Bombay High Court
Aishwarya Sudhakar Gaikwad vs State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 10 July, 2017
Bench: B.R. Gavai
13-WP-6849-16.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6849 OF 2016
Aishwarya Sudhakar Gaikwad ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
----------
Mr. R. K. Mendadkar, for the Petitioner.
Mr. B. V. Samant, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5.
----------
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND
RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATE : 10 July 2017
JUDGMANE (Per Riyaz I. Chagla, J.):
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by
consent of parties.
2. The Petitioner by the present Petition is challenging
the judgment and order dated 30 January 2016 passed by
Sharayu. 1/8
13-WP-6849-16.doc
Respondent No. 2 Scrutiny Committee which has invalidated the
Caste Certificate, dated 30 May 2011 issued in favour of the
Petitioner, certifying that the Petitioner belongs to "Thakar"
Scheduled Tribe Community.
3. This is the second round of proceedings instituted by
the Petitioner. The Petitioner had been granted admission in
M.B.B.S. Degree course in the academic year 2013-14 by
Respondent No. 4 in the College of Respondent No. 5. The
Petitioner intended to go for higher education and had moved
Respondent No. 2 Scrutiny Committee for validation of tribe
claim as belonging to Thakar, Scheduled Tribe. Respondent No.
2 Scrutiny Committee had invalidated the Caste Certificate by its
order. The Petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 10935 of 2013
in this Court. The Division Bench of this Court (A.V. Mohta and
A.A. Sayed, JJ) had by order dated 27th February, 2014
quashed and set aside the order dated 16 September 2013
passed by Respondent No. 2 Scrutiny Committee and remanded
the matter back for fresh consideration.
Sharayu. 2/8
13-WP-6849-16.doc
4. The Petitioner was granted hearing by Respondent
No. 2 Scrutiny Committee. The Petitioner filed written
submissions and relied on several Judgments wherein the
Respondent No. 2 Scrutiny Committee had validated the Caste
Certificate which were similar to that of the Petitioner. The
Petitioner relied upon several Caste validity Certificates which
had been issued in favour of the Petitioner's relatives from her
paternal side. The Petitioner also relied upon the vigilance cell
reports in relation to the blood relatives of the Petitioner from
paternal side. Respondent No. 2 Scrutiny Committee in the
impugned order dated 30 January 2016 relied on certain
information derived from the internet and one isolated entry
where "Maratha" had been mentioned in the Caste Certificate in
relation to the Petitioners blood relative from the paternal side.
The other incidents relied upon by the Respondent No.2
Scrutiny Committee were not in relation to the Petitioner's blood
relatives from the paternal side. Respondent No. 2 Scrutiny
Committee has once again invalidated the Caste Certificate of
the petitioner by the impugned order dated 30 January 2016.
Sharayu. 3/8
13-WP-6849-16.doc
5. Shri. R. K. Mendadkar, the learned Counsel for the
Petitioner has submitted that Respondent No. 2 Scrutiny
Committee had failed to consider the Caste Validity Certificates
which had been granted to the father of the Petitioner, real
brother of the Petitioner, three uncles of the Petitioner. All these
were blood relatives of the Petitioner from the paternal side and
there was no dispute regarding their relationship with the
Petitioner. Shri. Mendadkar has submitted that the Respondent
No. 2 Scrutiny Committee has relied on certain Caste
Certificates of the relatives of the Petitioner which had been
recorded as "Maratha" and "Maratha Thakar" and "Hindu
Thakar", these relatives were not blood relatives from the
paternal side of the Petitioner.
6. Shri. Mendadkar has submitted that the Division
Bench of this Court in the earlier Petition filed by the Petitioner,
by order dated 27 February 2014, remanded the matter back to
the Scrutiny Committee and had observed that the present
matter was covered by the Judgment dated 26th February, 2014
Sharayu. 4/8
13-WP-6849-16.doc
in Madhuri Nitin Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. in
Writ Petition No. 7343 of 2013. Shri. Mendadkar has further
submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in an identical matter
viz. Anita Gaekwad Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. Relying
upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in Raju Ramsingh
Vasave Vs. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar, 2008 vol 9 SCC 54,
held that where the near relatives had obtained Caste validity
Certificates which were approved by the Scrutiny Committee,
then it would be unfair to the person concerned to be told that
he/she does not belong to that community. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Anita Gaekwad (Supra) has held that "the
Caste Scrutiny Committee was in error in giving the importance to
the two certificates, which stated that one of her relatives was
"Marathi" and the other "Maratha". The High Court has taken in
error in placing reliances on these certificates". The Hon'ble
Supreme Court granted Caste validity Certificate in respect of
"Thakar, Scheduled Tribe" to the Appellant in that case, Shri.
Mendadkar also submits that the present Petition is covered by
the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Apoorva D/o
Sharayu. 5/8
13-WP-6849-16.doc
Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee and that the Petitioner has been able to prove
affinity to the Thakar, Scheduled Tribe based on the caste
validity certificate having been granted to the blood relatives
from the paternal side of the Petitioner.
7. Shri. Samant, the learned AGP, appearing for
Respondents No. 1 to 5 has failed to show any infirmity with the
impugned order. Respondents No. 1 to 5 have failed to file any
Reply to the Petition justifying the validity of the impugned
order passed by the Respondent No. 2 Scrutiny Committee.
8. We are of the considered view that the present
Petition is covered by the Judgment of this Court in Apoorva
Nichale (supra) and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
dated 16 April 2013 in Anita Gaekwad (supra). Further, we
also concur with the order of the Division Bench dated 27
February 2014 in the prior Writ Petition No. 20935 of 2013 filed
by the Petitioner, wherein the Division Bench has held that the
Sharayu. 6/8
13-WP-6849-16.doc
present matter is covered by the Judgment of this Court dated
26th February 2014 in Writ Petition No. 7343 of 2013 Madhuri
Nitin Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors (supra). We are
of the considered view that the Respondent No. 2 Scrutiny
Committee in the impugned order has failed to consider the
caste validity certificates which had been produced by the
Petitioner and which were granted to the Petitioner's blood
relatives from the paternal side. Respondent No. 2 Scrutiny
Committee has erroneously taken into consideration the stray
incidents of the caste certificates of relatives of the Petitioner
which had been recorded as "Maratha", "Marathi Thakar" and
"Hindu Thakar". These relatives were not blood relatives of the
Petitioner from the paternal side. In any event, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court by its order dated 16 April 2013 has recorded
that the Caste Certificate cannot be invalidated by giving
importance to such certificates where caste of the relatives were
recorded as "Marathi" and "Maratha".
9. We accordingly, allow the Petition by quashing and
setting aside the impugned order dated 30 January 2016 passed
Sharayu. 7/8
13-WP-6849-16.doc
by the Respondent No. 2 Scrutiny Committee. We order and
direct Respondent No. 2 Scrutiny Committee to issue the
certificate of validity in respect of the caste certificate dated 30
May 2011 in favour of the Petitioner within a period of four
weeks. We hold and declare that the Petitioner belongs to the
Thakar, Scheduled Tribe community.
10. Needless to state that the Petitioner is allowed
to pursue her studies in M.B.B.S. Degree course on the basis of
her Caste Certificate dated 30 May 2011.
11. There shall be no order as to costs.
[RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.]
Sharayu. 8/8
