Vaibhav Vidyasagar Jadhao vs The Divisional Caste Scrutiny ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3314 Bom

                                                        1                   J-WP-1284-15.odt

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                        WRIT PETITION NO. 1284 OF 2015


 Vaibhav Vidyasagar Jadhao,
 Aged about : 19 years,
 Occ. Student, R/o Khupgaon,
 Post - Sav, Tq. and Dist. Buldana.                               ..... PETITIONER

                                 ...V E R S U S...

 1. The Divisional Caste Scrutiny
    Committee No.2, Akola Division,
    Akola.

 2. Sub-Divisional Officer,
    Buldana, Distt. Buldhana.

 3. Anuradha College of Pharmacy,
    Through its Principal,
    Sakegaon Road, Chikhali,
    Dist. Buldhana.

 4. Sant Gadgebaba Amravati University,
    Through its Vice-Chancellor,
    Amravati.                                                     ... RESPONDENTS

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Ms. Deepali Sapkal, Advocate for the petitioner.
 Shri I. J. Damle, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
 Shri J. B. Kasat, Adv. for the respondent No.4.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                  CORAM:-    
                                             SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK &
                                                 ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.

DATED :-

19/06/2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.)

2 J-WP-1284-15.odt

By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order

of the Scrutiny Committee dated 20/10/2014 invalidating the claim of

the petitioner of belonging to Kunbi caste (Other Backward Class).

The petitioner has secured admission on a seat meant

for the Other Backward Classes in the respondent No.3 - College and

the caste claim of the petitioner was referred to the Scrutiny Committee

for verification. The Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim of

the petitioner by the order dated 20/10/2014. The petitioner has

challenged the said order in the instant petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the Scrutiny Committee was not justified in rejecting the caste claim of

the petitioner without giving due weightage to the old documents of the

pre-independence era. it is stated that the caste of the great grand-

father of the petitioner was recorded as Kunbi in the oldest documents

but without giving due weightage to the said documents, the recent

entries recorded in the caste column in some of the documents

pertaining to the relatives of the petitioner, the caste claim of the

petitioner was invalidated. It is submitted by taking this Court through

several documents tendered by the petitioner before the Scrutiny

Committee that the caste of the petitioner is Kunbi. It is submitted that

though the vigilance report also favoured the petitioner, the Scrutiny

3 J-WP-1284-15.odt

Committee did not consider the same. It is submitted that during the

pendency of the writ petition, a caste validity certificate is issued in

favour of the cousin of the petitioner by name Krushnaraj. It is

submitted that the family tree produced by the petitioner before the

Scrutiny Committee would clearly show that Krushnaraj Rajendra

Jadhao is the cousin of the petitioner. It is submitted that in the

circumstances of the case, a direction may be issued to the respondent -

Scrutiny Committee to issue a Caste Validity Certificate in favour of the

petitioner.

Shri Damle, learned Assistant Government Pleader

appearing for the Scrutiny Committee supported the order of the

Scrutiny Committee. It is submitted that the Scrutiny Committee has

relied on the entry "Rajput" in some of the documents pertaining to the

uncle and the other relatives of the petitioner. It is submitted that since

there was a discrepancy in the entries in the caste column in some of

the documents tendered by the petitioner, the caste claim of the

petitioner was rejected.

Shri Kasat, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4

had nothing much to say in the matter. It is submitted that an

appropriate order may be passed on the basis of the material on record.

4 J-WP-1284-15.odt

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a

perusal of the impugned order as also the documents annexed to the

writ petition, it appears that the Scrutiny Committee was not justified in

invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner. Though in the documents

pertaining to the uncle of the petitioner of the year 1968, his caste was

recorded as "Rajput", several other documents of the pre-independence

era clearly recorded the caste of the grand-father and the great grand-

father of the petitioner as Kunbi. The petitioner had tendered several

documents of the years 1931, 1932, 1933 on record show that the caste

of the grand-father and the great grand-father of the petitioner was

recorded as Kunbi in the said document. The Scrutiny Committee

unnecessarily gave undue weightage to the comparatively recent

document of the year 1967 while discarding the old entries that were

recorded in respect of the grand-father and great grand-father of the

petitioner. The old entries have greater probative value. It was therefore

necessary for the Scrutiny Committee to have given due weightage to

the old entries as compared to the recent ones of the year 1967. The

Scrutiny Committee ought to have also given due weightage to the

report of the Vigilance Cell. During the pendency of the writ petition, it

appears that a caste validity certificate is issued in favour of the cousin

of the petitioner by name Krushnaraj Rajendra Jadhao. Since the name

of Krushnaraj Rajendra Jadhao finds place in the family tree that was

produced by the petitioner before the Scrutiny Committee, it would be

5 J-WP-1284-15.odt

necessary to give some weightage to the said document while

considering the correctness or otherwise of the order of the Scrutiny

Committee. In view of the entry "Kunbi" in the old document and in

view of the issuance of the caste validity certificate in favour of the

cousin of the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition, a

direction needs to be issued to the Scrutiny Committee to issue a

validity certificate that the caste of the petitioner is Kunbi.

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is

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

Committee is directed to issue a validity certificate that the caste of the

petitioner is Kunbi, within three months. If the petitioner has paid the

fees for his education, as are required to be paid by the open category

students, the petitioner is free to take appropriate steps for recovering

the difference in the amount of fees that were paid to the college.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no

order as to costs.

                      JUDGE                                       JUDGE




 Choulwar