Bombay High Court
Harshad Narayan Thakar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 23 November, 2017
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
WP. 4062-09.doc
VPH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION No. 4062 OF 2009
Shri Harshad Narayan Thakar )
Age 26 yrs. Occ. Student / Nil, )
R/o. N.R.B.C. Quarters, )
Opp. Panchayat Samittee, )
Pandharpur, Tal. Pandharpur, )
District Solapur. ... Petitioner
V/s.
1. The State of Maharashtra )
through Secretary, )
Tribal Development Department )
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. )
2. The Committee for Scrutiny )
and verification of Tribes Claim, )
Through Deputy Director (Research), )
Pune Division, Pune. )
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, )
(Revenue), Madha Division, )
Kurudwadi, District Solapur. )
4. The Commissioner of Police, )
Solapur Commissionerate, )
District Solapur. ... Respondents
***
Mr. Ramchandra Kanu Mendadkar a/w Mr. Tanaji Jadhav for the
Petitioner.
Mr. S.B. Kalel, A.G.P. for the State-Respondent Nos.1 to 4.
***
1 / 11
::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2017 14:24:04 :::
WP. 4062-09.doc
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : NOVEMBER 17, 2017
PRONOUNCED ON : NOVEMBER 23, 2017
JUDGMENT [PER : MANISH PITALE, J.]
1. On 25.2.2008 the Scrutiny Committee passed an order
rejecting claim of the Petitioner holding that his caste certificate was
invalid. Aggrieved by the same, Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.
5833 of 2008 before this Court. On 15.10.2008, a Division Bench of
this Court considered the contentions of the Petitioner, particularly the
emphasis placed by the Petitioner on the fact that caste validity
certificate had been granted in favour of his sister by the Committee
earlier on 4.3.2005. It was also noted by this Court that the caste
validity certificate had been granted to the Petitioner's sister on merits
and that this was a strong proof, supporting claim of the Petitioner. It
was also observed by this Court that an anomalous situation would be
created where two siblings would be held to be belonging to different
tribes or castes. In this situation, by order dated 15.10.2008, a
Division Bench of this Court set aside order of the Scrutiny
2 / 11
WP. 4062-09.doc
Committee and remanded the matter back for consideration.
2. Upon remand, it was expected that the Scrutiny
Committee would take into account the observations of Division
Bench of this Court while deciding the claim of the Petitioner. The
Petitioner not only placed the validity certificate dated 4.3.2005
granted in favour of his sister, but he also placed other documents in
support of his case, including document dated 2.1.1915 pertaining to
his grand-father, which mentions his caste as Thakar. Yet the Scrutiny
Committee passed its order dated 31.12.2008 holding that claim of the
Petitioner as belonging to Scheduled Tribe - Thakar, was invalid and
consequently it cancelled and confiscated the caste certificate dated
8.1.2001 issued in favour of the Petitioner. While dealing with the
validity certificate dated 4.3.2005 issued in favour of the sister of the
Petitioner, the Scrutiny Committee observed that each case was to be
decided on its own merits. The said order dated 31.12.2008 passed by
the Scrutiny Committee is the subject matter of challenge in this writ
petition.
3. The Petitioner herein is aggrieved by order of Respondent
No. 2 - The Committee for Scrutiny and verification (for short "the
3 / 11
WP. 4062-09.doc
Scrutiny Committee") dated 31.12.2008 whereby even after remand
by this Court, the Scrutiny Committee has again held that the caste
certificate of the Petitioner as belonging to the Scheduled Tribe is
invalid. The Petitioner claims that the validity certificate already
granted in favour of his sister, which has attained finality, has not been
taken into account in proper perspective by the Scrutiny Committee
while passing the impugned order dated 31.12.2008.
4. It is case of the Petitioner that he belongs to the
Scheduled Tribe - Thakar in respect of which the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Madha division, Kurduwadi, district Solapur had issued a
caste certificate in his favour on 8.1.2001, on the basis of which he
had appeared and he was selected in the office of Respondent No. 4 on
the post of constable. But the Petitioner could not be appointed in
pursuance of the said selection process in the absence of the validity
certificate from the Respondent - Scrutiny Committee.
5. The Petitioner had submitted his caste certificate before
the Respondent Scrutiny Committee, and on 5.2.2008 the Scrutiny
Committee informed the Petitioner that some further documents were
required, in pursuance of which the Petitioner appeared before the
4 / 11
WP. 4062-09.doc
Scrutiny Committee on 17.2.2008 and submitted his written
explanation.
6. Mr. R. K. Mendadkar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Scrutiny Committee was not
justified in passing the impugned order, invalidating the caste
certificate of the Petitioner, when sister of the Petitioner had been
granted caste validity certificate by order dated 4.3.2005 passed by the
Scrutiny Committee itself. It was contended that the Scrutiny
Committee ought not to have taken a different view in the case of the
Petitioner because the relationship between the Petitioner and his
sister was not disputed. It was further contended that under the garb of
deciding each case on its own merits, the Scrutiny Committee could
not have taken a different view in the case of the Petitioner. He
further relied upon judgment of this Court in the case of Ashwini Vilas
Chavan, Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Respondents 1
which emphasises on the necessity of upholding caste / tribe claims of
close blood relations on the paternal side.
7. On the other hand, Mr. S. B. Kalel, learned AGP
1 2017 (3) Mh.L.J. 953
5 / 11
WP. 4062-09.doc
appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that the impugned
order passed by the Scrutiny Committee was justified and that the
Petitioner failed to prove his caste / tribe claim.
