Pratibha D/O Baliram Dasare vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 7675 Bom

kvm
                                       1/5
                                                                           WP10363.17final




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION
                        WRIT PETITION NO. 10363 OF 2017
Pratibha d/o Baliram Dasare
Age 18 years, Occ. Student
r/o Telangwadi, Post. Osmannagar,
Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded                             ..... Petitioner
      VERSUS
1.    The State of Maharashtra
      Through Secretary
      Tribal Development Department
      Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2.    The Scheduled Tribe Certificates
      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,
      Sinhgad Dental College & Hospital Pune.
5.    The Sub Divisional Officer,
      Kandhar, Tq. Kandhar, 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.M.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 00:57:13 :::
 kvm
                                              2/5
                                                                                    WP10363.17final


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

DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2017

ORAL JUDGEMENT: (Per G.S. Kulkarni, J.)

Rule. Returnable forthwith. By consent of the 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, by which the

petitioner's claim for a validity to be granted to the caste certificate of the

petitioner belonging to the "Mannervarlu Scheduled Tribe" as issued to the

petitioner by the competent authority, has been rejected and the caste certificate

confiscated.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the

petitioner's father Baliram Anandrao Dasare, petitioner's uncle Sanjay Anandrao

Dasare, petitioner's cousin uncle Hanmant Jaywanta Dasare and the petitioner's

cousin brother Subhash Sahebrao Dasare have been granted caste validity

certificate as belonging to Mannervarlu, Scheduled Tribe. The details of the same

are as under :-

 kvm

                                                                                             WP10363.17final


      Sr.      Name of the        Name   on   the  Relation with      Entry of         Date 
      No        Document          document         the Petitioner      caste

      1.     Validity Certificate Baliram         Father            Mannervarlu    19/10/2011
                                  Anandrao Dasare
      2.     Validity Certificate Sanjay Anandrao  Uncle            Mannervarlu    11/08/2010
                                  Dasare
      3.     Validity Certificate Hanmant         Cousin Uncle      Mannervarlu    09/11/2010
                                  Jayavanta 
                                  Dasare
      4.     Validity Certificate Subhash         Cousin   cousin  Mannervarlu     17/12/2009
                                  Sahebrao Dasare Brother

4. The contention as urged on behalf of the petitioner is that in passing the

impugned order these caste validity certificates are brushed aside by the Caste

Scrutiny Committee, only for the reason that, there is a school admission extract

dated 5th June, 1969 of one Sitaram Keroji Dasare who is stated to be in the

relation (Bhavaki) of the petitioner showing the caste as 'Manurwar'. It is stated

that there are two other documents as set out at serial nos. 2 and 3 as referred in

paragraph (7) of the impugned order pertaining to Uttam Marotrao Dasare and

Manohar Maruti Dasare which shows the caste of the said persons as "Manurwar".

The Committee in the light of these documents has concluded that the petitioner's

claim for grant of a validity to the caste certificate of the petitioner belonging to

the Mannervarlu Scheduled Tribe, cannot be granted.

5. We have perused the impugned order and more particularly the reasons as

recorded by the Committee, in deciding issue no.3, which is in regard to the

kvm

WP10363.17final

validity certificate issued in favour of the said relatives of the petitioner, as relied

by the petitioner to support her claim. We find that the Scrutiny Committee has

not given any acceptable or cogent reason to disregard the grant of the said

validity certificates and to conclude that the validity certificates which are issued

to these near relatives cannot be accepted. There are no findings recorded by the

Scrutiny Committee that the said validity certificates are obtained by the said near

relatives of the petitioner, by suppressing any documents or by fraud or that the

Committee had no jurisdiction to issue the caste validity certificates. It is merely

because some stray material pertaining to one Sitaram, Uttam and Manohar is

revealed, in the vigilance report which in any case was disputed by the petitioner,

the committee nonetheless thought it appropriate to brush aside the caste validity

certificates granted to the father of the petitioner, two uncles and a cousin brother.

When the petitioner disputed these documents as revealed in the vigilance enquiry,

the Scrutiny Committee was required to decide the issue. However in the absence

of any material to show that these documents were relevant to the petitioner's case

the Scrutiny Committee proceeded to reject the petitioner's claim.

6. We cannot accept this approach of the Committee and more particularly

when plentiful material was available on record and which also was considered to

be acceptable in grant of caste validity certificates by the Caste Scrutiny

kvm

WP10363.17final

Committee, to the said near relatives, after following a due procedure. In the

absence of any proved contra material and any discussion in regard to any flaw in

the vigilance enquiry as undertaken in the case of the petitioner's father,

petitioner's cousin brother, the reasoning of the Scrutiny Committee to disbelieve

the documents relied by the petitioner cannot be accepted. In these circumstances,

we are of the opinion, that consistent with our view, as taken by us in deciding in

Writ Petition (St) No.25740 of 2017 decided on 25 th September, 2017, we need to

allow this petition.

7. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 2nd September, 2017

passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and direct the Caste Scrutiny Committee

to forthwith issue caste certificate to the petitioner as belonging to the

'Mannervarlu Scheduled Tribe', on receipt of authenticated copy of this order. No

costs.

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