Bombay High Court
Shahid Sayyad S/O Mustaque Ali ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 15 June, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp5946.13.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5946/2013
PETITIONER : Shahid Sayyad s/o Mustaque Ali
Sayyad, Aged 25 years, Occup.
Student, R/o At Post Kardi,
Tq. Mohadi, District Bhandara.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Social Welfare and Tribal Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Divisional Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee No.1, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur, through its Chairman/
Member Secretary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.V. Ingole, Adv. with Shri J.S. Wankhede, Adv. for petitioner
Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, AGP for respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATE : 15.06.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the
Scrutiny Committee dated 31.10.2011 invalidating the claim of the
petitioner of belonging to Chhapparband caste, which falls in the Vimukta
Jatis.
wp5946.13.odt
Since the petitioner was admitted to a seat in the
respondent no.2 - Junior College that was earmarked for the Vimukta
Jatis, the respondent no.2 referred the claim of the petitioner of belonging
to Chhapparband caste (Vimukta Jati) to the Scrutiny Committee for
verification. The petitioner produced several documents in support of his
claim. The vigilance enquiry was conducted in the caste claim of the
petitioner and after appreciating the material on record the Scrutiny
Committee invalidated the claim of the petitioner by the order dated
31.10.2011. The petitioner has impugned the said order in the instant
petition.
Shri Ingole, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the Scrutiny Committee was not justified in rejecting the caste claim
of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not prove the same
on the basis of the documents, when on the very same documents that
were produced by the petitioner before the Scrutiny Committee, the real
brother of the petitioner was granted a caste validity certificate by the
same Scrutiny Committee. It is submitted that merely because in some of
the documents tendered by the petitioner "Musalman" was recorded in
the caste column, the Scrutiny Committee has illegally rejected the caste
claim of the petitioner. It is submitted that the vigilance report favours the
petitioner, inasmuch as it is observed in the vigilance report that the
wp5946.13.odt
ancestors of the petitioner were "Fakir", that is, they use to collect alms. It
is submitted that the Scrutiny Committee has further observed that it
appears that the petitioner would be entitled for the benefits meant for
the Chhapparband caste, which is a Vimukta Jati. It is submitted that
though the vigilance report favours the petitioner and though the real
brother of the petitioner was granted the caste validity certificate on the
basis of the same documents as were produced by the petitioner before
the Scrutiny Committee, the Scrutiny Committee has illegally rejected the
caste claim of the petitioner. It is submitted that the real uncle of the
petitioner has secured a caste validity certificate from the Scrutiny
Committee on the basis of the same documents during the pendency of
the writ petition. It is submitted that though the petitioner has clearly
proved his caste claim, he is unnecessarily singled out when caste validity
certificates are issued in favour of the real brother and real uncle of the
petitioner. It is submitted that in almost similar set of facts this Court had
allowed Writ Petition No.2802/2014 by the order dated 6.4.2015. It is
submitted that in the circumstances of the case, it would be necessary to
declare that the petitioner belongs to Chhapparband caste that falls in the
Vimukta Jatis.
Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned Assistant Government
Pleader appearing for the Scrutiny Committee has denied the claim of the
wp5946.13.odt
petitioner. It is submitted that in the vigilance cell enquiry, the father of
the petitioner had mentioned his caste as "Musalman". It is submitted that
the great grandfather of the petitioner was engaged in the occupation of
collecting alms, i.e., Fakiri till his death. It is submitted that the petitioner
had not produced any cogent material to prove that he belongs to
Chhapparband caste and hence, the caste claim was invalidated. It is,
however, not disputed that a caste validity certificate was issued by the
Scrutiny Committee in favour of the real brother of the petitioner.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the documents on record, specially the vigilance enquiry report
as also the caste validity certificate issued in favour of the petitioner's real
brother, it appears that the Scrutiny Committee has committed an error in
rejecting the caste claim of the petitioner. The petitioner had produced
several documents on record to prove his caste claim. The very same
documents that were produced by the petitioner before the Scrutiny
Committee in support of his caste claim, were produced by the real
brother of the petitioner before the Scrutiny Committee while his caste
claim was verified. While issuing a caste validity certificate in favour of
the real brother of the petitioner by upholding his caste claim, the
Scrutiny Committee has rejected the caste claim of the petitioner though
the caste claim of both the brothers was based on the same set of
wp5946.13.odt
documents. Also, we find on a reading of the vigilance enquiry report that
the report fully favours the petitioner. It is mentioned in the vigilance
report that the documents produced by the petitioner and the statements
made during the enquiry show that the petitioner belongs to
Chhapparband caste. It is further mentioned in the vigilance enquiry
report that the petitioner would be entitled to the benefits meant for
Chhapparband caste (Vimukta Jati). If that is so, we do not find any
propriety in the action on the part of the Scrutiny Committee in rejecting
the caste claim of the petitioner by harping upon a statement made by the
father of the petitioner during the vigilance enquiry that he is Musalman.
Musalman is not said to be a caste. In the circumstances of the case, the
Scrutiny Committee was not justified in rejecting the caste claim of the
petitioner, specially when a caste validity certificate was issued in favour
of the real brother of the petitioner on the basis of the same documents as
were produced by the petitioner before the Scrutiny Committee and the
vigilance report was favourable to the petitioner. Cogent reasons are not
recorded by the Scrutiny Committee while rejecting the caste claim of the
petitioner. In the circumstances of the case, it would be necessary to hold
that the petitioner belongs to Chhapparband caste and to direct the
Scrutiny Committee to issue a caste validity certificate in favour of the
petitioner, within a time-frame.
wp5946.13.odt
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The respondent -
Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue a caste validity certificate of
Chhapparband caste to the petitioner, within two months.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