8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and perused the record. We find that the
relationship between the Petitioner and his sister is of significance in
the present matter because sister of the Petitioner has been already
granted a caste validity certificate dated 4.3.2005 by the Scrutiny
committee itself, categorically upholding her claim of belonging to
Scheduled Tribe - Thakar. The genealogy of the Petitioner, which was
on record before the Scrutiny Committee, is as follows:
Namdeo Lakshman Thakar
(father)
_______________________________|_____________________________
| | | |
Narayan Thakar Maruti Thakar Vitthal Thakar Hanmant Thakar
| | | |
1. Hemlata 1. Subhash 1. Santosh 1. Prasad
2. Manisha 2. Sham 2. Sunita 2. Aarati
3. Asha 3. Sudhir 3. Surekha 3. Niranjan
4. Harshad
(Petitioner)
9. The above stated genealogy of the family is not disputed
by the Respondents. It is also not the case of the Respondents that the
6 / 11
WP. 4062-09.doc
caste validity certificate issued in favour of sister (Manisha) of the
Petitioner on 4.3.2005 was obtained on the basis of fraud / fabrication.
The caste / tribe claim of siblings and close blood relations on the
paternal side has to be uniform, as it appears in the present case. In
fact, it is only logical that uniformity is to be maintained insofar as the
decisions regarding caste / tribe claims of persons belonging to the
same family are concerned. A person inherits caste / tribe from the
paternal side and if genealogy of the family is not in dispute and the
record shows that caste validity certificates have been issued to close
blood relations on the paternal side, which have attained finality, there
is no reason why claims made on the basis of such validity certificates
cannot be granted. It would be a travesty if the claim of each and
every blood relation is put to scrutiny and verification by the Scrutiny
Committee repeatedly despite caste validity certificates of close blood
relations available on record. It would be in the interest of the
verification process if such caste validity certificates of close blood
relations are relied upon and caste validity is granted, otherwise it
would be sheer waste of precious judicial time to keep on verifying
claims of close blood relations one after the other.
7 / 11
WP. 4062-09.doc
10. This Court on earlier occasions has held that when caste
validity certificate is granted on proper scrutiny to close blood
relations, it ought to be relied upon while verifying the caste / tribe
claim of other blood relations of paternal side. A Division Bench of
this Court has taken note of series of judgment and orders of this
Court while emphasising on uniformity in upholding caste / tribe
claim of near blood relations in the case of Ashwini Vilas Chavan,
Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Respondents 2 , to which
one of us (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) was a member and it has been held as
follows:
"Conclusion
"11. Strikingly, the legal and the constitutional rights,
benefits, the concessions and the relaxation are well
recognized. The genuine cases are required to be concluded
so also the un-genuine cases. The caste claim cases cannot
be decided stubbornly by clinging to the routine and stereo
type reasons. Once the committee validate the caste
certificate / claim, it binds not only the claiming person but
to the future generations of the whole family. All the
concerned are bound by the law of binding precedents
including the committee. The facts based caste claims need
to be decided keeping in mind the provisions of law and the
Judgments on the connected issues. The copies of the
judgments / orders are required to be placed on record of the
committee by the concerned parties. The committee to pass
2 2017 (3) Mh.L.J. 953
8 / 11
WP. 4062-09.doc
the final order promptly so that future and further
consequential action arising out of it be complied with at the
earliest. The committee in no case deny the caste claim by
disregarding the law and the judgments. The scope and
power of the committee is very limited while deciding such
issues when there is no case of fraud or misrepresentation
made out from the record. The judgments so referred above
have concluded that the paternal side relatives' caste validity
certificate, unless quashed and set aside, must be relied
upon. The State and / or the concerned authority is required
to issue such circulars as observed in Sanjay Bajirao More
and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.3, to avoid delay
and physical and mental harassment to the concerned
persons who are seeking such caste certificates. This would
also avoid unnecessary litigation / conflicts with the State
and the related authorities when it comes to deciding the
rights flowing from the State reservation policy."
Thus, it is clear that when caste validity certificates have been granted
to close blood relations on the paternal side, the claims of other close
relations ought to be upheld. It is only in cases where the earlier caste
validity certificates of close blood relations are shown to have been
obtained by fraud / fabrication, a detailed scrutiny and verification of
the claims is required to be undertaken. The other situation in which
further inquiry and verification would be necessary is - where the
genealogy is disputed and it is found that there is any falsity or error in
the genealogy brought on record. In the absence of any such objection
3 2015 (6) Mh. L.J. 822
9 / 11
WP. 4062-09.doc
raised, the caste validity certificates of close blood relations on the
paternal side are required to be accepted for granting validity to
subsequent claims.
11. In the instant case, even on the earlier occasion, in order
dated 15.10.2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 5833 of 2008, while
remanding the matter to the Scrutiny Committee, this Court had
emphasised on the necessity to take into consideration the caste
validity certificate granted in favour of the Petitioner's sister, and it
was clearly stated that an anomalous situation, where siblings have
different castes, cannot be contemplated. But the Respondent Scrutiny
Committee, even after remand of the matter, has failed to take into
consideration the said document in the proper perspective. The
Scrutiny Committee has not found any material which would suggest
that the caste validity certificate dated 4.3.2005 issued by the same
Scrutiny Committee had been obtained on the basis of fraud or
fabrication. The Scrutiny Committee has also not found any material
which would demonstrate any false assertion or error in the genealogy
on record. Therefore, the impugned order dated 31.12.2008
invalidating the caste certificate of the Petitioner is rendered erroneous
10 / 11
WP. 4062-09.doc
and wholly unsustainable.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in the following
terms:
(a) The impugned order dated 31.12.2008 passed by Respondent
No. 2- Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside.
(b) The Scrutiny Committee shall issue caste validity certificate in
favour of the Petitioner within four weeks on production of an
authenticated copy of this order.
(c) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
[MANISH PITALE, J.] [ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.]
Vinayak Halemath
11 / 11
