Bombay High Court
Ku. Naziya Tabassum Rahamt Shah vs State Of Maharashtra, Through The ... on 8 June, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
0806WP6038.13-Judgment 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6038 OF 2013
PETITIONER :- Ku. Naziya Tabassum Rahamt Shah, Aged
about 26 years, Occ. Shikshak Sewak, R/o.
Tajnagar, Chandur Bazar, Dist. Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. State of Maharashtra, Through the
Secretary, Social Welfare Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. Caste Scrutiny Committee No.1, Amravati
Division, Amravati, through its Member
Secretary & Research Officer, Caste Scrutiny
Committee No.1., Amravti Division,
Amravati.
3. Education Officer, Thane Municipal
Corporation, Thane, Education Division,
Thane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.Kothari, counsel h/f Mr.V.R.Chaudhari, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.I.J.Damle, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1&2.
Mr. N. S. Khandewale, counsel for the respondent No.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE
, JJ.
DATED : 08.06.2017
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of
the scrutiny committee dated 17/10/2013 invalidating the claim of the
petitioner of belonging to Chhapparband caste.
0806WP6038.13-Judgment 2/4
2. The petitioner claimed to belong to Chhapparband caste
which falls in Vimukta Jatis and was appointed as a shikshan sevak on
the basis of her caste claim. The caste claim of the petitioner was
referred to the scrutiny committee for verification. The scrutiny
committee, by the impugned order dated 17/10/2013 invalidated the
claim of the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order of the
scrutiny committee in the instant petition.
3. Shri Kothari, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that the scrutiny committee has committed a serious error in
not giving due weightage to the government circular dated
23/03/2011. It is stated that by the said government circular, the State
Government has laid down certain guidelines that are required to be
followed by the scrutiny committee. It is submitted that as per the said
circular, it would be necessary for the scrutiny committee to consider
the importance of suffix 'Shah' to the name of the candidate and his/her
relatives. It is stated that it is apparent from the family tree tendered by
the petitioner before the scrutiny committee that the name of the
petitioner and her relatives had suffix 'Shah'. It is stated that this aspect
of the matter was not considered by the scrutiny committee though the
same was pointed out to the same. It is submitted that while
considering the inclusion of the word 'Fakir' in some of the documents
pertaining to the relatives of the petitioner, the scrutiny committee
0806WP6038.13-Judgment 3/4
failed to consider that the names of the petitioner and her relatives had
suffix 'Shah'.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents have supported
the order of the scrutiny committee. It is submitted that the scrutiny
committee has rightly held that there is a variance in the entries in the
documents tendered by the petitioner and hence, it cannot be said that
the petitioner belongs to Chhapparband caste. It is however fairly
admitted that on a reading of the order of the scrutiny committee, it
appears that the scrutiny committee has not considered the government
circular dated 23/03/2011 in the right perspective, so as to consider as
to what weightage should be given to the word 'Shah' that is suffixed to
the name of the petitioner and her relatives.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears
that the scrutiny committee has not considered the government circular
dated 23/03/2011 as also the orders rendered by this court from time
to time with a reference to the said circular. It appears that though the
scrutiny committee has referred to the circular dated 23/03/2011, it
has not considered as to what weightage could be granted to the word
'Shah' in the name of the petitioner as also her close relatives. The
vigilance report was in favour of the petitioner and in that background,
it was necessary for the scrutiny committee to consider the government
0806WP6038.13-Judgment 4/4
circular dated 23/03/2011, so as to further consider as to what
weightage could be given to the use of the word 'Shah' in the name of
the petitioner and her relatives. In the circumstances of the case, since
the judgments and orders of this court and the circular dated
23/03/2011 are not duly considered, it would be necessary to remand
the matter to the scrutiny committee for a fresh decision on merits.
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 a fresh decision on the caste
claim of the petitioner, in accordance with law. The services of the
petitioner should be protected till her caste claim is decided. The
scrutiny committee may make an endeavour to decide the caste claim of
the petitioner as early as possible. The petitioner undertakes to appear
before the scrutiny committee on 03/07/2017 so that issuance of notice
to the petitioner could be dispensed with. Rule is made absolute in the
aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
