Pramodkumar Dhanraj Nandwane vs Divisional Caste Scrutiny ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4976 Bom

WP  6405/11                                             1                              Judgment

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                  NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                       WRIT PETITION No. 6405/2011
Pramodkumar Dhanraj Nandwane,
aged about 56 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Sangadi, Tah. Sakoli, District Bhandara.                                      PETITIONER

                                      .....VERSUS.....
1.    Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No.1,
      Nagpur Division, Nagpur,
      (Scheduled Caste, De-Notified Tribes,
      (Vimukta Jati), Nomadic Tribes, Other
      Backward Classes and Special Backward
      Category, Nagpur.
2.    State of Maharashtra,
      Irrigation Department, Mantralaya,
      Mumbai, through its Secretary.                                                RESPONDENTS

                    Shri N.M. Jibhkate, counsel for the petitioner.
          Mrs. H.Prabhu, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.


                                        CORAM :SMT.VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                       A.D. UPADHYE, JJ.                  

DATE : 25 TH JULY, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)

By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the

scrutiny committee, dated 23.03.2011 invalidating the claim of the

petitioner of belonging to Pardesi Bhamta Vimukta Jati.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer in the

Irrigation Department on a post earmarked for the Vimukta Jati. The

petitioner had claimed to belong to Pardesi Bhamta Vimukta Jati and the

caste claim of the petitioner was referred to the scrutiny committee for

verification. The scrutiny committee, however found on the perusal of

WP 6405/11 2 Judgment

the original record and the report of the vigilance cell that there was

some interpolation in the old document of the year 1931 pertaining to the

grandfather of the petitioner by name Gendsingh. The scrutiny

committee found that the words "Gendsingh Pardesi Bhamta" were

inserted in the entry in the Kotwal Book in a different handwriting and in

a different ink. The scrutiny committee further found that entry

"Kshatriya" was recorded in the caste column in the document pertaining

to the petitioner himself. It was noted by the scrutiny committee that the

Education Officer had corrected entry "Kshatriya" in the school record of

the petitioner and his sister and substituted the said entry by the entry

"Pardesi Bhamta". The order of the scrutiny committee invalidating the

claim of the petitioner is challenged by the petitioner in the instant

petition.

3. Shri Jibhkate, the learned counsel for the petitioner,

submitted that the order of the scrutiny committee is liable to be set aside

as though the order-sheet shows that the order was prepared by the

president of the scrutiny committee, the president of the scrutiny committee

has not signed the order. It is stated that there is no signature of the

president on the impugned order and only two other members of the

scrutiny committee have signed the same. It is further submitted that the

scrutiny committee did not conduct the affinity test in the case of the

petitioner. It is submitted that it was necessary for the scrutiny committee

WP 6405/11 3 Judgment

to conduct the affinity test before invalidating the caste claim of the

petitioner. It is submitted that in regard to the documents at Sr. Nos. 5

to 8, the petitioner was not given any notice seeking his explanation as to

why the words "Rajput Bhamta" were inserted in the school and the

college record pertaining to the paternal uncles and the paternal aunts of

the petitioner. It is submitted that in the circumstances of the case, the

matter is liable to be remanded to the scrutiny committee for deciding the

caste claim of the petitioner afresh, in accordance with law.

4. Mrs.Prabhu, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

appearing for the scrutiny committee, supported the order of the scrutiny

committee. It is submitted that it is apparent from the original record

that is produced in the Court, that the words "Gendsingh Pardesi Bhamta"

are inserted in the Kotwal book at a subsequent point of time as there is a

change in the ink as well as the handwriting pertaining to the aforesaid

writing only. It is submitted that even the petitioner's caste was recorded

as "Kshatriya" in his school records. It is submitted that caste Rajput

Bhamta is recorded in the documents pertaining to the paternal uncles

and the paternal aunts of the petitioner. It is however fairly stated after

perusal of the original record that the president of the scrutiny committee

who had prepared the order, has inadvertently not signed the order. It is

stated that an appropriate order may be passed in the circumstances of

the case.

WP 6405/11 4 Judgment

5. Though we find on a perusal of the original record and

proceedings that the words "Gendsingh Pardesi Bhamta" are inserted

in the Kotwal book entry of the year 1931 pertaining to the grandfather

of the petitioner in different ink and different handwriting and

though there are several documents that show that the caste of the

near relatives of the petitioner are recorded as Rajput Bhamta, it

would be necessary to remand the matter to the scrutiny committee as

the order of the scrutiny committee is not signed by the president,

though it appears from the order-sheet that he had prepared the

same. Affinity test was not conducted before deciding the caste claim

of the petitioner and the petitioner was also not granted any

opportunity to show cause as to why the words "Rajput Bhamta" were

recorded in the caste column of the documents pertaining to the

paternal uncles and paternal aunts of the petitioner. In the

circumstances of the case, it would be necessary to set aside the order of

the scrutiny committee and remand the matter to the scrutiny

committee for deciding the same in accordance with law.

6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly

allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is

remanded to the scrutiny committee for deciding the caste claim of the

petitioner in accordance with law. The petitioner undertakes to remain

present before the scrutiny committee on 21.08.2017 so that issuance of

WP 6405/11 5 Judgment

notice to the petitioner could be dispensed with. The scrutiny committee

is directed to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within eight months.

Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to

costs.

              JUDGE                                    JUDGE
APTE