Shri Padmakar S/O Pandhari Wagh vs The State Of Maha. Thr. Secretary, ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 920 Bom

W.P. No.4317/2017                              1

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                           WRIT PETITION NO.4317 OF 2017

Petitioner               :      Shri Padmakar s/o Pandhari Wagh,
                                Aged 52 years, Occ. Service,
                                R/o Nawle Wadi, Behind Krishna Mandir, 
                                Daryapur Road, Akot, Dist. Akola.  . 

                                -- Versus --

Respondents              :   1] The State of Maharashtra,

through its Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

2] The Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No.2, Akola, through its Member Secretary.

3] Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Akot, Akola Road, Akot, District Akola, through its Secretary.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-== Shri N.S. Warulkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri A.M. Joshi, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ

DATE : 24 JANUARY, 2018.

th

ORAL JUDGMENT :- (Per Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is heard

finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned Counsel for

the parties.

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

Scrutiny Committee, dated 06/03/2017 invalidating the claim of the

petitioner of belonging to "Kunbi" caste, which falls in the Other Backward

Classes.

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

order of the Scrutiny Committee is liable to be set aside as the Scrutiny

Committee has not referred to the caste validity certificate issued in favour of

the real brother of the petitioner. It is stated that though the said document

is mentioned in the list of documents tendered by the petitioner before the

Scrutiny Committee, there is no consideration of the said document.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the

Scrutiny Committee fairly admits that in the order of the Scrutiny Committee,

there is no discussion about the caste validity certificate issued in favour of

the real brother of the petitioner. It is stated that the caste validity certificate

of the brother of the petitioner could not have helped the petitioner in

proving his caste claim as the said validity certificate was issued under

different circumstances.

Since the Scrutiny Committee has not considered the caste

validity certificate issued in favour of the real brother of the petitioner, the

impugned order is liable to be set aside. The caste validity certificate issued

in favour of the brother of the petitioner is a weighty piece of evidence that

ought to have been considered by the Scrutiny Committee. It would not be

permissible for the Scrutiny Committee to file an affidavit-in-reply in this

Court and state that the said validity certificate could not have helped the

petitioner in proving his caste claim. It was necessary for the Scrutiny

Committee to consider the said document before invalidating the caste claim

of the petitioner.

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 Scrutiny Committee is directed

to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within eight months from the date

of appearance of the petitioner before the Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner

undertakes to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on the 20 th of February,

2018 so that issuance of notice to the petitioner could be dispensed with. Till

the caste claim of the petitioner is decided, the services of the petitioner

would remain protected. Order accordingly. No costs.

                         JUDGE                                            JUDGE 
*sdw