Bombay High Court
Nitin Dashrath Bhande vs State Of Maha.Thr Secretary & 3 ... on 14 October, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1 wp3345.05
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3345 OF 2005
Nitin s/o Dashrath Bhande,
aged about 29 years, residing at
Ram Nagar, Sudhir Colony, Akola,
Taluq and District Akola. ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1)
State of Maharashtra, through
its Secretary, Tribal Development
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2) Committee for Scrutiny and Verification
of Tribe Claims, Amravati Division,
Amravati, through its Deputy Director (R)
and Member-Secretary, having
its Office at Amravati.
3) Zilla Parishad, Akola, through its
Chief Executive Officer, Akola,
District Akola.
4) Sub-Divisional Officer, Akola,
District Akola. ... Respondents
-----------------
Shri G.G. Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri A.S. Fulzele, Additional Government Pleader for the respondent
nos.1, 2 and 4.
Shri P. Raulkar, Advocate for the respondent no.3.
----------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATED : OCTOBER 14, 2016
2 wp3345.05
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT. VASANTI A NAIK
, J.) :
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the
Scrutiny Committee, dated 17/2/2005 invalidating the claim of the
petitioner of belonging to "Koli Mahadeo" (Scheduled Tribe).
The petitioner claims to belong to "Koli Mahadeo" (Scheduled
Tribe) and since he was selected for appointment on the post of
Agriculture Officer (Extension), he submitted his caste claim to the
Scrutiny Committee for verification. Before the Scrutiny Committee, the
petitioner produced 13 documents. A vigilance enquiry was conducted in
the caste claim of the petitioner and by the impugned order dated
17/2/2005, the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim of the
petitioner. The petitioner has impugned the order of the Scrutiny
Committee in the instant matter.
Shri Mishra, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits
that the Scrutiny Committee was not justified in invalidating the caste
claim of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner had produced
several documents on record to prove that he belongs to "Koli Mahadeo"
(Scheduled Tribe). It is stated that though vigilance enquiry was
conducted in the caste claim of the petitioner, the Research Officer was
not associated with the Vigilance Cell while conducting the vigilance
enquiry. It is stated that since the Research Officer was not associated
3 wp3345.05
with the vigilance cell, there is non compliance of the mandatory
directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment in the
case of Kum. Madhuri Patil and another vs. Addl. Commissioner,
Tribal Development, Thane and others (AIR 1997 SC 2581). It is
submitted that though the Scrutiny Committee has observed that the
petitioner did not prove his affinity to "Koli Mahadeo" (Scheduled Tribe),
the Scrutiny Committee has failed to observe as to how the petitioner has
failed to prove his affinity. It is stated that no reasons are recorded by the
Scrutiny Committee while holding that the petitioner has failed to prove
his affinity to "Koli Mahadeo" (Scheduled Tribe).
Shri Fulzele, the learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent nos.1, 2 and 4, has supported the order of
the Scrutiny Committee. It is submitted that the petitioner had produced
comparatively new documents in which caste of the petitioner and his
relatives was recorded as "Koli Mahadeo", but the Vigilance Cell had
unearthed an old document of the year 1949, which shows that the
caste of the grandfather of the petitioner was recorded as "Koli". It is
stated that the Scrutiny Committee rightly gave more weightage to the old
document of the pre-independence era as compared to the new documents
that were produced by the petitioner before the Scrutiny Committee. It is
stated that the Vigilance Cell conducted an affinity test and it was found
from the answers rendered by the petitioner to the questionnaire that the
4 wp3345.05
petitioner did not prove his affinity to "Koli Mahadeo" (Scheduled Tribe).
It is stated that it is not necessary for the Scrutiny Committee to
specifically state as to what answer would be the correct answer in respect
of the customs, festivals, traits, the names of Gods and Goddesses,
language and characteristics of the community, as if the correct answers
are rendered in one of the orders of the Scrutiny Committee, it would be
easy for other persons belonging to the same caste or tribe to give the
same answers to the queries made to them. It is stated that a reference is
made to the answers tendered by the petitioner in the questionnaire and
the Scrutiny Committee, which is the final fact finding Body, has held that
the petitioner has failed to prove his affinity to "Koli Mahadeo" (Scheduled
Tribe). It is stated that the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity and
remained absent for hearing, though the petitioner had duly received the
notice for hearing. It is submitted that the claim of the petitioner that the
Research Officer was not associated with the Vigilance Cell is incorrect as
it is apparent from the copy of the vigilance report that the Research
Officer was associated with the Vigilance Cell and he has endorsed on the
report of the Vigilance Cell and has agreed with the findings of the
Vigilance Cell. It is stated that since the Scrutiny Committee has
appreciated the material on record in the right perspective, the writ
petition may be dismissed.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a
5 wp3345.05
perusal of the impugned order as also the documents annexed to the writ
petition, it appears that the Scrutiny Committee was justified in
invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner. The petitioner has relied on
the documents of the post independence era to prove his caste claim and
all the documents were comparatively recent documents. The Vigilance
Cell, however, unearthed an old document of the year 1949 that
recorded the caste of the grandfather of the petitioner as "Koli" and not
"Koli Mahadeo". The Scrutiny Committee rightly gave more weightage to
the old document as compared to the new documents. Also, the Vigilance
Committee found that earlier, the caste of the father of the petitioner,
namely, Dashrath Bhande was recorded as "Koli" and subsequently, the
same was changed to "Mahadeo Koli" on 30/4/1990. The old document
of the year 1949 and the change in the entry in the year 1990 weighed
with the Scrutiny Committee to invalidate the caste claim of the
petitioner. The Scrutiny Committee further found that the petitioner did
not show the affinity towards "Koli Mahadeo" (Scheduled Tribe). On a
perusal of the answers submitted by the petitioner in the questionnaire,
the Scrutiny Committee held that the petitioner had failed to prove his
affinity to "Koli Mahadeo" (Scheduled Tribe). Though the petitioner was
granted an opportunity of hearing, the petitioner did not remain present
before the Scrutiny Committee on the dates fixed for hearing on four
occasions.
The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the order
6 wp3345.05
of the Scrutiny Committee is liable to be set aside as the Research Officer
was not associated with the Vigilance Cell is liable to be rejected. On a
reading of the vigilance report, we find that the Research Officer was
associated with the Vigilance Cell and the Research Officer has endorsed
the report of the Vigilance Cell and has also agreed with the findings in
the enquiry. We also do not find any merit in the submission made on
behalf of the petitioner that since the Scrutiny Committee has not pointed
out as to what would be the correct answers for the questions posed by
the Vigilance Cell while conducting the affinity test, the impugned order is
liable to be set aside. It would not be possible for the Scrutiny Committee
to disclose the answers to the questions posed in the affinity test as there
would be no meaning to the affinity tests that would be conducted in
other matters in future, if the answers are recorded in the orders of the
Scrutiny Committee.
The order of the Scrutiny Committee appears to be just and
proper and there is no scope for interference with the same in exercise of
the writ jurisdiction, specially when the Scrutiny Committee has
appreciated the material on record in the right perspective. Hence, we
dismiss the writ petition with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
khj
