Bombay High Court
Narendrakumar Bhimrao Nalawade vs The Divisional Caste Scrutiny ... on 29 November, 2017
Bench: S.C. Dharmadhikari
Sknair 1/13 wp-2987-13.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2987 OF 2013
1) Narendrakumar Bhimrao Nalawade,
Age: 40 Years, Occ. Service,
R/o M.S.E.Supply Co. Ltd., Quarter No.12,
Pag Power House, Chiplu, Tal. Chiplun,
Dist. Ratnagiri. .. Petitioner
V/s.
1) The Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee,
Opposite Power House Ratnagiri.
2) The Maharashtra State Electricity Supply
Company Ltd., Divisional Office Ratnagiri.
3) The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents
......
Mrs. Indrayani M. Koparkar for Petitioner.
Mr. B.V. Sawant, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 & 3.
Ms. A.R.S. Baxi for Respondent No.2.
......
CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND
SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 22nd NOVEMBER, 2017.
PRONOUNCED ON : 29th NOVEMBER, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per SMT.BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.):
1. The petitioner, an employee of the Maharashtra
Sknair 2/13 wp-2987-13.doc
State Electricity Supply Company Limited claiming to be
belonging to "Vadar" Vimukta Jatis (A) has approached to
this Court challenging the order passed by the Divisional
Caste Scrutiny Committee No.2, Ratnagiri. The Committee
has invalidated the claim of the petitioner as belonging to
caste "Vadar" and cancelled the Caste Certificate issued by
Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chiplun, Ratnagiri on
03.03.1999.
2. The grievance of the petitioner in the present
petition is that the Committee has not considered the
documents produced by the petitioner and has invalidated
the certificate of caste "Vadar" granted in his favour only on
the ground that he has not produced any proof prior to
1961. The claim of the petitioner was forwarded to the
Divisional Caste Committee for verification and in support of
the claim the petitioner had produced documentary evidence
in form of documents reflecting the caste as "Vadar" issued
in his favour, in favour of his father and parental cousin. He
also submitted a genealogical tree in form of affidavit and
Sknair 3/13 wp-2987-13.doc
certificate issued by Chairman Chiplun Nagar Parishad
certifying that he belongs to caste "Vadar" and he is resident
of State of Maharashtra.
For the purpose of verification of the claim of the
petitioner, the Committee conducted an inquiry through
vigilance cell and the report of the vigilance cell was
forwarded to the Committee on 4th January, 2012. However,
according to the Committee, the vigilance cell did not reveal
any information on the caste of the petitioner or his place of
residence and therefore, the said report was not considered
by the Committee. The petitioner was supplied the copy of
the vigilance cell and he was asked to offer his comments on
the same. However, according to the Committee, the
petitioner did not submit any response thereto. The
Committee thereafter conducted the proceedings on various
dates and the petitioner was called for hearing. The
Committee passed the impugned order on 8 th November,
2012 by observing that the petitioner has not adduced any
evidence or tendered any document to demonstrate that his
ancestors were residing in State of Maharashtra prior to 21 st
Sknair 4/13 wp-2987-13.doc
November, 1961 nor has produced any document in relation
to his caste and on this limited ground the Respondent No.1
Divisional Caste Verification Committee No.2 invalidated the
claim of the petitioner as belonging to caste "Vadar"
(Vimukta Jatis).
3. We have heard learned counsel Mrs. Indrayani M.
Koparkar for petitioner and Shri Sawant learned Assistant
Government Pleader on behalf of the State Government. On
the earlier date of hearing, we had asked Mr. Sawant
learned AGP to produce the record of the proceedings
before the Respondent No.1 and accordingly Shri Sawant
has produced the record. The counsel for the petitioner
submitted before us that Respondent No.1 Committee did
not apply its mind to the claim of the petitioner in proper
perspective and rejected the claim on solitary ground that
the petitioner has failed to produce any evidence to
demonstrate that the petitioner and his fore-fathers were
resident of State of Maharashtra prior to 1 st May, 1961.
According to the learned counsel, the documents produced
Sknair 5/13 wp-2987-13.doc
by the petitioner clearly reflects the caste as Vadar [Vimukta
Jatis (A)] and he claims that he is resident of Village Allore,
Tal. Chiplun, District Ratnagiri and she relied upon the tax
receipt from Chiplun Nagar Parishad, Chiplun to
demonstrate that the petitioner is resident of said place.
