Bombay High Court
Suresh S/O Arjun Mandaogade vs State Of Mah.Rural Dev.Dept. & 2 ... on 11 January, 2018
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
wp(s).3257.02
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 3257/2002
* Suresh s/o Arun Mandaogade
Aged about 46 years, occu: service
R/o Ramnagar Ward, Tukdoji Chowk
Gadchiroli,Tah. and Dist. Gadchiroli. .. ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) State of Maharashtra
Rural Development Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai -400 032
Through Government Pleader,
High Court of Judicature at Mumbai
Bench at Nagpur.
2) Chief Executive Officer
Zilla Parishad ,Gadchiroi
Tahsil and Dist: Gadchiroli
3) Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee
for SC/JBNT/OBC/SPC. SBC Caste Scrutiny Committee
Plot no.143, C/o Dande,
Shivaji Nagar Nagpur. ..RESPONDENTS
...............................................................................................................................................
Mr. A.M. Sudame, Adv. for petitioner
Mr. Amit Chutke, AGP for respondent no.1
Mr. J.S.Mokadam, Adv. for respondent Nos. 2 & 3
................................................................................................................................................
CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED: 11th January, 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, J.)
1. By means of present petition, the petitioner who is a retired employee,
has challenged the order dated 16/20th August 2002, whereby the respondent no.3-
::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 01:00:16 :::
wp(s).3257.02
2
Scrutiny Committee invalidated his caste claim as belonging to "Gadilohar" caste. The
petitioner further challenged the order dated 31.5.2003 passed by the Chief Executive
Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli, thereby reverting the petitioner from the post of
Superintendent to the post of Senior Assistant.
2. The petitioner claims to belong to "Gadilohar" Nomadic Tribe. He was
appointed as a senior Clerk through Employment Exchange in Zilla Parishad,
Gadchiroli on 15.2.1984. The claim of the petitioner was sent to the Scrutiny
Committee by the respondent-employer, for scrutiny and verification. His claim was
invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee on the ground that the documents produced by
petitioner were of 'Khati' caste and not 'Gadilohar' (NT). The order of suspension was
issued by respondent no.2 as he failed to prove his caste claim. So also the petitioner
was not considered for promotion. On the contrary he was reverted from the post of
Superintendent to the post of Senior Assistant.
3. Mr. Sudame. learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that
the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee is illegal and erroneous inasmuch as the
Scrutiny Committee has not considered that the castes 'Gadilohar' and 'Khati' are
synonymous and one and the same community. It was submitted that the Scrutiny
Committee has passed the order in violation to the guidelines issued in the case of
Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, reported in, AIR 1995 SC 94.
Mr.Sudame invited our attention to the Government Resolution dated 23rd June, 2008
::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 01:00:16 :::
wp(s).3257.02
3
which demonstrates that Lohar, Gadilohar, Ghisadlohar and other sub-tribes are one
and the same. Hence, it was prayed that caste validity certificate be issued in favour of
the petitioner.
4. Mr.Chutke, learned AGP contended that the order passed by the
Scrutiny Committee is proper and the Scrutiny Committee has rightly come to the
conclusion that the petitioner does not belong to 'Gadilohar' caste.
5. After hearing both sides and on a careful perusal of the order passed
by the Scrutiny Committee, it is noticed that the said order is not passed as per the
guidelines laid down in well-known case of Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner,
(supra). In Madhuri Patil's case in para 12, guidelines are laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court, more particularly guideline No. 5, which reads as under :-
"(5) Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of
Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in overall charge and such
number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims.
The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place
from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration
to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The
vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the
social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the
case may be. He also should examine the school records, birth
registration,if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the
candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have
knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report
::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 01:00:16 :::
wp(s).3257.02
4
to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in the pro
forma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar
anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of
marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by
the concerned castes or tribes or tribal communities etc. "
6. We are of the view that as per the guidelines in Madhuri Patil's case,
the Vigilance Cell has not been constituted and the Scrutiny Committee has not
referred the matter to the Vigilance Cell, to investigate into the social status claim of the
petitioner. It is further noticed that no affinity test is conducted by the vigilance cell and,
as such, no report is called for from the Vigilance Cell by the Scrutiny Committee.
Thus, the impugned order is vitiated for non-observance of the procedure laid down
for issuance of social status claim certificate.
7. For the reasons recorded herein-above, we are of the considered view
that the matter needs to be remitted back to the Scrutiny Committee for decision
afresh, in the light of the guidelines laid down in Madhuri's case (supra) and the
Government Resolution dated 23.06.2008. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is partly allowed.
(ii) The order dated 16/20th August, 2002 passed by the respondent no.3-
Committee is hereby quashed and set aside.
wp(s).3257.02
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the Respondent no.3-Committee for a
fresh consideration in accordance with law, within a period of six months from
the date of appearance of the petitioner.
(iv) The parties to appear before the Respondent-Committee on 12th
February,2018.
(v) Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
