Ankita Arun Ingle vs Chairman / Commissioner, And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 7564 Bom

PVR                                       1/16                                               wp10424-17.doc


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                           Writ Petition NO. 10424 OF 2017

Ankita Arun Ingle.                                                                 ...Petitioner

        Versus

1. Chairman/Commissioner, Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amaravati Division,
Amravati.

2. Directorate of Medical Education and Research Cet
Cell.

3. Maharashtra University of Health Science, Nashik

4. Dean, Dr.Ulhas Patil Medical College & Hospital,
Jalgaon.                                                                           ...Respondents
                                     ---

Mr A. P. Kamlegh, for the Petitioner. 

Mr  A.A.  Kumbhakoni,  Advocate  General   a/w Mr.Shardul  Singh,  Special 
Counsel and Mr.Sandeep Babar, AGP for the State-Respondents.
                                  ----

                                     CORAM :  SHANTANU KEMKAR &
                                              G. S. KULKARNI, JJ.

                                     DATE :         SEPTEMBER 26, 2017

                              ---
ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per G.S.Kulkarni, J.)

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the

parties.

PVR 2/16 wp10424-17.doc

2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 2

September 2017 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny

Committee (for short 'the Scrutiny Committee') by which the caste

certificate of the petitioner belonging to Thakur scheduled tribe in the

State of Maharashtra has been invalidated.

3. The petitioner had obtained a caste certificate dated 30 May

2014 of the petitioner belonging to Thakur Scheduled Tribe, issued by the

competent authority/Sub-Divisional Officer, Buldana. The petitioner

through the educational institution in which she was pursuing her studies

had made a proposal for verification of her tribe claim as forwarded to the

scrutiny committee. Alongwith the said proposal, the petitioner had

submitted number of documents which are referred in paragraph 2 of the

impugned order numbering to about 61. The documents which were

submitted, contained some pre-constitution documents being the birth

extract of the great grandfather, extract of school admission register of the

cousin grandfather etc. which are listed out at Sr.Nos.11, 12, 13 and 14.

Apart from these documents, the petitioner also submitted for

consideration of the scrutiny committee, the caste certificates and the

caste validity certificates issued in favour of the near relatives of the

petitioner namely petitioner's uncle, real sister and cousins of the

PVR 3/16 wp10424-17.doc

petitioner. The following are the details of the caste validity certificate

issued to these relatives of the petitioner as also referred in paragraph 2 of

the impugned order:-

Sr.no. Nature of              Name                 Caste             Date of       Relation with the
       documents                                   recorded          admission/bir applicant
                                                   as                th/death
1       A order copy of Chatarsingh                Thakur            25.2.1989          Parental uncle
        Divisional      Narayan Ingle
        Commissioner
        Amravati
        Division
2       Certificate of        Praful Anirudha Thakur                 21.11.2013         Cousin
        validity, issued      Ingle                                                     brother
        by Amravati
        Committee
3       Certificate of        Vaishali             Thakur            24.10.2013         Cousin
        validity, issued      Chatarsing                                                sister
        by Amravati           Ingle
        committee
4       Certificate of        Rupali               Thakur            16.5.2014          Cousin
        validity, issued      Chatarsing                                                sister
        by Amravati           Ingle
        Committee
5       A copy of             Rupali               Thakur            9.4.2014           Cousin
        Hon'ble High          Chatarsing                                                sister
        Court Writ            Inglle
        Petition
        No.2505/2005

The Caste Scrutiny Committee considered the proposal of the petitioner as

also the documents as placed on record and by the impugned order the

Scrutiny Committee has come to a conclusion that the petitioner has failed

in the affinity test, as also the caste validity certificate granted in favour of

the petitioner's Uncle Chatarsing also cannot be considered as at the

PVR 4/16 wp10424-17.doc

relevant time, the vigilance and the affinity tests were not conducted,

when the validity was granted to the caste certificate obtained by the

petitioner's uncle Chatarsing. The Scrutiny committee observed that as

the petitioner has interalia failed in the affinity test, and that some cousins

of the petitioner as are denied a validity to their caste certificates by an

order dated 31 January 2017 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, it

was thought it appropriate to reject the proposal to grant validity to the

caste certificate of the petitioner.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in assailing the impugned

order has made the following submissions:-

(i) It is submitted that there was sufficient material on record, as

placed on record before the Scrutiny committee, which was in the nature

of pre-constitution documents as also the caste validity certificates issued

in favour of the petitioner's near relations, which ought to have been

considered by the Scrutiny Committee in the proper perspective.

