Bombay High Court
Santosh S/O. Nilkanthrao Jamdade vs The Divisional Caste Certificate ... on 13 June, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp1181.16.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1181/2016
PETITIONER: Santosh s/o Nilkanthrao Jamdade
Aged about 43 years, Occ - Service,
R/o Plot No.87, Parvati Nagar,
Nagpur - 440 027.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. The Divisional Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee No.3, Nagpur Division,
Nagpur through its Secretary.
2. The State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary, Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
3. The Superintendent of Police (Rural),
Nagpur.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Rohit Joshi, Advocate for petitioner
Shri A.M. Balpande, AGP for respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 13.06.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of
the respondent - Scrutiny Committee, dated 13.7.2015 invalidating the
claim of the petitioner of belonging to Navi Banjara (Vimukta Jati).
wp1181.16.odt
The petitioner was appointed on a post earmarked for the
Vimukta Jatis and the claim of the petitioner of belonging to Navi Banjara
(V.J.) was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification. The
Scrutiny Committee, on an appreciation of the material on record, by the
impugned order, invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner. The order
of the Scrutiny Committee is impugned in the instant petition.
Inter alia, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the
impugned order is liable to be set aside as the petitioner was not granted
a fair opportunity by the Scrutiny Committee before invalidating his caste
claim. It is stated that the copy of the Vigilance Report was not furnished
to the petitioner and the Scrutiny Committee had also not supplied the
copy of the admission register in which the word "Banjara" was held to
have been subsequently incorporated by a dot-pen. It is stated that before
recording the aforesaid finding, it was necessary for the Scrutiny
Committee to have served a copy of the extract of the said admission
register and also the statement of the Headmaster that was recorded by
the Vigilance Cell. It is submitted that a fair opportunity was not granted
to the petitioner before his caste claim was invalidated.
Shri Balpande, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the Scrutiny Committee supported the order of the Scrutiny
Committee. It is, however, fairly admitted on the basis of the affidavit-in-
wp1181.16.odt
reply that a copy of the Vigilance Report was not served on the petitioner.
It is further admitted that though the petitioner has averred in the petition
that the extract of the admission register and a copy of the statement of
the Headmaster was not supplied to the petitioner, the reply is silent on
this aspect. The learned Assistant Government Pleader states that an
appropriate order may be passed in the circumstances of the case.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we find that
the Scrutiny Committee has not granted a fair opportunity to the
petitioner before invalidating his caste claim. Though it is necessary to
supply a copy of the Vigilance Report on the claimant, surprisingly in this
case, a copy of the Vigilance Report is not served on the petitioner. Since
the Vigilance Report is not served on the petitioner, there is a reason to
believe that the Scrutiny Committee must not have served the copy of the
extract of the admission register as well as the copy of the statement of
the Headmaster to the petitioner. Since the order is passed in violation of
the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Rules, the impugned order
cannot be sustained.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly
allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is
remanded to the Scrutiny Committee for a fresh decision in the caste
claim of the petitioner on merits, in accordance with law.
wp1181.16.odt
The petitioner undertakes to remain present before the
Scrutiny Committee on 11.07.2016, so that the issuance of notice to the
petitioner could be dispensed with.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
