Ku. Hira D/O Panjabrao Dahilkar ... vs Zilla Parishad, Wardha Through ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3336 Bom

 1906WP1202.15-Judgment                                                                         1/4


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

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 1202   OF    2015


 PETITIONER :-                        Ku.Hira   D/o.   Panjabrao   Dahilkar,   Meden
                                      Name, Sau. Hira Ramchandra Yeskar, Aged
                                      about 36 years, Occ. Service, R/o. Jagdamba
                                      Mata   Colony,   Ward   No.6,   Karanja   Ghadge,
                                      District Wardha. 

                                         ...VERSUS... 

 RESPONDENTS :-                  1) Zilla   Parishad,   Wardha,   Through   it's   Chief
                                    Executive Officer.
                                 2) The   Education   Officer   (Primary),   Zilla
                                    Parishad, Wardha. 
                                 3) The   Divisional   Caste   Scrutiny   Committee
                                    No.1,   Nagpur  Division,   Nagpur   through   its
                                    Member Secretary. 

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Mr. P. B. Patil, counsel for the petitioner.
           Mr. P. D. Meghe, counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
    Mr. K.L.Dharmadhikari, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent No.3.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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

DATED : 19.06.2017

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 05/02/2015 invalidating the claim of the

petitioner of belonging to Nhavi Banjara (Vimukta Jati).

1906WP1202.15-Judgment 2/4

2. The petitioner was appointed on a post meant for the

vimukta jatis and her caste claim was referred to the scrutiny committee

for verification. Since the caste claim of the petitioner was rejected

without granting an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence in

support of her caste claim, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition

No.1182 of 2011. The said writ petition was partly allowed and the

scrutiny committee was directed to decide the caste claim of the

petitioner within six months after granting an opportunity to the

petitioner to lead evidence. After this court partly allowed the writ

petition on 14/07/2011, the petitioner was permitted to examine some

witnesses and cross-examine some others. It is the case of the petitioner

that the last witness was cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner on

14/08/2013. It is stated that after the evidence was tendered by the

petitioner and some of the employees of the school were examined, the

petitioner was not granted an opportunity of hearing. It is submitted

that after the evidence was recorded in pursuance of the order in Writ

Petition No.1182 of 2011, dated 14/07/2011, it was necessary for the

scrutiny committee to have called the petitioner for hearing so that the

petitioner could have showed cause in respect of the alleged

interpolation/over writing on certain documents. It is the case of the

petitioner that after the evidence of the witnesses was recorded, it was

incumbent on the part of the scrutiny committee to have afforded an

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

1906WP1202.15-Judgment 3/4

3. Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned Assistant Government

Pleader for the scrutiny committee submitted, by referring to the

affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the scrutiny committee that since

this court had directed the scrutiny committee to permit the petitioner

to tender evidence, the scrutiny committee had permitted the petitioner

to do so. It is however fairly admitted that it does not appear from the

affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the scrutiny committee that the

petitioner was heard after the evidence of the parties.

4. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears

that after the matter was remanded to the scrutiny committee, four

witnesses were examined. The petitioner had examined certain

witnesses and had also cross-examined some others. If the scrutiny

committee wanted to rely upon the evidence of the witnesses to

invalidate the caste claim of the petitioner, it was necessary for the

scrutiny committee to have granted an opportunity to the petitioner to

explain as to why the evidence of the four witnesses should not have

been accepted. After the evidence was tendered, it was necessary for

the scrutiny committee to have afforded an opportunity of personal

hearing to the petitioner so that the petitioner could have shown cause

as to why the evidence of the witnesses should not be accepted. Since

an opportunity was not granted to the petitioner to do so, the impugned

order is liable to be set aside.

1906WP1202.15-Judgment 4/4

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

allowed. The impugned order of the scrutiny committee is quashed and

set aside. The matter is remanded to the scrutiny committee for

deciding the caste claim of the petitioner afresh on merits after hearing

the petitioner. The petitioner undertakes to remain present before the

scrutiny committee on 17/07/2017 so that issuance of notice to the

petitioner could be dispensed with. The interim relief granted in favour

of the petitioner on 05/03/2015 would continue to operate till the caste

claim of the petitioner is decided. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid

terms with no order as to costs.

                        JUDGE                                            JUDGE 


 KHUNTE