Bombay High Court
Vijay Ramrao Dhakite vs The Scheduled Tribes Caste ... on 11 January, 2018
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment wp2329.04
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 2329 OF 2004.
Vijay s/o Ramrao Dhakite,
aged about 30 years, Occupation
Service as a Lecturer in Nagar
Parishad Polytechnic Institute,
Achalpur, resident of Jijau Nagar
Paratwada, Tahsil Achalpur,
District Amravati, permanent
address at and post Pusla,
Tahsil Warud, District Amravati. ... PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. The Scheduled Tribes Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Near Irwin Chowk, Morshi Road,
Amravati, through its Member/
Secretary.
2. The Municipal Council, Achalpur,
through its Chief Officer, Achalpur,
Tahsil Achalpur, District Amravati.
3. Government Polytechnic, Achalpur
through its Principal, Nehru Maidan,
Achalpur Campus (Paratwada)
District Amravati.
4. The Secretary,
State of Maharashtra,
::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 01:02:41 :::
Judgment wp2329.04
2
Department of Technical Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
5. The Director,
Technical Education, Elphinstone
Technical High School Building 3,
Mahapalika Marg, Forth,
Mumbai 400 001.
6. The Joint Director,
Technical Education, Government
Polytechnic Campus, Gadge Nagar,
Amravati 444 603. ... RESPONDENTS
.
---------------------------------
Shri A. Deshpande, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms. A.R. Kulkarni, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 6.
Shri Amol Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2.
----------------------------------
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : JANUARY 11, 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) :
Heard Shri A. Deshpande, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Ms. A. Kulkarni, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos.1, 3 to
6 and Shri A. Patil, learned Counsel for respondent no.2.
Shri A. Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing for
petitioner while assailing order of the Scrutiny Committee dated
Judgment wp2329.04
17.05.2004, invalidating caste claim of petitioner as belonging to
"Halba Scheduled Tribe", has submitted that none of the documents
has been disbelieved, and all old documents right from the year
1949 consistently mention caste as Halba. It is pointed out to us that
the documents at Sr. Nos. 18 and 19 which are the oldest one i.e.
School Leaving Certificate and Dakhal Kharij, record caste as Halbi.
2. In this background, contention is merely because of a
finding that answers given by the petitioner during enquiry after
vigilance cell report are on bookish knowledge and without
recording any finding that traits or customs disclosed by him even in
home enquiry, are that of Halba Koshti, Special Backward Classes,
only because of existence of a sub-caste Halba in caste Koshti, is
recognized as SBC, the caste certificate has been invalidated. He has
invited our attention to some judgments to urge that when there are
documents, the documents only clinch the issue and affinity test is
not decisive.
3. The arguments are opposed by learned A.G.P. appearing
on behalf of respondent no.1 Committee and on behalf of
Judgment wp2329.04
respondent nos. 3 to 6.
4. Shri A. Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent no.2 has also opposed the petition. Learned counsel for
respondent submits that existence of sub-caste Halba in caste Koshti
and its recognition as Special Backward Class by the State
Government is not in dispute. The Committee has specifically
recorded a finding that in Vidarbha and Madhya Pradesh Region,
persons belonging to Koshti caste [sub-caste Halba] have taken
advantage of sub-caste mentioned in their records and pose
themselves as persons belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe. This
finding is not demonstrated as either erroneous or perverse by the
petitioner.
5. Shri Patil, learned counsel submits that when there are
two communities/caste by same name, documents by itself cannot
be decisive and hence, recourse to affinity test is must. He contends
that in this situation, even recourse to affinity test was not
challenged at any point of time and petitioner submitted to it. He
attempts to distinguish the judgments on which reliance has been
Judgment wp2329.04
placed by Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for petitioner.
6. Looking to the course which this Court finds necessary in
present matter to adopt, we need not comment at length on the
judgments on which reliance has been placed. Here there is a
specific finding that traits or customs disclosed by petitioner do not
match with Halba Scheduled Tribe. Thereafter, existence of caste
Koshti [sub-caste Halba], and therefore, problems created due to it,
has been looked into by the Committee, and the Committee has then
made a general observation that characteristics, customs of these
people do not resemble with that of Halba Scheduled Tribe.
7. Home enquiry was conducted on 24/26.05.2003 when
provisions of The Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes,
De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward
Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance &
Verification of) Caste Certificates Act, (Act No. 23 of 2001) were
very much in force. It appears that only questions were put to the
petitioner and answers were recorded at that juncture. The report of
Scrutiny Committee is dated 24.05.2003 and Research Officer has
Judgment wp2329.04
agreed with it on 29.05.2003. It is therefore, not clear that whether
Research Officer was with Vigilance Cell when this enquiry was
conducted.
8. The Scrutiny Committee has after receipt of the Vigilance
Cell Report called the petitioner and his parents for hearing, and
gave them opportunity. The petitioner alone attended and
submitted his say in writing. He did not adduce any evidence to
substantiate his caste claim. He stated that he has produced
sufficient documentary evidence. It appears that in written
statement then submitted, he also mentioned certain customs and
traits.
9. Disclosure of these customs and traits before it is
discarded by the Committee as "bookish knowledge", as it found that
same were not stated during home enquiry. Material or
particularly Vigilance report does not substantiate this "bookish
knowledge" finding. Merely because, a person has disclosed certain
traits or customs, it cannot be said that he proves his caste claim,
but, then for discarding traits/customs, there should have been some
Judgment wp2329.04
other reason. The traits and customs also need to be established
through proper evidence.
10. We find that after disregarding said disclosure as
bookish, the Committee has found that the petitioner could not
prove his affinity to the group of people to whom he claims to
belong. Thereafter the Committee has in paragraph no.11 [b]
pointed out availability of sub-caste Halba in caste Koshti. It has in
that paragraph also observed that characteristics, customs of these
Koshti/Halba people do not resemble with Halba Scheduled Tribe
and they do not have any ethnic linkage with Scheduled Tribe. This
mention cannot be said to be wrong. Similarly, the State
Government itself has accepted that Koshti Halba exists and they
have been given status as Special Backward Class. They are
therefore not Scheduled Tribes. But, then the Committee in its
entire order no where says that traits or customs pointed out by
petitioner match with Koshti Halba people i.e. S.B.C.
11. In this situation, taking over all view of the matter, we
find that the petitioner as also Committee needs to be given an
Judgment wp2329.04
opportunity to look into the matter once again. For this purpose
only the orders passed by the Scrutiny Committee dated
17.05.2004, impugned in this petition, is quashed and set aside.
The matter is remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee. We grant
leave to petitioner to produce necessary oral evidence in support of
traits, customs etc., to establish affinity, if he so desire as per Section
8 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-
notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward
Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance &
Verification of) Caste Certificates Act, (Act No. 23 of 2001).
12. The Committee shall accordingly extend a reasonable
opportunity to the petitioner in this respect. After granting such an
opportunity, Committee shall take fresh decision on the caste claim.
We direct the petitioner to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on
05.03.2018 and to abide by its further instructions in the matter.
The Scrutiny Committee shall attempt to complete the verification as
per law within next 6 months.
13. Needless to mention that as caste claim is pending, no
Judgment wp2329.04
steps to affect his services only because of his caste can be taken till
then. Writ Petition is thus, partly allowed and disposed of. Rule is
made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
