement of
the petitioner in service as early as possible and positively within a
period of three months from the date of submission of the caste validity
certificate by the petitioner. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid
terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