(ii) It is submitted that validity certificates came to be granted to the

cousin sisters of the petitioner namely Vaishali and Rupali, the petitioner's

cousin brother Praful as also to uncle Gajanan in pursuance of the orders

passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2506 of 2005 (Nagpur), Writ

Petition No.2505 of 2005 (Nagpur), Writ Petition No.1661 of 2009

PVR 5/16 wp10424-17.doc

(Nagpur), Writ Petition No.1822 of 2002 (Nagpur), these facts could not

have been brushed aside by the Scrutiny Committee. It is submitted that

thus there were four orders of the Division Bench of this Court which

considered the documents which are also subject matter of the petitioner's

proposal and thought it proper to set aside the orders passed by the caste

scrutiny committee. That the Special Leave Petition filed by the

respondent against the orders passed in case of petitioner's cousin sisters

Vaishali and Rupali and cousin brother Praful have also been dismissed by

the Supreme Court, and that the orders passed by this Court have attained

finality.

(iii) It is submitted that the impugned order does not record any reasons

as to why the validity certificates which have been granted under the

orders passed by this Court, would not be relevant and cannot be the

subject matter of consideration.

(iv) It is submitted that in the case of the cousins of the petitioner

namely Rupali, Vaishali and Praful as also in the case of Gajanan - uncle of

the petitioner, proper procedure was followed including inviting a report

of the vigilance cell and conducting the affinity test and these issues were

subject matter of consideration before the different benches of this Court

in the writ petitions filed by these relatives, which ultimately have

succeeded. It is submitted that the respondents are not in a position to

PVR 6/16 wp10424-17.doc

demonstrate in any manner that there was any fraud or misrepresentation

or that the committee had no jurisdiction, when the caste validity

certificate came to be granted to the cousins of the petitioner as also the

uncle of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of

his submission has placed reliance on the orders passed by the Division

Bench of this Court in the said Writ Petitions filed by the near relations

which in his submission takes into consideration the law as laid down in

the decision of this Court in "Apoorva Vinay Nichale Versus Divisional

Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 & others1.

5. On the other hand, the learned Special Counsel for the

respondent would support the impugned order. The following submissions

are canvassed to contest this petition.

(i) It is submitted that the finding of the committee is correct to the

effect that the caste validity certificate granted to Chattersing-uncle of the

petitioner could not have been relied as at the relevant time there was no

procedure of an affinity test or calling for the report of vigilance cell, and

therefore, the caste certificate of Chattersing being the foundation for

grant of caste validity certificates to the cousins of the petitioner namely

Rupali, Vaishali, Praful and uncle - Gajanan would not be of any

relevance.

1 2011(2) BCR 824 





 PVR                                        7/16                                               wp10424-17.doc


(ii)      It is submitted that in the present case the petitioner has failed in 

the affinity test and therefore the orders passed by the Division Bench of

this Court in respect of the cousins of the petitioner would not be relevant

as the case is required to be considered on the facts as they appear before

the committee.

(iii) It is then submitted that two other cousins of the petitioner as noted

by the scrutiny committee in paragraph 7 of the order have been rejected

validity to their caste certificates by the orders dated 31 January 2017,

and therefore there is nothing inappropriate or erroneous on the part of

the scrutiny committee to come to a conclusion to reject the claim of the

petitioner for validity of the caste certificate.

It is on these grounds on behalf of the respondents, the

impugned order is sought to be sustained.

6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and with their

assistance we have perused the impugned order, the documents as placed

on record as also the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in

Writ Petition No.2506 of 2005, Writ Petition No.2505 of 2005, Writ

Petition No.1661 of 2009 and Writ Petition No.1822 of 2002.

7. At the outset we may observe that this is a peculiar case

PVR 8/16 wp10424-17.doc

inasmuch as the very same material had fell for consideration of the caste

scrutiny committee in the proceedings which were undertaken on behalf

of the petitioner's three cousins and one uncle Gajanan. The genealogy as

set out and placed on record of the scrutiny committee is not in dispute.

