Bombay High Court
Virendra Jagansingh Thakur vs Divisional Caste Scrutiny ... on 4 April, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
0404WPs6175.10,488.11-Judgment 1/14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6175 OF 2010
PETITIONER :- Ku. Yogita Jagansing Thakur, Aged : Major,
Occ: Service, R/o. Gurukrupa Vihar, Sankalp
Nagar, Rahatgaon Chowk, Morshi Road,
Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee,
Amravati Division, Amravati. Through its
Chairman.
2. Zilla Parishad, Amravati, Through its
Executive Officer, Amravati.
3. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla
Parishad, Amravati.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R.R.Deshpande, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Ambarish Joshi, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent No.1.
Mr. P.B.Patil, counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NO. 488 OF 2011
PETITIONER :- Virendra Jagansingh Thakur, Aged : 31 year,
Occ: Service, R/o. Sankalp Colony,
Rahatgaon, Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee,
Amravati Division, Amravati. Through its
Chairman.
2. Zilla Parishad, Shikshak Sahakari Bank
Limited, Amravati, Through its General
Manager.
::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/04/2017 00:14:18 :::
0404WPs6175.10,488.11-Judgment 2/14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R.R.Deshpande, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Ambarish Joshi, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent No.1.
Mr. S.J.Kadu, counsel for the respondent No.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI
, JJ.
DATED : 04.04.2017
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)
Since the issue involved in these petitions is identical and
the petitioner-siblings have challenged similar orders of the scrutiny
committee invalidating their claim of belonging to Rajput Bhamta
Vimukta Jati, they are heard together and are decided by this common
judgment.
2. Kum. Yogita, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.6175 of
2010 and Shri Virendra, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.488 of 2011
are the daughter and son of Jagansing Thakur. The petitioners claim to
belong to Rajput Bhamta Vimukta Jati. On the basis of the caste claim,
the petitioner in Writ Petition No.6175 of 2010 was employed in
Amravati Zilla Parishad and the petitioner in Writ Petition No.488 of
2011 was employed in Zilla Parishad Shikshak Sahakari Bank Limited,
Amravati. The caste claim of the petitioners was referred by the
0404WPs6175.10,488.11-Judgment 3/14
respondent-employers to the scrutiny committee for verification. The
scrutiny committee has, by the separate orders dated 10/12/2010
invalidated the caste claim of the petitioners. In support of their caste
claim, similar documents were tendered by the petitioners before the
scrutiny committee to substantiate their claim. Apart from recent
documents, the petitioners also relied on two old documents pertaining
to the father and uncle of the petitioners, namely Shri Jagansing Thakur
and Shri Daryavsing Thakur. The said entries were relatively old, as
they were made in the admission record of the schools in which Shri
Jagansing and Shri Daryavsing were admitted in the years 1958 and
1949 respectively. A vigilance enquiry was conducted in the caste claim
of the petitioners. Since the vigilance cell had not inspected the school
record of the petitioners' father and uncle, Shri Jagansing and Shri
Daryavsing, the scrutiny committee called for the original record i.e. the
school admission register from the concerned schools where the father
and the uncle of the petitioners were admitted. It was noticed by the
scrutiny committee, on verification of the original admission register
that initially only word "Rajput" was recorded in the caste column and
subsequently the word "Bhamta" was written with a dot pen in different
handwriting and different ink. It was further found that in the original
admission register, at Sr.No.81 pertaining to Daryavsing, the uncle of
the petitioners, the word "Rajput" was written in black ink and the word
0404WPs6175.10,488.11-Judgment 4/14
"Bhamta" was subsequently written in blue ink in different handwriting.
The petitioners did not prove their affinity towards Rajput Bhamta
Vimukta Jatis. On an appreciation of the material on record, specially
the original admission register, which showed some interpolation, the
scrutiny committee rejected the caste claim of the petitioners. The
scrutiny committee observed that the handwriting expert had also
opined that the word "Bhamta" was subsequently inserted in the
admission register pertaining to the father of the petitioners in different
ink. The scrutiny committee found that though the petitioners had
produced the caste validity certificates issued in favour of Vijay Solanke
and Jaising Madmat, the petitioners had not proved their relationship
with them. The orders of the scrutiny committee, invalidating the caste
claim of the petitioners are challenged by the petitioners in these
petitions.
3. Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioners,
submitted that the scrutiny committee was not justified in observing
that the word "Bhamta" was subsequently inserted in the entries
pertaining to the father and uncle of the petitioners of the years 1958
and 1949, by personally verifying the original record. It is submitted
that the cousin brother of the petitioners and the son of their uncle
Daryavsing had filed Writ Petition No.245 of 2006 challenging the
0404WPs6175.10,488.11-Judgment 5/14
invalidation of his caste claim and this court had, by the judgment
dated 27/06/2007, allowed the writ petition after holding that the old
entries in the admission register of Jagansing and Daryavsing should
have been considered by the scrutiny committee for granting the
validity certificate in favour of Shailendra. It is stated that in the case of
Shailendra, who is closely related to the petitioners, this court has held
that the vigilance cell had not found any discrepancy in the entries in
the admission register pertaining to Jagansing and Daryavsing and this
court had also perused the original record. It is submitted that when
this court had perused the record while deciding Writ Petition No.245
of 2006 in the matter of Shailendra, the cousin of the petitioners, it
would not be proper for this court to take another view in the matter. It
is submitted that it would not be appropriate to hold that one member
of the family belongs to the Vimukta Jatis and the other members do
not belong to the said jatis. It is submitted that in view of the judgment
in the case of Shailendra and the grant of validity certificates in favour
of Vijay Solanke and Jaising Madmat, this court may allow this writ
petition and direct the scrutiny committee to issue the validity
certificates in favour of the petitioners.
4. Shri Ambarish Joshi, the learned Assistant Government
Pleader appearing for the scrutiny committee, has opposed the prayer
0404WPs6175.10,488.11-Judgment 6/14
made in the petition. It is submitted that the judgment in Writ Petition
No.245 of 2006, in the case of Shailendra cannot be made the basis for
granting a validity certificate in favour of the petitioners. It is stated
that in that case, this court has observed that the scrutiny committee
should not have drawn an adverse inference against Shailendra merely
because he did not deposit a sum of Rs.6,000/- before the scrutiny
committee for seeking the opinion of a handwriting expert. It is
submitted that such is not the case here. It is submitted that in the
instant case, the opinion of the handwriting expert was secured. It is
further stated that while deciding the writ petition filed by Shailendra,
the original admission register pertaining to the admission of Jagansing
and Daryavsing was not produced before this court and this court had
only considered the photostat copies of the relevant admission register
relating to the entries pertaining to Jagansing and Daryavsing and not
the original admission register. It is submitted by taking this court
through the original admission register that is produced in this court
that it is apparent that the entry "Bhamta" is subsequently inserted with
a dot pen in different ink and handwriting and the entry is of recent
origin though the register pertains to the years 1949 and 1958. It is
submitted that the petitioners have played fraud on their employer as
well as the scrutiny committee by manipulating the entries in the
original admission register.
0404WPs6175.10,488.11-Judgment 7/14
5. Shri Patil, the learned counsel for the Amravati Zilla
Parishad and Shri Kadu, the learned counsel for the Zilla Parishad
Shikshak Sahakari Bank Limited, strongly opposed the prayers made in
the petitions. It is submitted that though the petitioners have heavily
relied on the validity certificates issued in favour of Vijay Solanke and
Jaising Madmat, the petitioners have not proved their relationship with
the said persons. It is submitted that the names of Vijay Solanke and
Jaising Madmat do not appear in the family tree tendered by the
petitioners before the scrutiny committee. It is submitted that this court
may not grant any relief in favour of the petitioners as the petitioners
have played fraud, not only on the committee but also on their
respective employers by falsely claiming that they belong to Rajput
Bhamta Vimukta Jati. The learned counsel sought for the dismissal of
the writ petitions.
