Bombay High Court
Ku.Jayashree D/O Deepak Mahajan vs The Sc.St..Scrutiny Comm. Nagpur ... on 3 April, 2017
Bench: B.R. Gavai
wp2609.00
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No. 2609 of 2000
Ku. Jayashree daughter of Deepak
Mahajan,
aged 19 years,
occupation student,
resident of Shivaji Chowk,
Pusad,
Distt. Yavatmal. ..... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Nagpur.
3. The Maharashtra University of
Health Sciences,
Nashik. .... Respondents.
*****
Mr. S. N. Tapadia, Adv., holding for Mr. V.V. Bhangde, Adv., for
the petitioner.
Mr. H. Dhumale, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent no.1.
*****
::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2017 00:48:45 :::
wp2609.00
2
CORAM : B. R. GAVAI AND
A. S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
Date : 03rd April, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT [Per A.S. Chandurkar, J.]:
01. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 5th June,
2000 passed by the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the Caste
Certificate of the petitioner.
02. It is the case of the petitioner that she belongs to "Halba" -
Scheduled Tribe. For the purposes of pursuing her education, her
caste claim was referred to the Scrutiny Committee and by order dated
05th June, 2000, her claim came to be invalidated. While admitting
the Writ Petition, this Court by order dated 9th July, 2001 directed the
Vigilance Cell to conduct an enquiry with regard to documents dated
4th February, 1917 and 26th December, 1924 relating to her
forefathers. Pursuant thereto, report of the Vigilance Cell has been
placed on record.
03. Shri S. N. Tapadia, learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that as per the document dated 4th February, 1917, the
name of the petitioner's grand-father was shown with a remark that he
wp2609.00
belonged to "Halbi" - Scheduled Tribe. According to him, her grand-
father changed the surname from "Sherkar" to "Mahajan" and for said
purpose, he relied upon the Premium Receipt dated 5th December,
1951 which was issued by the New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
showing the name of her grand-father as "Vishnu Bansi Sherkar -
Mahajan". He submitted that as per the second report of the Vigilance
Cell, the old documents indicated the relationship between the parties
and on that count, the claim of the petitioner could not have been
invalidated.
04. Shri H. Dhumale, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the
respondent no.1, supported the impugned order. He submitted that
there was no material on record to indicate that Bansi Sherkar was the
grand-father of the petitioner. The time and the reason for change in
surname was not brought on record. He further submitted that old
caste entries showed that the petitioner and her forefathers belonged
to Koshti, which was not a Scheduled Tribe.
05. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, we
have perused the documents filed on record. We have also gone
through the second report of the Vigilance Cell that was obtained
pursuant to the interim directions issued in the Writ Petition. Perusal
wp2609.00
of that report of the Vigilance Cell indicates that the uncle of the
petitioner could not indicate the reason and time when his father had
changed the surname from Sherkar to Mahajan. Other documents
considered by the Vigilance Cell pertain to the paternal relatives of the
petitioner of the years 1949 and 1958 indicating the caste to be
recorded as "Koshti." Considering this report of the Vigilance Cell
along with the documents relied upon by the petitioner, we do not find
that the Scrutiny Committee committed any error while rejecting the
caste claim of the petitioner. In absence of any material in the form of
either genealogical tree indicating relationship with Vishnu Bansi
Sherkar or material to indicate the manner in which the petitioner's
grand-father changed his surname, the order passed by the Scrutiny
Committee cannot be faulted.
06. In view of aforesaid, the Writ Petition stands dismissed with
no order as to costs.
Judge Judge
-0-0-0-0-
|hedau|
wp2609.00
