Omsingh Gopalsingh Chavan vs Divisional/District Caste ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 671 Bom

WP   5462/17                                         1                          Judgment

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                  NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                       WRIT PETITION No. 5462/2017
Omsingh Gopalsingh Chavan,
Aged 57 years, occupation Service,
R/o C/o Kadarlavar, Near Church at 
Post Sironcha, District Gadchiroli.                                         PETITIONER

                                   .....VERSUS.....

1.    Divisional/District Caste Certificate
      Scrutiny Committee No.1, Amravati.
      Through its Secretary.
2.    Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli,
      Through its Chief Executive Officer.
3.    Agriculture Development Officer,
      Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli.                                            RESPONDENTS


                 Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, Counsel for the petitioner.
      Shri Shyam Bissa, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1.
            Shri H.A. Deshpande, counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3.


                                      CORAM :SMT.VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                    A.D. UPADHYE, JJ.                  

DATE : 18 TH JANUARY, 2018.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)

RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard

finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel

for the parties.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the

scrutiny committee, dated 11.07.2017 rejecting the claim of the petitioner

of belonging to Rajput Bhamta VJ-A.

WP 5462/17 2 Judgment

3. The petitioner was appointed on a post earmarked for VJ-A

category and his caste claim was referred to the scrutiny committee for

verification. The scrutiny committee has invalidated the caste claim of

the petitioner by the impugned order dated 11.07.2017.

4. Inter alia, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that

the impugned order is illegal and is liable to be set aside as the

scrutiny committee has not applied the affinity test and has not

considered whether the petitioner has proved his affinity to Rajput

Bhamta VJ. It is submitted that since the scrutiny committee was

not satisfied with the documents tendered by the petitioner in support of

its caste claim, it was all the more necessary for the scrutiny committee to

have considered whether the petitioner proved his affinity to Rajput

Bhamta VJ.

5. Shri Bissa, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

appearing for the scrutiny committee and Shri Deshpande, the learned

counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3, are not in a position to point out

anything in the order of the scrutiny committee to show that the scrutiny

committee had considered the vigilance report to find out whether the

petitioner could prove his affinity to Rajput Bhamta VJ.

WP 5462/17 3 Judgment

6. Since the caste claim of the petitioner was rejected as in some

of the documents the caste of the relatives of the petitioner was not

recorded as Rajput Bhamta but was recorded as Rajput, it was necessary

for the scrutiny committee to have applied the affinity test while deciding

the caste claim of the petitioner.

7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly

allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is

remanded to the scrutiny committee for deciding the caste claim of the

petitioner, afresh in accordance with law. The services of the petitioner

would remain protected till his caste claim is decided.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as

to costs.

               JUDGE                                            JUDGE

APTE