6. Before considering the submissions made on behalf of the
parties, we would like to record that when a civil application filed by
the petitioner in Writ Petition No.6175 of 2010 for a direction against
the zilla parishad to pay salary to the petitioner in the regular pay scale,
came up for consideration, the prayer made by the petitioner was
strongly opposed by the respondents. It was stated that the petitioner
had produced forged and fabricated documents before the scrutiny
committee. It was stated that even the opinion of the handwriting
0404WPs6175.10,488.11-Judgment 8/14
expert went against the petitioners. In view of the said statement, we
had called for the original admission and school leaving record
pertaining to the father and the uncle of the petitioners, namely
Jagansing and Daryavsing from the concerned school at Morshi through
the education officer. The original admission register and school leaving
record was produced in this court. On a perusal of the original record,
we had found that the entry in respect of Jagansing, the father of the
petitioners was recorded as entry 281 in the admission register and the
word "Bhamta" was inserted in the said entry with a dot pen though the
entire entry was written in ink. The handwriting in the original entry is
extremely good, whereas the word "Bhamta" is written in a bad
handwriting with different ink. There is a vast difference in the
handwriting in the entire entry pertaining to Jagansing and the word
"Bhamta" which is inserted with a dot pen, subsequently. We had
expressed in the order dated 13/10/2014 that there was no doubt
whatsoever that the word "Bhamta" was inserted in the entry in respect
of the petitioners' father at a subsequent point of time. Also, we had
noted that in the admission register, the entry pertaining to Daryavsing
was initially written in ink and subsequently the word "Bhamta" was
inserted in a very small space in an extremely cramped manner between
the two entries i.e. 81 and 82. Entry 81 pertained to Daryavsing and
there was actually no space to write the word "Bhamta" in between
0404WPs6175.10,488.11-Judgment 9/14
entries 81 and 82 but still the word "Bhamta was subsequently inserted
in a bad handwriting in the admission register. We had observed in the
order dated 13/10/2014 that there is no doubt about the fact that there
is a forgery in the original admission register in respect of the entries
pertaining to the father and the uncle of the petitioners. We had shown
the original admission register on the said date to Shri Anil Kilor, the
learned counsel for the petitioner, who was then appearing for the
petitioner and the learned counsel had fairly stated that there cannot be
any dispute that there is a subsequent insertion of the word "Bhamta" in
the entries pertaining to the father and the uncle of the petitioner. We
had observed in our order dated 13/10/2014 that the petitioners had
not approached the scrutiny committee with clean hands and since the
claim of the petitioner was mainly based on the two entries of the years
1958 and 1949, the prayer made by the petitioner in the application for
a direction against the Amravati Zilla Parishad was rejected. We had
rejected the prayer made by the petitioner and also observed in the
order that the counsel for the respondents should ensure that the order
dated 13/10/2014 is brought to the notice of this court when the
matter is heard finally.
7. As expected, after the order dated 13/10/2014 was
passed, the petitioners changed the counsel, who had fairly made a
0404WPs6175.10,488.11-Judgment 10/14
statement on 13/10/2014 that there was no dispute that there was a
subsequent insertion of the word "Bhamta" in the admission register
pertaining to Jagansing and Daryavsing. As expected, the petitioners
changed the counsel and the new counsel engaged by the petitioners is
working out the matter. The matter was called for hearing during the
last week and the learned counsel for the petitioners disputed the
statements made in the order dated 13/10/2014 by saying that he did
not have an opportunity to peruse the entries. Though the record of the
court is sacrosanct and the order dated 13/10/2014 speaks for itself,
and also records the fair admission made by the counsel for the
petitioner, who was then appearing, we again called for the original
admission record pertaining to the father and the uncle of the
petitioners namely Jagansing and Daryavsing. The original admission
register was produced in the court yesterday and is before us today also.
We had asked the learned counsel for the petitioners to peruse the
entries. In our view, no person to whom these entries would be shown,
except the petitioners and their counsel would dispute the interpolation
and insertion of the word "Bhamta" in the entries pertaining to
Jagansing and Daryavsing. Even if these entries are shown to a school
going child, he would clearly say that the word "Bhamta" is inserted in
a bad handwriting with a dot pen and the word "Bhamta" is of a recent
origin as compared to the old entries of the years 1949 and 1958.
