Milind Dyaneshwar Ingley vs Committee For Scrutiny & ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 343 Bom

    Judgment                                                        wp3390.02


                                        1


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                              NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR



                       WRIT PETITION  NO.  3390 OF 2002.


        Milind s/o Dyaneshwar Ingle,
        Aged about    Yr., Occupation Education,
        resident of at IUDP Colony at Washim,
        District Washim.                      ...             PETITIONER.


                                     VERSUS 


1.      Committee for Scrutiny and
        Verification of Tribe Claim,
        Amravati.

2.      Principal,
        Zilla Shikshan Parishikshan
        Sanstha, Akola,
        Akola.

3.      Commissioner,
        Maharashtra State Education Board,
        Pune.                            ...            RESPONDENTS
                                                                   .


                           ---------------------------------
                  Shri N.R. Saboo, Advocate for Petitioner.
          Ms. N.P. Mehta, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent No.1.
              Shri A. Parchure, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
                         Respondent No.2 - Served.
                          ----------------------------------




    ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2018                 ::: Downloaded on - 18/01/2018 01:06:53 :::
  Judgment                                                               wp3390.02


                                        2


                                         CORAM :    B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
                                                    MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : JANUARY 11, 2018

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) :

Heard Shri N.R. Saboo, learned counsel for the petitioner,

Ms. N.P. Mehta, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1 and Shri A.

Parchure, learned Counsel for respondent no.3.

2. Petitioner claims to be belonging to 'Thakur Scheduled

Tribe.' It appears that his certificate dated 23.11.2000, showing the

same, has been invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee on

20.07.2002.

3. Though Shri Saboo, learned counsel for petitioner has

raised some other contentions and we have heard learned A.G.P.

also on it, we find it not necessary to burden this order with those

contentions.

4. Petition has been allowed to be amended on 07.08.2017.

Judgment wp3390.02

Petitioner has brought on record a validity given to one Shri

Bhagwat Dattatraya Ingle by the Scrutiny Committee at Aurangabad

in Case No.DD/TCSC/PBN/SER/SSD/4623/96/418 dated

09.04.2003. That document has been added as part of Annexure-

A12 and it is at page no. 55(I) of the Writ Petition. Shri Saboo,

learned counsel has drawn our attention to page no. 55-A to show

that there vigilance enquiry was also conducted on 29.04.1999.

5. Learned A.G.P. submits that there is no family tree made

available for perusal of this Court and this Court therefore, cannot

accept those documents which are coming up on record for the first

time. She further adds that veracity of those documents including

Vigilance Cell enquiry is still not ascertained. She adds that after

amendment, though instructions are sought, instructions are still not

received as claim of Bhagwat Dattatraya Ingle has been validated

by another Committee.

6. After hearing the respective learned counsel for the

parties, we find that in view of the validity placed on record, the

Committee has to verify whether said persons Shri Bhagwat

Judgment wp3390.02

Dattatraya Ingle is related to present petitioner, and whether after

proper procedure validity has been given to him. Therefore, at this

stage and in this jurisdiction, we cannot look into the rival

contentions and embark upon the exercise of verifying the

documents or rival contentions in relation thereto.

7. Petitioner approached this Court and at that juncture he

had taken admission to Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) Course. By

interim orders passed by this Court on 16.08.2004, directions has

been given to declare his result of that examination. It is obvious that

this declaration of result is subject to result of this adjudication.

8. Hence, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated

20.07.2002 passed by the Scrutiny Committee and restore the

matter back to its file. The petitioner to appear before the Scrutiny

Committee on 12.03.2018 and abide by its further instructions in the

matter.

9. The Committee shall evaluate the validity given to

Bhagwat Dattatraya Ingle and its impact on present adjudication, as

Judgment wp3390.02

per law. This exercise shall be completed within next six months.

Declaration of result of D.Ed., examination shall be subject to said

adjudication by the Scrutiny Committee. 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.