Ku. Priyanka Gopalrao Godbole vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 937 Bom

W.P. No.3728/2011                              1

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

                           WRIT PETITION NO.3728 OF 2011

Petitioner               :      Ku. Priyanka Gopalrao Godbole,
                                Aged 18 years, Occu. Student,
                                Resident of At and Post Benoda,
                                Taluka Warud, District Amravati.
       . 

-- Versus --

Respondents              :   1] State of Maharashtra,
                                through its Secretary, 

Ministry of Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400032.

2] Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny No.1, Amravati Division, Amravati.

3] Yeshwantrao Chavan College of Engineering, Hingna Road, Wanadongri, Nagpur, through its Principal.

4] Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur, through its Registrar.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-== Shri N.C. Phadnis, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri A.M. Joshi, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Shri P.D. Meghe, Advocate for the Respondent No.3. Shri B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Respondent No.4. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ

DATE : 24 JANUARY, 2018.

th

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

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

Scrutiny Committee, dated 21/04/2011 invalidating the claim of the

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

Classes.

When this writ petition was heard, it was noticed by this Court

that the vigilance inquiry was not properly conducted and the Vigilance

Officer did not make an inquiry, whether the persons to whom the caste

validity certificates were granted and with whom the petitioner claims a

relationship are the blood relatives of the petitioner or not. We had therefore

directed the Scrutiny Committee that a vigilance inquiry may be conducted in

the aforesaid matter. In pursuance of our direction, the vigilance inquiry was

conducted and in the report dated 02/01/2018, the Vigilance Cell has

observed that the persons to whom the caste validity certificates were issued

and on the basis of which the petitioner had claimed the caste validity

certificate were the relatives of the petitioner from the paternal side.

Since a report favourable to the petitioner is prepared by the

Vigilance Cell on 02/01/2018, instead of deciding the issue pertaining to the

caste claim of the petitioner in this petition, it would be necessary to remand

the matter to the Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim of the

petitioner afresh on the basis of the vigilance report, dated 02/01/2018. It

would be necessary for the Scrutiny Committee to look into the vigilance

report, dated 02/01/2018 and consider 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 Scrutiny

Committee is directed to decide the caste claim of the petitioner as early as

possible and positively within six months from the date of appearance of the

petitioner before the Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner undertakes to

appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 12th of February, 2018. Rule is

made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

                         JUDGE                                         JUDGE 
*sdw