0404WPs6175.10,488.11-Judgment 11/14
8. On a perusal of the original admission register and the
school leaving register pertaining to Jagansing and Daryavsing, we
record that there is no doubt about the fact that the entries pertaining
to Jagansing and Daryavsing in the original admission register are
forged. The word "Bhamta" is added subsequently and has a recent
origin. It is not in dispute that the caste "Rajput" does not fall in the
Vimukta Jatis whereas "Rajput Bhamta" falls in Vimukta Jatis. It is well
settled that there is a presumption that in case of a forgery, the forgery
would be attributable to the persons, who would be benefited by the
commission of the same. In the case of the petitioners, as soon as the
scrutiny committee noticed the fraud, a notice was served on the
petitioners asking them to show cause in respect of the insertion of the
word "Bhamta" in the admission register. An opportunity was granted
to the petitioners but the petitioners could not explain satisfactorily.
9. In Writ Petition No.243 of 2006 filed by Shailendra, this
court had not called for the original admission register like we had done
in this case on two occasions, once when we had passed the order on
13/10/2014 and now when we are hearing the writ petitions on merits.
In the writ petition filed by Shailendra this court had only perused the
photostat copies of the relevant entries in the admission register. We
0404WPs6175.10,488.11-Judgment 12/14
are aware that photostat copies may not give a correct picture of the
original entries. A photostat copy will never show that one entry is in
ink and the other entry is made with a dot pen or with a different
coloured ink. Since in the case of Shailendra this court had not called
for the original admission register and we had called for the same, it
would not be for this court to simply rely on the judgment in the case of
Shailendra to set aside the orders passed by the scrutiny committee. Not
only has the scrutiny committee perused the original register and found
the entries to be forged, but the handwriting expert has also opined that
the word "Bhamta" is inserted subsequently in the entries pertaining to
the father and uncle of the petitioners. We find that the petitioners
have not approached the scrutiny committee or this court with clean
hands. The entries of the years 1949 and 1958 pertaining to the uncle
and the father of the petitioners are the oldest documents that are
produced by the petitioners before the scrutiny committee. All the other
documents are of recent origin. The oldest documents are forged. The
petitioners have failed in the affinity test and have not proved their
affinity to Rajput Bhamta Vimukta Jati. Though two validity certificates
issued by the Aurangabad Committee in favour of Vijay Solanke and
Jaising Madmat were tendered by the petitioners before the scrutiny
committee, the petitioners have not proved that Vijay Solanke and
Jaising Madmat have any relationship with the petitioners. It is in fact
0404WPs6175.10,488.11-Judgment 13/14
held by the scrutiny committee on a perusal of the family tree and the
other material that the petitioners have no relationship with Vijay
Solanke and Jaising Madmat. In the facts and circumstances of the
case, it cannot be said that the scrutiny committee has committed any
error in invalidating the caste claim of the petitioners. While rejecting
the claim of the petitioners, we also reject the submission made on
behalf of the petitioners that it would always be necessary for a court to
grant the validity certificate to a near relative of a person to whom a
caste validity certificate is issued by the scrutiny committee. We find
that if the basis on which a claim is made, is tainted by fraud, it would
not be necessary to blindly rely on the validity certificate of the
relatives, by ignoring the fraud. In any case, we have held that in the
case of Shailendra this court did not have an occasion to peruse the
original admission register which undoubtedly demonstrates that there
was a forgery pertaining to the entries in respect Jagansing and
Daryavsing and the word "Bhamta" was inserted subsequently.
10. Since the orders of the scrutiny committee are just and
proper, we dismiss the writ petitions with no order as to costs.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks
a stay of this judgment for a period of four weeks. The prayer made on
0404WPs6175.10,488.11-Judgment 14/14
behalf of the petitioners is strongly opposed by the learned Assistant
Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the Amravati Zilla
Parishad and Zilla Parishad Shikshak Sahakari Bank Limited. It is
submitted that in a case where the petitioners have played fraud and
have not approached this court with clean hands, this court may not
extend the interim relief even for a day. We uphold the objection raised
on behalf of the respondents and reject the prayer made on behalf of
the petitioners for extending the interim relief. Order accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
