Bombay High Court
Vilas Jagannath Bolelu vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 15 October, 2016
Bench: R.M. Borde
wp10373.16.doc
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 10373 OF 2016
Vilas s/o Jagannath Bolelu
age 52 years, occ. Service
r/o 1-8-183, Gopalpura,
New Jalna, Tq. Jalna
Dist. Jalna. .. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Schedule Tribe Certificate
Verification Committee, Aurangabad
Through its Deputy Director ®
Aurangabad.
3. The Tahsildar
Jalna
Dist. Jalna
4. the Sub Divisional Officer,
Jalna, Dist. Jalna
5. The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department no. 1,
Jalna
Dist. Jalna. .. RESPONDENTS
Mr. S.M. Vibhute, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. P.S. Patil, AGP for the State.
=====
CORAM : R.M. BORDE &
K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
DATE : 15th OCTOBER, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER R. M. BORDE, J. )
1. Leave to add respondent.
wp10373.16.doc
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the respective
parties.
4. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Jalna dated 16.08.2016 rejecting application tendered by him for
issuance of caste certificate. Petitioner was possessed of the certificate
issued by the Taluka Executive Magistrate certifying that he belongs to
Mannervarlu Scheduled Tribe. However, since the certificate does not bear
the surname of petitioner, the Scrutiny Committee refused to entertain the
proposal for verification of the caste certificate and directed confiscation of
the certificate with liberty to petitioner to secure proper certificate and
submit the same for verification.
5. It is not a matter of dispute that as a result of deficiency in recording
surname, which is of technical nature, the claim of petitioner has been
turned down. In such circumstances, placing reliance on the earlier
certificate issued by the competent authority, the Sub-Divisional Officer
ought to have recorded necessary correction and ought to have issued fresh
certificate. It is also informed by petitioner that his two sons have been
issued caste certificate by the same authority which has passed the
impugned order rejecting the application tendered by petitioner.
6. In the circumstances, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer,
wp10373.16.doc
Jalna dated 16.08.2016 rejecting the application tendered by petitioner for
issuance of caste certificate is quashed and set aside and the concerned
respondent is directed to issue caste certificate in favour of petitioner in the
prescribed proforma within a period of two weeks from today. Petitioner, on
receipt of the certificate, shall tender the same for verification to the caste
certificate scrutiny committee within a period of six weeks alongwith
necessary documents and in prescribed proforma. Respondent-Scrutiny
Committee shall scrutinise the proposal and take decision in respect
verification of the caste certificate, as expeditiously as possible, preferably
within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the proposal. In the
meanwhile, respondent employer shall not take any adverse action against
petitioner on the ground of his failure to submit validation certificate.
Petitioner undertakes to co-operate the Scrutiny Committee in deciding the
caste certificate verification claim. Rule is accordingly made absolute. In
the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
( K. K. SONAWANE ) ( R. M. BORDE )
JUDGE JUDGE
dyb