She also placed reliance on Ration Card issued in favour of
the petitioner by the Tehsildar Chiplun. The counsel for the
petitioner would submit that the petitioner was not afforded
an opportunity to respond to the vigilance inquiry report and
the Committee proceeded with the verification process
without taking into consideration the response of the
petitioner. The petitioner submits that the vigilance report
supported the caste of the petitioner. It reflects that, on
inquiry it is found that the father of the petitioner is resident
of Chiplun since 55 years and there are approximately 150
houses of persons belonging to "Vadar" caste and the said
inquiry report further mentions that the inquiry reveals that
caste of the petitioner is "Vadar". However, the Committee
rejected the vigilance report and in turn did not entertain
the claim of the petitioner. The counsel for petitioner relies
Sknair 6/13 wp-2987-13.doc
on a validity certificate issued in favour of cousin Hanumant
Rajaram Nalawade issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee,
Ratnagiri on 20th January, 2009 validating the claim
belonging to "Vadar". According to the learned counsel for
the petitioner, Hanumant Rajaram Nalawade is cousin
brother of the petitioner and she would argue that since the
blood relative of the petitioner is granted the validity
certificate, by applying the principle laid down by the
Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, Bench at Nagpur, in
Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale V/s. Divisional Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1, Nagpur and
others, reported in [Mah.Law Journal 401 2010(6)], the
petitioner is entitled for validity certificate of caste 'Vadar'.
4. Learned AGP Shri Sawant referred to the
affidavit filed by the Research Officer Divisional Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee filed on 26th June, 2013 in
response to the petition. According to learned AGP Shri
Sawant, the petitioner has failed to prove his caste claim as
well the factum of residence of his fore-fathers in State of
Sknair 7/13 wp-2987-13.doc
Maharashtra prior to 21st November, 1961 and according to
him, on this ground the Committee has rejected the claim of
the petitioner. Shri Sawant, learned AGP invited our
attention to Rule 14 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes,
De notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribes, Other
Backward Classes & Special Backward Category (Regulation
of Issuance & Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012
to submit that if the claim for De notified Tribes (Vimukta
Jatis) Nomadic Tribes is to be granted, candidate should
submit the proof of permanent residence in regard to State
of Maharashtra with regard to a deem date and for De
notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), the said date is prior to 21 st
November, 1961 and since the petitioner did not adduce any
evidence to demonstrate that his fore-fathers are resident of
State of Maharashtra prior to 21 st November, 1961,
therefore, the claim of the petitioner is rejected.
5. On perusal of the impugned order dated 8th
November, 2012 and record produced before us, we note
that the Respondent No.1 Committee has not considered the
Sknair 8/13 wp-2987-13.doc
documentary evidence produced by the petitioner reflecting
caste as "Vadar". It is also noted by us that the documents
produced by the petitioner before the Committee are the
documents of his own self, his brother, his father. However,
none of the documents are of the pre-constitutional era and
are recent, the earliest one being of 1972 which is extract of
his own service book. Petitioner has relied upon the school
leaving certificate of his brother which is of the year 1987
and caste certificate issued in favour of his cousin of the
year 1985. None of the documents are prior to 21 st
November, 1961 and in our view the Committee was justified
in not taking them into consideration. However, the record
of the Respondent No.1 Committee reveals acceptance of
one document which is certificate of validity issued in favour
of one Hanumant Rajaram Nalawade by the Divisional Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.2, Ratnagiri,
Maharashtra State. The said document states that
application of Hanumant Rajaram Nalawade dated 20 th
January, 2009, was placed before the verification Committee
in the meeting held on 23rd April, 2010 and the Committee
Sknair 9/13 wp-2987-13.doc
has verified and scrutinized the caste claim and certified
that the certificate of Shri Hanumant Rajaram Nalawade
dated 19.01.1990 is found to be correct and Shri Hanumant
Rajaram Nalawade belongs to Vadar caste which is Vimukta
Jati. The order sheet of the Committee reflects that on
30.12.2012 the affidavit containing the genealogical tree and
the school leaving certificate of Shri Baliram Nalawade
alongwith caste validity certificate in favour of Hanumant
Nalawade was produced before the Committee and on the
same date the hearing of the claim was closed by the
Committee. However, perusal of the impugned order does
not reflect any consideration of this document by the
Respondent No.1 Committee.
