Bombay High Court
Iqbal Shabbir Shah vs State Of Mah., Through The ... on 23 November, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
wp338.15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ig NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No. 338 of 2015
Iqbal Shabbir Shah,
aged 33 years,
occupation - service,
resident of Wakad,
Tq. Risod, Distt. Washim. ..... Petitioner.
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary,
Social Welfare Department,
Mantralaya,
Mumbai-400 032.
2. Caste Scrutiny Committee-2,
Second Floor,
Administrative Building,
Collectorate, Akola,
through its Chairman.
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Mehkar, Tq. Mehkar,
Distt. Buldana.
::: Uploaded on - 25/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/11/2016 00:48:47 :::
wp338.15
2
4. Shri Swami Vivekanand Shikshan
Sanstha,
Kolhapur's Law College,
Osmanabad Vidyanagari,
Osmanabad. .... Respondents.
*****
Mr. M. V. Samarth, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. Uke, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
None for the respondent no.4 though served.
*****
CORAM : B. R. GAVAI AND
V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
Date : 23rd November, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT [Per B. R. Gavai, J.]:
01. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned Addl. Govt.
Pleader, Mr. Uke, waives service for respondent nos.1 to 3. The
respondent no.4 though served, none appears for it. Heard learned
counsel for the parties. By consent of parties, this Writ Petition is
taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this Judgment and Order.
02. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by
the Order dated 5th January, 2015 issued by the respondent no.2 -
wp338.15
Committee thereby invalidating the claim of the petitioner of belonging
to Chhapparband, which is notified as Vimukta Jati-A.
03. The petitioner was appointed in the respondent no.4-College
as Assistant Professor against the post reserved for Vimukta Jati-A,
since the petitioner claimed to be belonging to Chhapparband, which is
a Vimukta Jati.
His claim was referred to the respondent no.2 for
considering the validity thereof. The same is rejected by the impugned
order. Hence the present petition.
04. Shri Samarth, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits
that the Members of the Committee have totally failed to take into
consideration the report of the Vigilance Cell and have in a total
mechanical manner rejected the claim of the petitioner. He relies on
the Judgments of this Court in the cases of [1] Rais Shah Shaukat
Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra & two others [Writ Petition No.
5160/2012; decided on 27th September, 2013], and [2] Badashah
Vazirshah Vs. State of Maharashtra & two others [Writ Petition
No. 5961/2014; decided on 12th March, 2015].
05. The perusal of the Vigilance Cell Report would reveal that
the documents, which are placed on record by the petitioner, are not
wp338.15
only much prior to 1961, i.e., the year in which the Chhapparband was
notified as a Vimukta Jati-A, but even prior to the Constitution showing
the caste of the petitioner's forefathers to be "Chhapparband." Perusal
of the Vigilance Cell Report would also reveal that the home enquiry
was made by the Vigilance Cell and statements of various independent
witnesses, including the Police Patil, were recorded. All the witnesses
have supported the claim of the petitioner, stating therein that the
forefathers of the petitioner was engaged in taking alms and, thus,
belonging to Fakir/Chhaparband caste. Not only that, but the affinity
test is also favourable to the petitioner. It could, thus, be seen that the
Vigilance Cell totally supports the case of the petitioner. However, in
the impugned order, by one line, the Vigilance Cell Report has been
ignored.
06. The Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid cases has
held that the persons belonging to Chhapparband caste used to have a
suffix of "Shah" after their names and that their forefathers were
Fakirs, engaged in seeking alms from the people. It could be seen
from the report of the Vigilance Cell that all the forefathers of the
petitioner have a suffix of "Shah'. The independent witnesses,
including the Police Patil, have stated that the forefathers were
engaged in taking alms. It could, thus, be seen that the present case
wp338.15
is squarely covered by the aforesaid two judgments of this Court.
07. In the result, the Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute
in terms of Prayer Clauses [a] and [b]. Validity Certificate be issued
within a period of four weeks from today.
Judge Judge
-0-0-0-0-
|hedau|
