Nilesh S/O Changdeo Rajput ... vs The Divisional Caste Certificate ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3256 Bom

WP  252/15                                             1                             Judgment

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                  NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                        WRIT PETITION No. 252/2015
Nilesh S/o Changdeo Rajput (Salokh),
aged about 27 years, Occupation : Service,
R/o At village Yelgaon,
Tah. And Dist. Buldana.                                                       PETITIONERS

                                      .....VERSUS.....

1.    The Divisional Caste Certificate
      Scrutiny Committee No.2, Akola,
      Division Amravati.
2.    The Deputy Conservator of Forest,
      Buldana Division, Buldana.

3.    The District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
      Buldana,
      through its Chairman.                                                         RESPONDENTS

                      Shri N.B. Kalwaghe, counsel for the petitioner.
     Shri I.J. Damle, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 and 3.


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

DATE : 16 TH JUNE, 2017.

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

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

Scrutiny Committee, dated 21.10.2014 invalidating the claim of the

petitioner of belonging to Rajput Bhamta (Vimukta Jati).

2. The petitioner claims to belong to Rajput Bhamta (Vimukta

Jati) and the caste claim of the petitioner was referred to the scrutiny

committee for verification. The scrutiny committee, on an appreciation of

the material on record, by the order dated, 21.10.2014, rejected the caste

WP 252/15 2 Judgment

claim of the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the said order in

the instant petition.

3. Shri Kalwaghe, the learned counsel for the petitioner, inter

alia, submits that the scrutiny committee has not considered the material

on record in the right perspective while rejecting the caste claim of the

petitioner. It is submitted that a mere reference is made to the vigilance

cell report in the order, without considering the report. It is submitted

that though in the vigilance cell enquiry it was found that the two persons

holding the validity certificate are the cousin uncles of the petitioner, the

scrutiny committee has wrongfully discarded the validity certificates

issued in favour of the cousin uncles of the petitioner by holding that the

petitioner has not established his relationship with them. It is submitted

that before holding so, it was necessary for the scrutiny committee to

have considered the report of the vigilance cell and ought to have

recorded a finding as to why it did not agree with the vigilance report

that the two persons were indeed related to the petitioner. It is submitted

that the scrutiny committee has invalidated the caste claim of the

petitioner after observing that the petitioner had failed to prove his caste

claim on the basis of the documents. It is submitted that since the

scrutiny committee has failed to properly perform its duty by not

considering the vigilance cell report which clearly records that the two

persons to whom the caste validity certificates were issued are the cousin

WP 252/15 3 Judgment

uncles of the petitioner, the order of the scrutiny committee is liable to be

set aside.

4. Shri Damle, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

appearing on behalf of the respondents, has supported the order of the

scrutiny committee. It is submitted that since the petitioner could not

prove his relationship with the two persons, who he claimed were his

cousin uncles, the scrutiny committee has rightly discarded the caste

validity certificates issued in their favour while considering the caste

claim of the petitioner. It is submitted that the vigilance report was

considered by the scrutiny committee while deciding the caste claim of

the petitioner.

5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a

perusal of the vigilance cell report and the order of the scrutiny

committee, it appears that the scrutiny committee was not justified in not

considering the vigilance report in which it was recorded that the two

persons to whom the caste validity certificate s were issued are the cousin

uncles of the petitioner. The scrutiny committee has made a mere

reference to the vigilance report in paragraph 4 of the order of the

scrutiny committee. It is merely observed in the order of the scrutiny

committee that the petitioner was asked to give an explanation to the

report of the police vigilance cell. There is no mention in the order that

WP 252/15 4 Judgment

the police vigilance report was considered by the scrutiny committee

while deciding the caste claim of the petitioner. If it was recorded in the

vigilance report that validity certificates were issued in favour of the

cousin uncles of the petitioner, it was necessary for the scrutiny

committee to give at least a few reasons for discarding the observations in

the vigilance cell report. This is not done by the scrutiny committee and

the scrutiny committee has observed that the petitioner has not

established his relationship with the two persons, without giving due

weightage to the family tree and the affidavits filed by the two persons in

whose favour the caste validity certificates were issued by the committee.

In the circumstances of the case, it would be necessary to remand the

matter to the scrutiny committee for a fresh decision in the caste claim of

the petitioner, 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 in the caste claim

of the petitioner in accordance with law. The petitioner undertakes to

appear before the respondent no.3-Committee on the 10 th of July, 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

APTE