Bombay High Court
Balkrishna Gunvantrao Bopte vs The State Of Mah.Thr.Secr.Mumbai ... on 21 July, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1
wp4150.04.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.4150 of 2004
Balkrishna Gunvantrao Bopte,
Aged about 26 years,
Occupation - Service,
Live Stock Supervisor,
Panchayat Samiti,
Pandharkawda, Yavatmal District. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Tribal Welfare Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Chairman Committee for Scrutiny
and Verification of the Tribes Claims,
Amravati.
3. Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal,
through its District Health Officer.
4. Commissioner, Animal Husbandry,
Pune.
5. Executive Magistrate, Daryapur,
District Amravati. ... Respondents
Ms Akshaya Kshirsagar, Advocate, holding for Shri Anil Mardikar,
Senior Advocate, for Petitioner.
Shri N.S. Rao, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent
Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5.
::: Uploaded on - 21/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 00:52:51 :::
2
wp4150.04.odt
Coram : R.K. Deshpande & Mrs. Swapna Joshi, JJ.
st
Dated : 21 July, 2017
Oral Judgment (Per R.K. Deshpande, J.) :
1. The petitioner was appointed as Live Stock Supervisor in
Panchayat Samiti, Pandharkawada, District Yavatmal, where he
joined on 21-9-2001. His appointment was against a post
reserved for a Scheduled Tribe candidate. The petitioner
produced the caste certificate dated 8-12-1990 issued by the
Executive Magistrate, Amravati, showing that he belongs to
Koli Mahadev, Scheduled Tribe. It is on the basis of this
certificate, the petitioner was granted appointment. The matter
was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification of the
caste claim, and by an order dated 13-4-2004, the claim has been
invalidated by the Committee. Hence, this petition challenging
the said order.
2. The petitioner was provided protection in service by
virtue of an interim order passed by this Court on 2-9-2004,
which was continued after granting Rule on 13-11-2006. Since
wp4150.04.odt
then, the petitioner is working on the post.
3. With the assistance of the learned counsels appearing for
the parties, we have gone through the order impugned
invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner for Koli Mahadev,
Scheduled Tribe, which is at Entry No.5 of the Constitution
(Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. There is not even a single
document pertaining to the period prior to 1950 having a
probative value indicating the tribe of the petitioner as Koli
Mahadev placed on record. On the contrary, the document at
serial No.3, which is a school transfer certificate in the name of
the petitioner dated 9-7-1974, and the another document at
serial No.4, which is a certificate issued by the Head Master of
the School on 6-3-2000, record that the petitioner belongs to
caste Koli, which came under the Special Backward Class
category. The Committee has applied the affinity test, and on
appreciation of the evidence on record, a possible view is taken
that the petitioner has failed to establish his claim for
Koli Mahadev, Scheduled Tribe. We do not find any perversity in
wp4150.04.odt
the findings recorded, and hence no interference is called for in
the order impugned.
4. It is urged that the petitioner has rendered the service
for a period of about 16 years. However, in view of the decision
of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.8928 of 2015 [Chairman
and Managing Director FCI and others v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira
and others], delivered on 6-7-2017, which we have recently
followed in Writ Petition No.3373 of 2002 [Dattakishor
Jagannath Kumbhare v. State of Maharashtra and others] and
other similar matters, the protection is not available in service
upon invalidation of the tribe claim, and we are unable to
prevent the consequences provided under Section 10 of the
Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001.
5. The petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No
order as to costs.
JUDGE. JUDGE.
Lanjewar
