Sunil Sahebraoji Manmode vs Director And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4734 Bom

                                                     1                               Judg. wp 880.2002.odt 

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
                               NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

                                         Writ Petition No.880  of 2002

             Sunil Sahebraoji Manmode,
             Aged 37 years, Occ.-Service,
             Resident of Pangri Goswi, Tahsil Mang, 
             District Jalna.                                                             .... Petitioner.

                                                         -Versus-

             1]        Director and Chairman,
                       Scheduled  Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
                       Adiwasi Bhawan, Giripeth, Nagpur.

             2]      The Commissioner,
                     Animal Husbandary, M.S., Central Building, 
                     Pune.                                                              .... Respondents.
             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Shri  S.D. Khati, Counsel for petitioner.
             Shri  V.P. Maldhure, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent 
             no.2.
             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Coram : R. K. Deshpande & 
                            Mrs. Swapna Joshi, JJ.

              Dated  : 19    July, 2017
                             th 
                                         

             ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R. K. Deshpande, J.)

The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 10-12-2001

passed by the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,

2 Judg. wp 880.2002.odt

Nagpur, invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner for

"Pawara" (Scheduled Tribe) which is an entry at Serial No.8 of the

Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.

2] On 25-09-2002, this Court passed an order as under :-

"Heard.

2. The only grievance made by the Counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing as on the date fixed for hearing, he met with an accident and though he communicated it to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, they proceeded to decide the matter. It is submitted that now the petitioner has recovered though he still requires crutches but he can attend the office of the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

3. Accepting the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court directs the Caste Scrutiny Committee to hear the petitioner in the matter on the condition that the petitioner would file his reply to the report of police vigilance cell on or before the date of hearing and would make all the necessary documents available to the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner to appear before the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 10-10-2002. No further opportunity would be granted in the matter. The Caste Scrutiny Committee would take decision after hearing the petitioner without being influenced by the earlier order. The decision be communicated to the petitioner

3 Judg. wp 880.2002.odt

as well as the copy of the same be furnished to this Court, so that the petition can be finally disposed of. The decision be taken within a period of two weeks after the conclusion of hearing.

4. Interim order to continue till 30-10-2002. The Counsel for the Caste Scrutiny Committee to communicate this order to the authorities. The matter be listed before the Court on 30-10-2002."

3] In response to the aforesaid order, the Committee again

scrutinized the caste claim of the petitioner and passed an order on

10-01-2003 invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner as belonging

to Scheduled Tribe. Hence, both these orders are the subject matter

of challenge in this petition.

4] The petitioner was selected and appointed for the post of

'Live Stock Supervisor' against the vacancy which was reserved for

Scheduled Tribe candidate by an order dated 19-07-2000. Since

then, he is working in the said post. Upon reference to the Scrutiny

Committee, the claim of the petitioner for "Pawara" (Scheduled

Tribe) has been invalidated. Though there is no alternate relief

claimed of protection in service, Shri Khati, the learned Counsel

appearing for the petitioner submits that, in view of the decision of

the Full Bench delivered by this Court in the case of

4 Judg. wp 880.2002.odt

Arun s/o Vishwanath Sonone v. State of Maharashtra and others,

reported in 2015(1) Mh.L.J. 457, the service rendered by the

petitioner be protected.

5] We have gone through the order passed by the Scrutiny

Committee. The Committee has relied upon several documents

produced by the petitioner himself indicating the caste of the blood

relatives of the petitioner namely; paternal grandfather, cousin

grandfather, father, paternal uncle, real elder brother, cousin sister,

candidate himself, real sister, cousin brother and real brother. The

petitioner himself indicating the caste as "Pawara" or "Pawar". The

Committee has relied upon all these documents and concluded on

the basis of the documents and the affinity test that the petitioner has

failed to establish his claim for "Pawara" (Scheduled Tribe) and the

caste certificate dated 14-08-1999 issued by the Deputy Collector,

Nagpur showing that the petitioner belongs to "Pawara" (Scheduled

Tribe) category has been cancelled and confiscated. We do not find

even a single document produced on record of pre-constitutional

period indicating that all the blood relatives of the petitioner are

shown of belonging to "Pawara" (Scheduled Tribe). In the absence

of any perversity in recording the finding, we do not find any reason

to interfere in the said order.

                                                      5                               Judg. wp 880.2002.odt 

                        6]             On the basis of the recent decision of the Hon'ble apex Court 

in Civil Appeal No.8928 of 2015 [Chairman and Managing Director

FCI and others v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and others] which we

have recently followed in Writ Petition No.3373 of 2002

(Dattakishor Jagannath Kumbhare v. State of Maharashtra through

Secretary to Tribal Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

and others) and connected matters, decided on 17-07-2017, it is not

possible for us to grant protection in service or to prevent withdrawal

of benefits which results in either violating the order passed by the

Hon'ble apex Court or the provisions of Section 10 of the

Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes

(Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and

Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification

of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (Mah. Act. 23 of 2001).

7] The writ petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No

order as to costs.

                                                 JUDGE                                             JUDGE




                            Deshmukh