Bombay High Court
Virendra Kumar Prabhakar Raikwar vs The Scheduled Tribes Caste ... on 7 March, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
wp1743.15 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1743 OF 2015
Virendra Kumar Prabhakar Raikwar,
aged 37 years, r/o Raipura Achalpur,
Tq. Achalpur, District - Amravati. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. The Scheduled Tribes Caste Scrutiny
Committee, through its Member
Secretary, Irwin Chowk, Amravati.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Amravati. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri R.S. Parsodkar with Shri A.M. Balpande, Advocates for the
petitioner.
Shri A.V. Palshikar, AGP for respondent No. 1.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
MARCH 07, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard
finally with the consent of Shri Parsodkar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Shri Palshikar, learned AGP for respondent No.1.
2. This is a second round of litigation before the High
Court. The effort of Shri Parsodkar, learned counsel, therefore, is
to demonstrate that though the order suffers from several errors,
there should not be any remand again. He complains that on each
occasion the Scrutiny Committee comes up with something new
and as it is not properly considered, the matter is remanded back.
He points out that the petitioner, who has applied for employment
before coming into force of Maharashtra Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic
Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category
(Regulation of Issuance & Verification of) Caste Certificates Act,
(Act No. 23 of 2001), has secured job within few days thereafter
and though he has put in three years of service as Shikshan Sewak
satisfactorily, as his caste claim has not been validated, he
continues to receive honorarium of Rs.6,000/- per month only. He
also submits that in the other similar matters, by speaking order,
this court has directed release of full salary as a Assistant Teacher.
3. He submits that only reason for invalidation is,
recording of caste as Lad Koshti in Purchase deed of one Ganpat
Chivhaji. He points out that surname of Ganpat Chivhaji is
'Dahake' and his grand son has accordingly given an affidavit. In
that affidavit, he has specifically disclosed that Ganpat Chivhaji has
no relation with the family of present petitioner. In spite of this,
the said affidavit has been ignored and entries of caste have been
used against the petitioner.
4. Shri Palshikar, learned counsel, on the other hand
submits that as the documents filed while explaining absence of
relation were not found satisfactory, the Scrutiny Committee has
accepted the caste mentioned as Lad Koshti in his documents. He
further submits that the caste claim of a relative by name Ramesh
Tukaram Raikwar was invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee on
30.06.2007 and that invalidation was maintained by this Court on
31.08.2007. The matter was taken up before the Hon'ble Apex
Court unsuccessfully. He states that taking overall view of the
matter, the Scrutiny committee has delivered a correct order.
5. With the assistance of respective counsel, we have
perused the papers. The order shows relationship with Ganpat
Chivhaji and mention of caste as Lad Koshti as one of the reasons.
Rejection of caste claim of Ramesh Tukaram Raikwar is the other
reason. Each claim for caste validation needs to be evaluated
independently. Because the caste of Ramesh Raikwar has been
invalidated, the caste claim of the petitioner could not have been
automatically discarded. Whether the documents pressed into
service by Ramesh Raikwar were same or then the petitioner has
pointed out some other documents is a cardinal issue. The Scrutiny
Committee has not gone into that aspect at all.
6. Similarly, to explain the absence of relationship with
Ganpat Chivhaji, an affidavit of his grand son by name Laxman
Pundlikrao Dahake has been produced before the Scrutiny
Committee by the petitioner. Laxman Dahake, on oath, has stated
that Ganpat Chivhaji Dahake, by caste Lad Koshti, is his real grand
father and their family has no blood relationship with the family of
Dr. Ramesh Tukaram Raikwar. The said affidavit has been looked
into but ignored as better evidence was not produced. Laxman has
himself entered the witness box and supported the affidavit.
7. In this situation, as the Scrutiny Committee was not
satisfied with the affidavit of Laxman, it could have got the position
verified through Vigilance cell. The petitioner had specifically
stated that he was related with Ganpat Chihuji and not Ganpat
Chivhaji. This distinction should have been kept in mind and
vigilance cell could have investigated in this direction.
8. The Scrutiny Committee has relied upon purchase
deed wherein name of Ganpat Chivhaji Dahake clearly appears and
caste has been shown as Lad Koshti. It is document No. 8 before
the Scrutiny Committee. Document at Sr. No. 11 is a purchase
deed, again showing same name and same caste. Document No. 12
is a report of birth where a male child is shown to have been born
to Ganpat Chivhaji and caste is mentioned as Lad Koshti.
9. If Ganpat Chivhaji and Ganpat Chihuji are different
persons, then above mentioned three documents are totally
irrelevant and could not have been used against the petitioner at
all. The Scrutiny Committee has not looked into this facet also.
10. Though Shri Palshikar, learned AGP sought time to
place on record an additional affidavit, the aspects which need to
be looked into by quasi judicial authority could not be explained or
commented upon by an affidavit. The reasons which are not there
in the order, cannot be supplemented through an affidavit.
11. In this situation, we are satisfied that the impugned
order is unsustainable. Accordingly, it is quashed and set aside. We
place the matter back before the Scrutiny Committee for
undertaking fresh verification in accordance with law. The
petitioner has put in about 15 years of service as Shikshan Sewak.
Though after three years he should have been paid regular salary as
Assistant Teacher, however, because of pendency of his caste claim
that has not happened. We cannot blame him for this pendency.
12. We, accordingly, following the orders passed by this
Court on 10.12.2014 in CAW No. 3669 of 2014 in Writ Petition No.
4949 of 2014, direct Respondent No. 2 to start paying regular
salary as a Assistant Teacher to the petitioner from 01.01.2016.
The necessary arrangements in this respect shall be made within
two months from today.
13. The petitioner to appear before Respondent No. 1 -
Scrutiny Committee on 04.04.2016 and to abide by its further
instructions in the matter. The Scrutiny Committee shall attempt
to decide the same afresh in accordance with law within next one
year. The orders passed by this Court, protecting his employment
and awarding him full salary, shall be subject to this verification
and continue to operate till then.
14. Writ Petition is thus partly allowed and disposed of.
Rule is made absolute in above terms. However, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
******
*GS.