It is also not the case of the respondents that these documents were not

part of the proceedings before the earlier committee and all these persons

belong to the same family. What is glaring is that the four Division

Benches of this Court had an occasion to consider the decisions of the

caste scrutiny committee refusing the validity to the caste certificates of

the petitioner's near relatives and considering the documents which are

placed on record before the Court, the Division Bench of this Court in all

these four proceedings reached a conclusion that the decision of the caste

scrutiny committee invalidating the caste certificate was not sustainable

and that in each of these cases, the scrutiny committee was directed to

issue caste validity certificate to the said relations of the petitioner

belonging to the Thakur Scheduled Tribe. We may note the relevant

observations of this Court in each of these orders, which read thus:-

In the order passed in Writ Petition No.2506 of 2005 "Vaishali

Chatarsing Ingale (Thakur) vs. The Committee for Scrutiny and Verification

of Tribe Claims & Ors."2 of the cousin sister of the petitioner, the Division

Bench has observed thus:-

2 2014(1) All Mr 78





 PVR                                        9/16                                               wp10424-17.doc

"4. We have considered the submissions of the parties. The Government Resolution dated 22.08.2007 lays down that if the validity certificate is issued by the Appropriate Authority in favour of any blood relation from father's side, then there is no need to demand any other document and the Scrutiny Committee should complete the enquiry within one month.

5. In the judgment reported in 2011(2) BCR 824 (Apoorva Vinay Nichale Versus Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 & others), identical issue fell for consideration of this Court and the Division Bench has considered it in paragraph 9 as follows ... ... .."

6. It is an admitted fact that the caste claim of Shri.Chatarsing Narayan Ingale, the father of the petitioner, as "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe is validated by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Ammravati, by the order dated 25.02.1989, who was the Appellate Authority at that time. The above referred order of the Additional Commissioner validating the caste claim of the father of the petitioner has become final. It is not the case of the respondent no.1-The Scrutiny Committee that the caste certificate and the order validating the caste certificate have been obtained by the father of the petitioner by fraud or misrepresentation.

.... .... ...

8. We are of the considered opinion that the impugned decision of the respondent no.1-The Scrutiny Committee is unsustainable in law and is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Government of Maharashtra in the Government Resolution dated 22.08.2007 and is contrary to the judgment of this Court, reported in 2011(2) BCR 824 (Apoorva Vinay Nichale Versus Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 & Others). Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned decision of the respondent no.1-The Scrutiny Committee is quashed. The respondent no.1-The Scrutiny Committee is directed to take into consideration the Government Resolution dated 22.08.20077 and the law laid down by this Court in the judgment reported in 2011(2) BCR 824 (Apoorva Vinay Nichale Versus Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 & Others). Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned decision of the respondent no.1- The Scrutiny Committee is quashed. The respondent no.1- The Scrutiny Committee is directed to take into

PVR 10/16 wp10424-17.doc

consideration the Government Resolution dated 22.08.2007 and the law laid down by this Court in the judgment reported in 2011(2) BCR 824 (Apoorva Vinay Nichale Versus Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 & Others) and to furnish the Caste Validity Certificate to the petitioner."

In the order passed in Writ Petition No.2505 of 2005

"Ku.Rupali d/o.Chatarsing Ingale (Thakur) vs. The Committee for Scrutiny

and Verification of Tribe Claims & Ors."3 of the cousin sister of the

petitioner, the Division Bench has observed thus:-

"5. It is not in dispute that initially on 25 th February 1989 the petitioner's father was granted validity of belonging to Thakur Scheduled Tribe. In proceedings initiated for verification of the petitioner's sister's claim, the matter was referred to the Vigilance Cell and thereafter order dated 21st March 2005 came to be passed by the Scrutiny Committee. This order dated 21 st March 2005 has been set aside by this Court in Writ Petition No.2506 of 2005. It is to be noted that insofar as the claim of the petitioner's sister is concerned, there has been a report of the Vigilance Cell after which said sister has been held entitled to the grant of validity certificate. We find that in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Apoorva Vinay Nichale (supra) the petitioner is also entitled to grant of validity certificate of belonging to Scheduled Tribe. Moreover, the order dated 21 st March 2005 impugned in the present Writ Petition is identical to the order that was passed in the case of the petitioner's sister and the same has been set aside.

