Bombay High Court
Pundlik Mahadeo Kumbhare vs State Of Maharashtra & Another on 11 January, 2018
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment wp3354.02
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3354 OF 2002.
Pundlik s/o Mahadeo Kumbhare,
Aged Major, Occupation Service,
resident of Block No.11, Maharana
Pratap Nagar, Yavatmal. ... PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Social Welfare
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 400 032.
2. The Chairman,
Caste Verification Scrutiny Committee,
Amravati.
3. Registrar,
Amravati University, Amravati.
4. Principal,
Shri Sant Gajanan Maharaj
College of Engineering at Shegaon,
Tq. Shegaon, District Buldhana. ... RESPONDENTS
.
---------------------------------
Shri V.G. Wankhede, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms. A.R. Kulkarni, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2018 01:07:26 :::
Judgment wp3354.02
2
Shri M.M. Sudame, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
Mrs. U.A. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
----------------------------------
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : JANUARY 11, 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) :
Heard Shri V.G. Wankhede, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Ms. A. Kulkarni, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and
2, Shri M.M. Sudame, learned Counsel for respondent no.3 and Mrs.
U.A. Patil, learned Counsel for respondent no.4.
2. By this petition, petitioner father is challenging the
orders passed by respondent no.2 Scrutiny Committee invalidating
caste claim of his son Abhijit. Submission of Shri Wankhede,
learned counsel for petitioner is, when there were several documents
showing caste as Halbi, only on the basis of two documents caste
claim could not have been disbelieved. He further adds that even
affinity test has not been properly applied. Petitioner specifically
pointed out that surnames, characteristics of caste cannot be taken
Judgment wp3354.02
into consideration while deciding the caste claim, as the same are
likely to change in due course of time. He submits that this
explanation submitted by the petitioner ought to have been
accepted.
3. He has also invited our attention to the orders passed by
this Court on 16.05.2008, by which as son of petitioner had passed
final year B.E. Examination from Amravati University, direction was
issued to issue him a Degree Certificate. Our attention is also drawn
to order dated 14.11.2011, by which respondent no.4 College was
directed to issue a transfer certificate. He submits that on the
strength of interim orders granted by this Court, son of petitioner
has completed his education and hence a lenient or humanitarian
view of the controversy should be taken.
4. Learned A.G.P. submits that in the present situation,
when vigilance cell has got two documents in which caste has been
recorded as Koshti, and one of them is pre-constitution document,
the argument of petitioner cannot be accepted. Petitioner has not
explained those documents. Old documents mentioning caste as
Judgment wp3354.02
Halbi, becomes doubtful because of these two documents and
hence, affinity test was applied. Petitioner avoided to face it by
contending that such the test cannot be said to be relevant in
modern times.
5. Shri Sudame, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent no.3 submits that as caste certificate is invalidated, son
of petitioner cannot be permitted to continue with the degree, as it is
obtained by playing fraud. He submits that when this Court
directed issuance of Degree certificate, the same has been made
subject to outcome of this petition. He supports arguments of
learned A.G.P.
6. Mrs. Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4
also supports the arguments of learned A.G.P. and Shri Sudame.
She submits that the degree certificate cannot now survive and
needs to be confiscated. It is further submitted that the son of
petitioner has to reimburse the fees as open category student to
respondent no.4.
Judgment wp3354.02
7. Without prejudice to the contentions raised above, in
brief reply Shri Wankhede, learned counsel for petitioner submits
that there is no question of paying any fees or balance fees to
respondent no.4 in present matter.
8. After hearing respective counsel, we find that the
petitioner relied upon several documents to substantiate his caste
claim as belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe. Documents at Sr.Nos.
8 and 9 dated 25.10.1933 and 18.06.1942, are the old documents.
Vigilance enquiry was conducted and though vigilance authorities do
not find anything wrong with these documents, then came across
two documents in which caste has been recorded as Koshti or Halbi
Koshti. Scrutiny Committee has mentioned in its order and it is not
in dispute that in Koshti caste there is a sub-caste by name Halba or
Halbi. People belonging to this sub-caste are not treated as
Scheduled Tribes and State of Maharashtra has conferred upon them
a status of Special Backward Category. The Committee in this
backdrop, after a doubt raised, has looked into the customs and
traits. Vigilance enquiry was also conducted. The report of
Vigilance Cell was not disputed by the petitioner at all. On the
Judgment wp3354.02
contrary he came up with an excuse that the traits or customs in
modern times have lost their relevance. The committee has
considered this and has also found that Koshti documents have
remained unexplained. Even before this Court, petitioner has not
disputed the document dated 25.06.1946, in which caste of Namdeo
Deogi has been recorded as Halbi Koshti. Said person is real brother
of grand father of the candidate/petitioner. In other document of
15.07.1959 case of Kalavati Waman has been recorded as Koshti.
She is paternal aunt of petitioner. Petitioner has not disputed either
the relationship or then contents of this document. Petitioner could
have given some explanation if the caste mentioned in this
document was incorrect. Opportunity was given to him by the
Committee, but, he has not take any such pains.
9. Committee in the backdrop of these facts has specifically
came to the conclusion that petitioner is taking advantage of same
nomenclature i.e. Halbi, which is found in Halbi sub-caste of Koshti
and Halbi Scheduled tribe.
10. In this situation we do not see any jurisdictional error of
Judgment wp3354.02
perversity. No case is made out warranting intervention. Writ
Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
11. Consequently, the son of petitioner - Abhijit has to return
the Degree Certificate released to him/issued to him because of
interim orders of this court dated 16.05.2008. Similarly, if any
difference in tuition fee is recoverable from him by respondent no.4
College, he has to also pay back that amount to respondent no.4.
12. We accordingly direct petitioner and son of petitioner to
contact respondent nos. 3 and 4 by 28.02.2018 and to return the
Degree Certificate and also to pay balance fees. If he fails to obey
this order, it is open to respondents to file appropriate court
proceedings/ recovery proceedings against him as per law. Rule
discharged. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
