Santosh S/O Keshav Tirmanwar vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Its Secty., ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 658 Bom

                                               1




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                        NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR



Writ Petition No. 2368 of 2011



Petitioner              :          Santosh son of Keshav Tirmanwar, aged about

                                   43 years, Occ: service, resident of Ashutosh

                                   Niwas, VIP Road, Kinwat, District Nanded

                                   versus

Respondents             :          1)  The State of Maharashtra, through its 

Secretary, Social Welfare Department,

Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

2) The Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes,

other Backward Category, Denotified Tribes

& Nomadic Tribes Caste Certificates

Verification Committee No. 1, Amravati

Division, Amravati, through its Member-

Secretary

3) The Deputy Director of Land Records,

Aurangabad Division, Near Collector Office,

Aurangabad

Shri S. K. Pardhy, Advocate for petitioner

Shri V. A. Thakare, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondents

Coram : Smt Vasanti A Naik V. M. Deshpande, JJ

Dated : 10th March 2017

Oral Judgment (Per Smt Vasanti A Naik, J)

1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated

21.4.2011, passed by the respondent no. 2 Caste Scrutiny Committee

invalidating the claim of the petitioner of belonging to

"Yellammalawandalu" scheduled caste.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the Revenue

Department on 21.8.1990 on a post reserved for the scheduled castes. The

petitioner was promoted in due course of his service. The respondent-

employer sent the caste claim of the petitioner to the Scrutiny Committee

for verification. The Scrutiny Committee did not decide the caste claim

of the petitioner within a reasonable time and hence, the petitioner made

a representation to the Scrutiny Committee for deciding the same. In the

year 2010, a vigilance cell enquiry was conducted in the caste claim of the

petitioner and the Scrutiny Committee, on an appreciation of the

material on record, invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner by the

impugned order dated 21.4.2011. This order of the Scrutiny Committee

is challenged by the petitioner in the instant petition.

3. Shri Pardhy, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the Scrutiny Committee was not justified in invalidating the caste

claim of the petitioner by holding that the petitioner had not produced

any document prior to the year 1950 to show that the petitioner was a

resident of the concerned area. It is submitted that the petitioner had

produced the extract of the Admission Register to show that the father of

the petitioner was born in the year 1946 and he was admitted to the Zilla

Parishad School at Kinwat in the year 1955. It is submitted that the

grand- father of the petitioner was working as a labourer at Kinwat and

hence, there was no documentary evidence in respect of his grand-father.

It is submitted that the caste validity certificate is issued in favour of the

cousin brother and cousin sister of the petitioner by the Caste Scrutiny

Committee at Aurangabad. It is submitted that the Scrutiny Committee

has wrongly discarded the caste validity certificate issued in favour of the

cousins of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not proved

that he was the resident of Kinwat before the deemed date. It is

submitted that the Vigilance Cell has given a favourable report in favour

of the petitioner and according to the vigilance cell, the petitioner's caste

is "Yellammalawandalu".

4. Shri Thakare, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

supported the order of the Scrutiny Committee. It is submitted that the

petitioner had not produced any documents prior to the year 1950 to

prove that the petitioner or his parents were ordinary residents of the area

falling within the jurisdiction of the respondent no. 2-Committee. It is

stated that nothing is brought by the petitioner before the Scrutiny

Committee to point out that the father or the grand-father of the

petitioner was the permanent resident of Kinwat. It is submitted that the

caste validity certificates issued in favour of the cousins of the petitioner

were also not considered as those were granted by the Aurangabad

Committee and the cousins of the petitioner were the residents of

Nanded.

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

perusal of the documents annexed to the writ petition, we find that the

Scrutiny Committee has committed an error in invalidating the caste

claim of the petitioner. The petitioner has produced the old document of

the year 1955 to show that the petitioner's father was admitted in the

Zilla Parishad School at Kinwat in the year 1955. The said document

shows that the father of the petitioner was born in 1942. It could be

gathered from the said document that the petitioner must have been born

and brought up in Kinwat. The said document is not disputed by the

Scrutiny Committee. The said document and the other documents

tendered by the petitioner were verified by the Vigilance Cell and the

Vigilance Cell, after making an enquiry in the caste claim of the

petitioner, found that the petitioner has proved his affinity to

"Yellammalawandalu" scheduled caste. The Vigilance Cell has observed

that the petitioner belongs to the said caste. The report of the Vigilance

Cell could not have been lightly discarded by the Scrutiny Committee.

The Scrutiny Committee took an unreasonable view in the matter by

holding that the petitioner has not proved his residence at Kinwat on the

deemed date. There is material on record to show that the petitioner had

applied even for the documents of the year 1949, but the said documents

were not supplied to the petitioner, after finding that the relevant

record of the year 1949 was in a tattered condition. If the record

pertaining to the relatives of the petitioner, as claimed by the petitioner,

was in a tattered condition and the petitioner could not receive the copy

of the said record, the petitioner cannot be blamed. The petitioner has

reasonably established on the basis of the extract of Admission Register in

respect of the father of the petitioner that the petitioner's father was

resident of Kinwat on the deemed date. The two cousins of the petitioner

had received the caste validity certificate. Their caste is held to be

"Yellammalawandalu" scheduled caste by the Aurangabad Scrutiny

Committee. In the circumstances of the case, it was necessary for the

Scrutiny Committee to have validated the caste claim of the petitioner.

The Scrutiny Committee, however, erroneously rejected the caste claim

of the petitioner by holding that the petitioner had not produced the

material on record to show that the petitioner was a permanent resident

of Kinwat. In the circumstances of the case, the order of the Scrutiny

Committee cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.

The impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside.

It is hereby held that the petitioner has proved his claim of belonging to

"Yellammalawandalu" scheduled caste. The Scrutiny Committee is

directed to issue a caste validity certificate in favour of the petitioner

within two months.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as

to costs.

         V.  M.  DESHPANDE, J                             SMT VASANTI  A  NAIK, J



joshi