6. Hence, considering the view taken by this Court in Writ Petition no.2506 of 2005 and the fact that on 24 th October 2013 the Scrutiny Committee has issued a validity certificate to the petitioner's sister, we set aside the order dated 21st March 2005 passed by the respondent no.1-

Scrutiny Committee. It is declared that the petitioner belongs to Thakur Scheduled Tribe. She is, therefore, 3 Writ Petition no.2505/05 decided on 9.4.2014 (Nagpur Bench)

PVR 11/16 wp10424-17.doc

entitled to be issued a validity certificate on the same terms on which it has been issued to her sister-Vaishali. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (a). Respondent No.1 Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue validity certificate to the petitioner of belonging to Thakur Scheduled Tribe within a period of three weeks from today. No order as to costs."

In the order passed in Writ Petition No.1661 of 2009 "Praful

s/o.Aniruddha Ingle vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors."4 of the cousin

brother of the petitioner, the Division Bench has observed thus:-

"6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties and have examined the record with their assistance. It is not the case of the Caste Scrutiny Committee that the documents of February,1929, 7 th August,1941, 1st July,1929, 21st July,1937 and 2nd April,1956 are not genuine or are fabricated. The documents of 1923, 1929, 1941 and 1937 are pre- constitution documents and have more evidentiary value as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and others reported in 2011(5) Mh.L.J. 919. The reason, as given by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in the impugned order for not relying on the above referred documents that though the documents show the caste as "Thakur", none of the documents show the caste as "Thakur" Schedule Tribe is fallacious. The tribe "Thakur" was not recognized as Schedule Tribe in the pre-constitution era inasmuch as the The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 itself came into existence in 1951.

... ... ... ...

8. The petitioner has further submitted that the caste certificate of Shri.Chhatarsingh Narayan Ingle, the cousin uncle of the petitioner has been validated by the order dated 28th February,1989 by the Divisional Commissioner, the then Competent Appellate Authority. The Caste Scrutiny Committee has not disputed the validity certificate issued in favour of said Chhatarsingh. In case of Apoorva Vinay Nachale V/s. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others reported in 2011(2) BCR 824 the Division Bench of this Court in para 9 has laid down as

4 Writ Petition 1661/2009 decided on 10.10.2013

PVR 12/16 wp10424-17.doc

follows:- .. .. .. ..

9. Considering the pre-constitution documents on the record and the fact that the caste certificate of the cousin uncle of the petitioner is validated by the Competent Appellate Authority and the fact that the Caste Scrutiny Committee is not disputing this factual position, we are of the view that the caste certificate of the petitioner could not have been invalidated.

10. In view of the above, the impugned decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee is unsustainable and has to be quashed.

11. The Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee is quashed. The Caste Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue the caste validity certificate to the petitioner certifying that the petitioner belongs to "Thakur" Schedule Tribe within four weeks."

In the order passed in Writ Petition No.1822 of 2002

"Gajanan Tukaram Ingle vs. The Committee of Scrutiny and Caste

Verification of Tribe Claims, Amraoti & Ors."5 of the petitioner's uncle, the

Division Bench has observed thus:-

"5. Since the claim of 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe in respect of blood relations i.e. petitioner's cousin, namely, Chatarsingh has been validated by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, as also the nieces of the petitioner, who are the daughter of Chatarsingh, namely Vaishali and Rupali, have been granted validity certificates in view of the order passed by Division Bench of this Court and in view of authoritative pronouncement in Apoorva Nichale's case (Supra), in our considered view, the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs claimed. Hence, the following order:-

ORDER

(i) The impugned order dated 19.11.2001 passed by the Scrutiny Committee is hereby quashed and set aside.

(ii) The respondent no.1-Scrutiny Committee is directed to furnish caste validity certificate in favour of the petitioner in view of the law laid down by this Court in Apoorva Nichale's case (supra), within a period of four

5 Writ Petition 1822/2002 decided on 21.07.2017

PVR 13/16 wp10424-17.doc

weeks.

(iii) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs."

8. It is thus significant that in each of the above judgments this

Court not only considered the documents but also considered the well

settled principles in law in regard to the procedure to be followed by the

scrutiny committee, and in that view of the matter, directed the caste

scrutiny committee to grant caste validity certificate, to the petitioner's

relatives.

