Bombay High Court
Gajendra Shrikrishna Nandanwar vs State Of Mah. Thr.Secty. And ... on 25 January, 2018
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
WP3820.02.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3820 OF 2002
* Gajendra s/o Shrikrishna Nandanwar,
Aged about years,
Occupation-Student,
Resident of Saramaspura, Achalpur,
Taluka Achalpur, District-Amravati. .. Petitioner
VERSUS
1] The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Tribal
Welfare Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2] The Scheduled Tribes Caste
Certificates Scrutiny Committee,
Adiwasi Bhavan, Giripeth,
Nagpur. .. Respondents
...........................................................................................................................
None for the petitioner,
Mrs. A.R. Kulkarni, AGP for the respondents.
...........................................................................................................................
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : JANUARY 25, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, J.)
1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the
Scrutiny Committee dated 31.5.1999 invalidating the caste claim of the
petitioner.
::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2018 23:52:49 :::
WP3820.02.odt 2
2. The petitioner was a student at the relevant time and he claims
that he belongs to 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe, which is recognised as
Scheduled Tribe and included at Sr.No.19 in the Constitutional Scheduled
Tribes Order, 1950 in relation to State of Maharashtra. As the petitioner
wanted to get admission in Engineering and Medical Courses, he forwarded
his caste certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate, Achalpur to
respondent no.2 i.e. Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificates Scrutiny
Committee, Nagpur for its scrutiny and to grant caste validity certificate. The
petitioner submitted the relevant certificate before the Scrutiny Committee
along with relevant documents. The Scrutiny Committee, on a perusal of the
documents relied upon by the petitioner, invalidated the caste claim of the
petitioner.
3. With the assistance of the learned AGP, we have gone through
the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee. It is noticed that the
documents relied upon by the Scrutiny Committee were showing the caste of
the petitioner as 'Halbi'. The Scrutiny Committee observed that report
submitted by vigilance cell shows that the petitioner does not belong to
'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe community. However, there is nothing on record to
suggest that police vigilance cell has conducted any such enquiry and gave
a finding that the petitioner has failed to establish affinity test, ethnic linkage
and socio cultural traits of 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe. It is further noticed that
the Scrutiny Committee has not supplied the copy of report of vigilance cell
to the petitioner and not given opportunity to submit explanation on the
::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2018 23:52:49 :::
WP3820.02.odt 3
record and thus not followed the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another .vs. Additional
Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, reported in AIR 1995 SC
94.
4. In Madhuri Patil's case guideline no.5 mentioned in para 12 of
the judgment, 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
to the Directorate together with all particulars as
envisaged in the proforma, 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."
::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2018 23:52:49 :::
WP3820.02.odt 4
5. Furthermore, the guideline no.6 stipulates as under :
"The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the
vigilance officer if he found the claim for social status to be
"not genuine" or "doubtful" or spurious or falsely or
wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue
show cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the
vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post with
acknowledgment due or through the head of the
concerned educational institution in which the candidate is
studying or employed. The notice should indicate that the
representation or reply, if any, would be made within two
weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice and in no
case on request not more than 30 days from the date of
the receipt of the notice. In case, the candidate seeks for
an opportunity of hearing and claims an inquiry to be
made in that behalf, the Director on receipt of such
representation/reply shall convene the Committee and the
Joint/Additional Secretary as Chairperson who shall give
reasonable opportunity to the candidate/parent/guardian
to adduce all evidence in support of their claim."
6. From the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee, it is clear
that the above said guidelines are not followed by the Scrutiny Committee.
No show cause notice is issued to the petitioner. The report of the vigilance
cell is not supplied to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, it is necessary
to give opportunity to the petitioner to appear before the Scrutiny Committee
in terms of provisions contemplated under the Maharashtra Scheduled
::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2018 23:52:49 :::
WP3820.02.odt 5
Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic
Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category
(Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000
(Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001).
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. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is partly allowed.
(ii) The order dated 31.5.1999 passed by respondent no.2-Scrutiny
Committee is hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) The matter is remitted back to Respondent no.2-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 petitioner to appear before Respondent No.2-Committee on
12th February, 2018.
(v) Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Gulande
