Panchakshari Shankerao ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9239 Bom

                                     (1)                            wp1336.15

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 1336 OF 2015
                                   WITH
                   CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12326 OF 2017

Panchakshari s/o. Shankerrao Mathapati                ..       Petitioner
Age. 53 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Sarapha Lane, Main Road, 
Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded.

                                    Versus


1.    The State of Maharashtra                        ..       Respondents
      (Through the Secretary, 
      Social Welfare Depatment,
      Mumbai.)

2.    The Scheduled Caste, Vimukta Jati, 
      Nomadic Tribe, Other Backward and
      Special Backward Category
      Divisional Caste Certificate
      Verification Committee
      (Through its Secretary) and Divisonal
      Social Welfare Officer,
      Aurangabad Divison-3 and Special
      District Welfare Officer, Latur.

3.    The Tahsildar,
      Tq. Kandhar,
      Dist. Nanded.

4.    The Principal Chief General Manager,
      Human Resource Management Department,
      Reserve Bank of India, 20th Floor,
      Central Office Building, Shahid
      Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai - 400 001.




     ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017            ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 01:18:37 :::
                                     (2)                             wp1336.15


5.    The Assistant General Manager,
      Reserve Bank of India,
      Human Resource Management Department,
      Rajaji Salai, Fort Glacis,
      Chennai - 600 001.


Mr.M.C. Swami, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.K.D. Munde, AGP for respondent/State.


                                    CORAM :  S.V.GANGAPURWALA &
                                             S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.

DATED : 30.11.2017

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER : S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J.] :-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the

consent of the parties taken up for final disposal.

2. Mr.Swami, learned advocate for the petitioner

submits that the caste claim of the petitioner as

belonging to Malajangam - Scheduled Caste is invalidated.

Four real paternal cousins of the petitioner have been

issued the validity certificate of Malajangam - Scheduled

Caste, namely, Bhagwat Mallikarjun Mathapati, Raghunath

Mallikarjun Mathapati and Surekha Mallikarjun Mathapati

(3) wp1336.15

so also Vishwanath Mallikarjun Mathapati. The caste claim

of the petitioner is rejected without considering the

validity issued in favour of the paternal cousins. The

persons to whom validities are issued as referred to

above are sons and daughter of real paternal uncle of the

petitioner. Learned Counsel submits that the validity

issued in favour of Surekha Mallikarjun Mathapati could

not be placed before the Committee.

3. The learned advocate submits that the petitioner

after decision of the Committee, could lay his hand on

the old village record, in which the grand-father's caste

is shown as Malajangam. Said record is of the year 1349

falsi. Learned advocate further submits that the

Committee has rejected the claim without considering the

documents relied in the said proceedings.

4. Learned AGP submits that the original school

record of the petitioner records the caste of the

petitioner as Jangam and not Malajangam. The validity

(4) wp1336.15

issued in favour of near relatives of the petitioner did

not inspire confidence. Same was without considering the

basic document and is rightly discarded by the Committee.

5. We have considered the submissions canvassed by

the respective parties, so also gone through the judgment

and documents produced by the petitioner.

6. The validity granted in favour of Surekha

Mallikarjun Mathapati was not before the Committee, so

also in the present writ petition, the petitioner along

with Civil Application has filed photocopy of the

document stating that in the said Pahni Nakkal, caste of

the grandfather of the petitioner is shown as Malajangam.

Said document is of 1349 fasli, equivalent to 1939. It

is for the committee to consider the admissibility and

genuineness of the said document. So also the Committee

will have to satisfy itself with regard to genealogy and

the relations who have been granted validity.

Considering that the additional evidence is produced

(5) wp1336.15

here, we feel it appropriate to remit the matter back to

the Committee.

7. Considering the above, we pass following

order :-

8. The impugned order invalidating caste claim of

the petitioner is quashed and set aside. The matter is

remitted to the Committee for decision afresh. The

petitioner is at liberty to produce additional evidence

before the Committee. The petitioner shall appear before

the Committee on 18.12.2017 and produce additional

documents on which it relies. The Committee shall

consider additional evidence produced on record and its

genuineness and if it feels proper, refer it to the

vigilance. The Committee shall after hearing the

petitioner, decide the validation proceedings afresh

expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date

of appearance of the petitioner.

(6) wp1336.15

9. The respondent-employer shall not take any

coercive action against the petitioner only on the ground

that the validation proceeding is pending. The

respondent-employer can take further course of action

depending upon the judgment that may be delivered by the

Committee in the validation proceedings.

10. Rule made partly absolute accordingly. No costs.

11. In view of disposal of the writ petition, civil

application does not survive and stands disposed of.

[S.M.GAVHANE,J.] [S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.]

snk/2017/NOV17/wp1336.15