9. Learned Special Counsel for the respondents is not in a

position to point out that the cases of the cousins of the petitioner and

and the uncle of the petitioner, were such cases where affinity test or

vigilance inquiry as necessary under the Rules, was not undertaken. We

made a specific query in this regard as also called upon the learned

counsel for the respondents to show that this procedure was not

undertaken in these three cases. Learned Special Counsel for the

respondents was unable to point out any material to make good the

submission that these cases would stand differently from the case in hand.

10. We are also not impressed with the submissions as urged on

behalf of the respondent that the case of the petitioner's uncle

PVR 14/16 wp10424-17.doc

Chattersingh, was not relevant inasmuch as when the validity came to be

granted to the caste certificate of Chattersingh, the procedure of affinity

test and vigilance cell inquiry was not undertaken and the same were not

the part of the rule at that point of time. We have perused the

observations of the caste scrutiny committee in the impugned order which

refers only to the case of Chattersingh, to come to a conclusion that as

affinity test and vigilance cell inquiry was not conducted in the case of

Chattersingh, the orders granting validity to the caste certificate of

Chattersingh, cannot sustain the claim of the petitioner. When these

observations are made, it is clear that the committee has completely given

a go-by to the procedure followed by the Scrutiny committee in the case of

the three cousins and uncle Gajanan, of the petitioner, where all the

necessary steps were undertaken and a proper and valid procedure was

followed. The submission that the caste validity certificate issued to

Chattersing ought to be discarded would also not impress us for another

reason namely Chattersingh had approached the authorities in the year

2012 for reverification of the orders passed by the scrutiny committee

dated 19 December 1988. The said application of the Chattersingh was

rejected by maintaining the order dated 19 December 1988 as passed by

the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division where the appeal of

Chattersingh was allowed granting him validity to the caste certificate

PVR 15/16 wp10424-17.doc

belonging to Thakur Scheduled Tribe. It is also not the case of the

respondents that the decision dated 19 December 1988 of the caste

scrutiny committee was at any time challenged by the respondent in

appropriate proceedings so as to contend that they would not be relevant

and that the said order is in any manner upset.

11. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that

the observations which are made by the caste scrutiny committee in the

impugned order are too general as also casual to overlook the overall

material which had emerged on the record of the Scrutiny committee,

including the orders passed by this Court in the Writ Petitions as referred

above, filed by the near relatives of the petitioner. The caste scrutiny

committee has also overlooked the law as laid down in the decision of this

Court in " Apoorva Vinay Nichale Versus Divisional Caste Certificate

Scrutiny Committee No.1 & others (supra) wherein in paragraph 9 the

Court has observed thus:-

"Para 9: ..................The matters pertaining to validity of caste have a great impact on the candidate as well as on the future generations in many matters varying from marriage to education and enjoyment (employment), and therefore, where a committee has given a finding about the validity of the caste of a candidate another committee ought not to refuse the same status to a blood relative who applies. A merely different view on the same facts would not entitle the committee dealing with the subsequent caste claim to reject it. There is, however, no doubt as observed by us earlier that if a committee is of the view that the earlier certificate is obtained by fraud it

PVR 16/16 wp10424-17.doc

would not be bound to follow the earlier caste validity certificate and is entitled to refuse the caste claim and also in addition initiate proceedings for cancellation of the earlier order. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the petition must succeed. Rule is made absolute in above terms. The Caste Scrutiny Committee is directed to furnish the caste validity certificate to the petitioner."

12. It also cannot be overlooked that there were pre-constitution

documents which were placed on record of the caste scrutiny committee

as noted above. Those documents are not in any manner disputed. There

is no discussion to disbelieve these documents, but still the caste scrutiny

committee felt it appropriate to reject the validity to the caste certificate of

the petitioner. This was certainly not appropriate and is not acceptable.

13. In view of the above deliberation, we are certain that this

petition needs to be allowed. We accordingly set aside the impugned

order dated 2nd September, 2017 passed by the Scrutiny Committee and

direct the Scrutiny Committee to forthwith, issue to the Petitioner a caste

validity certificate, of the Petitioner belonging to the "Thakur Scheduled

Tribe", on receipt of an authenticated copy of this order.

14. The petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.

         (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)                        (SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.)