Nitin Shivaji Siddamwad vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 7670 Bom

kvm
                                       1/5
                                                                                WP10373.17


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION
                        WRIT PETITION NO. 10373 OF 2017
Nitin Shivaji Siddamwad                      )
Age 18 years, Occ. Student,                  )
r/o. Kosamet, Tq.Kinwat, Dist. Nanded        )   ..... Petitioner
      VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra                  )
Through Secretary,                           )
Tribal Development Department,               )
Mantralaya, Mumbai                           )

2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate           )
Scrutiny Committee,                          )
Plot No.10, Sector E-1,                      )
Near Saint Lawrence High School,             )
Opp.CIDCO Bus Stand, Aurangabad              )

3. The Competent Authority,                  )
NEET UG 2017, Mumbai                         )

4. The Dean,                                 )
Government Medical College, Latur            )

5. The Sub Divisional Officer,               )
Kinwat, Tq.Kinwat, Dist. Nanded              )

6. The Director,                      )
Medical Education and Research        )
Government Dental College and Hospital)
Near V.T., Mumbai                     )          ..... Respondents

Mr.Anil Golegaonkar, a/w. Mr.Madhur A.Golegaonkar for the Petitioner.

Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni, Advocate General, a/w. Mr.Akshay Shinde, Special
Counsel, Mr.Sandeep Babar, A.G.P. for the State.



        ::: Uploaded on - 03/10/2017               ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2017 00:57:12 :::
 kvm
                                              2/5
                                                                                        WP10373.17




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

DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER G.S.KULKARNI, J)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties heard finally.

2. By this petition filed under section 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner

challenges the order dated 2nd September, 2017 passed by the Scheduled Tribe

Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad - respondent no.2, (for short the

Committee), whereby the petitioner's claim for validity of the caste certificate

dated 1st September, 2015 of the petitioner belonging to "Mannervarlu Scheduled

Tribe" has been rejected, as also the said caste certificate is confiscated.

3. The case of the petitioner before the Committee for grant of a validity to the

Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate of the petitioner, was on the basis of about 15

documents which are referred to in paragraph (3) of the impugned order.

According to the petitioner, all these documents would indicate that not only the

petitioner but also the near relatives were belonging to the Mannervarlu Scheduled

Tribe. To note some of the documents it may be observed that the petitioner

referred to the admission extract of the petitioner's father Shivaji Channappa

Siddamwad dated 14th July, 1978 showing his caste Mannervarlu. The petitioner

kvm

WP10373.17

also placed reliance on the caste certificate issued to the petitioner's sister Manisha

Shivaji Siddamwad, as also the certificate of validity to the said caste certificate

granted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee by an order dated 2nd June, 2010.

4. The Caste Scrutiny Committee had sought a vigilance enquiry and

considering the report of the vigilance enquiry, the Caste Scrutiny Committee

observed that there were two objectionable documents viz., of one of Gajanan

S.Siddamwad, petitioner's brother in whose school leaving certificate dated 23 rd

June, 2001 though Hindu Mannervarlu was referred, however, there was some

interpolation by striking of the word "Nahvi" (barber). The second document

which was objected was of the school leaving certificate of the petitioner which

recorded the caste as Mannervarlu. However, it is observed that the name of the

petitioner's father Shivaji is written after the name of Dasharath was scored of. It

is on this premise the Caste Scrutiny Committee has rejected the caste claim of the

petitioner.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have perused the

impugned order and also the documents placed on record. It is not in dispute that

the petitioner's sister Manisha Shivaji Siddamwad was granted a validity to her

caste certificate as belonging to the Scheduled Tribe Mannervarlu by an order

kvm

WP10373.17

dated 2nd June, 2010. It is also not in dispute that there is no finding recorded by

the vigilance officer with regard to the admission extract of the petitioner's father

Shivaji Channappa Siddamwad dated 14th July, 1978 and the petitioner's father not

belonging to the Mannervarlu Scheduled Tribe. There are other several

documents which are placed on record which have not been disputed. Thus only

on the basis of above two documents, the Committee has come to the conclusion

that the claim of the petitioner is required to be rejected.

6. Having perused the impugned order as also the reasoning and the findings as

recorded, in our opinion that the Scrutiny Committee has mis-directed itself in

coming to the conclusion, only on the basis of the two documents namely, the

school leaving certificate dated 23rd June, 2001 of Gajanan, the petitioner's brother

and the school leaving certificate of the petitioner dated 24 th June, 2004 to reject

the petitioner's caste claim. The other documents could not have been be

discarded on which there was no dispute and which clearly went to show the caste

of the petitioner and his near relatives as Mannervarlu. In any event, the validity

certificate of the petitioner's sister was granted after undertaking a proper

procedure viz. vigilance report and also the affinity test being conducted and after

due verification of the documents.

kvm

WP10373.17

7. We, therefore, do not find any justifiable or cogent reason for the committee

to brush aside the undisputed position as revealed in the several documents which

were was placed on record on behalf of the petitioner.

8. In view of the above discussion, the petition needs to be succeed. We

accordingly set aside the impugned order dated 2 nd September, 2017 passed by the

Committee. We direct the Caste Scrutiny Committee to grant to the petitioner a

caste validity certificate of the petitioner belonging to the "Mannervarlu Scheduled

Tribe", forthwith, on receipt of the authenticated copy of this order. No orders.

9. Needless to say that these observations will not come into the way of the

Committee if any show cause notices are issued to the concerned relatives of the

petitioner.

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