6. Perusal of the impugned order dated 8th
November, 2012 discloses that the claim is rejected on the
ground that the petitioner has failed to produce any
document showing that the petitioner and his fore-fathers
were resident of State of Maharashtra prior to 21 st
November, 1961. Validity certificate produced by the
petitioner in respect of Shri Hanumant Rajaram Nalawade
Sknair 10/13 wp-2987-13.doc
and as per the affidavit produced by the petitioner before
the Committee disclosing his genealogical tree, Hanumant
Rajaram Nalawade is the cousin brother of the petitioner
Narendrakumar Nalawade whose father Bhimrao is real
brother of Rajaram i.e Hanumant's father. Learned AGP
invited our attention to another affidavit dated 16 th August,
2012 filed by the petitioner before the Scrutiny Committee
giving the genealogical tree and in the said document Shri
Tukaram Nalawade i.e grand father of the petitioner is
shown to have three sons namely Rajaram, Babu and
Bhimrao. Mention of Babu as son of Tukaram is absent in
the affidavit dated 03.10.2011. However, as far as the fact
of Rajaram and Bhimrao being two brothers and petitioner
and Hanumant being cousins, however, there is no variance.
7 Since, the petitioner has produced a vital
document in support of his claim, namely the validity
certificate issued by the Divisional Caste Scrutiny
Committee, Ratnagiri in favour of Hanumant Rajaram
Nalawade, the cousin of the petitioner and the same was not
Sknair 11/13 wp-2987-13.doc
considered by the Committee while deciding the claim of the
petitioner, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter
back to the respondent No.1 Committee to re-examine the
claim of the petitioner in light of the certificate of validity in
favour of the Hanumant Rajaram Nalawade, cousin of the
petitioner. If the petitioner is able to establish his blood
relationship with Hanumant Rajaram Nalawade, as he
claims so, the said document would be of vital importance in
deciding the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner has also
not submitted his reply to the vigilance cell inquiry report
which was forwarded to him and he was asked to submit his
reply to the said report and we feel it expedient and in the
interest of justice to afford an opportunity to the petitioner,
who can submit his reply to the vigilance cell report and the
Committee should accept and consider the same.
8 The petitioner is an employee of the Maharashtra
State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and the
impugned order is dated 8th November, 2012 and while
issuing notice on the petition filed by the petitioner, this
court had granted interim relief to the effect that the
Sknair 12/13 wp-2987-13.doc
employment of the petitioner be not terminated on the basis
of impugned order dated 8th November, 2012. The said
interim order dated 1st July, 2013 passed by this court is in
operation and the services of the petitioner are not
disturbed.
In such circumstances, we feel it appropriate to
direct the respondent No.1 Committee to decide the claim of
the petitioner by taking into consideration the reply which
would be submitted by the petitioner to the vigilance cell
report, which is directed to be submitted within a period of
four weeks. The Committee is directed to decide the matter
afresh by taking into consideration the said reply and also
taking into consideration the certificate of validity in favour
of Hanumant by affording an opportunity to the petitioner to
establish his relationship to the holder of the said certificate
by presenting himself before the Committee. The
Respondent No.1 Committee should complete the entire
process of verification of the claim of the petitioner within a
period of three months from the date of communication of
this order.
Sknair 13/13 wp-2987-13.doc
9 In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The
claim of the petitioner as belonging to Vadar (Vimukta Jatis)
is remanded back to the Respondent No.1 Committee and
Committee is directed to decide the claim of the petitioner in
the light of aforesaid observations within, a period of three
months. Needless to say that the interim protection granted
by this court on 1 st July, 2013 to the effect of not terminating
of the service of the petitioner on the basis of impugned
order will remain in force till the decision of the Committee
and for a period of four weeks thereafter, in the
consequence of the Committee's order being adverse to the
petitioner. In deciding the claim afresh as directed, the
Committee shall not be influenced by the observations in the
impugned order, which we have set aside.
(SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
