Dharmadas S/O Gopalrao Galmale vs The Scheduled Tribe Caste ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10552 Bom

 Judgment                                  1                            wp2421.14.odt




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


                          WRIT PETITION NO. 2421 OF 2014


 Dharamdas S/o. Gopalrao Galmale,
 aged about 41 years, Occ. : Service,
 R/o. Virwha, Post : Pethgaon,
 Tah. Sindewahi, Distt. Chandrapur.
                                                               .... PETITIONER.

                                     // VERSUS //

 1. The Scheduled Tribe Caste
    Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
    Gadchiroli, through its Chairman.

 2. The Head-master,
    Zilla Parishad Primary School,
    Rajoli, Tah. Mul,Distt.Chandrapur.

 3. The Chief Executive Officer,
    Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur.

                                                            .... RESPONDENTS.

  ______________________________________________________________
 Ms Preeti Rane, Advocate for Petitioner.
 Ms N.P.Mehta, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1.
 Shri M.M.Sudame, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
 ______________________________________________________________

                           CORAM :    SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                      ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

                           DATED :    AUGUST 06, 2021


 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Sunil B. Shukre, J.)




  Judgment                               2                             wp2421.14.odt




 1.           Heard.

2. The petitioner has questioned the legality and correctness of

the order dated 12/03/2014 passed by respondent No.1 thereby

invalidating the claim of the petitioner as he belonging to Scheduled

Tribe "Mana".

3. During pendency of this petition, a new development

occurred. The development was in the nature of grant of Validity

Certificate by the same Scrutiny Committee i.e. respondent No.1 on

17th September 2019 to Pragati Dharamdas Galmale, who is said to be

the daughter of the petitioner. Name of Pragati did not find any

mention in the genealogical tree that was placed before the Scrutiny

Committee by the petitioner. But, the contention of the learned counsel

for the petitioner is that at the time when the impugned order was

passed, the circumstances being different, there was no need for the

petitioner to have included names of his children in the genealogical

tree. The explanation given on behalf of the petitioner is reasonable

and therefore, it is accepted. But, this does not mean that we have also

accepted the contention that Pragati is the daughter of the petitioner

and this fact would have to be proved appropriately by the petitioner.

Judgment 3 wp2421.14.odt

4. Now, position that emerges is that if Pragati is the

daughter of the petitioner, who has been declared to be a person as

belonging to "Mana", Scheduled Tribe by the Scrutiny Committee of

the competent jurisdiction, in the ordinary course of circumstances, the

contention should go a long way in supporting the case of the

petitioner. However, this certificate not being available for its

appropriate consideration at the time when the impugned order was

passed, an opportunity would have to be given to the petitioner to

place these documents afresh before the respondent No.1-Committee

and to prove his claim by relying upon this certificate that he too

belongs to Scheduled Tribe Mana. Afterall, any decision affecting

adversely, the social status of a person has the consequences which may

continue to affect that person for his entire life. Several benefits under

the law flow from the reservation policy of the State and if a person is

deprived of an effective opportunity of proving his caste claim, the

effect would be disastrous for such a person in time to come.

Therefore, in such a case, in spite of the fact that a piece of evidence,

which is the certificate of validity issued to Pragati, claimed to be his

daughter by the petitioner was not placed before the Committee for the

reason of it being not available, is required to be placed before the

Judgment 4 wp2421.14.odt

respondent No.1-Committee for its appropriate consideration by

remanding this matter to the respondent No.1-Committee. This would

also call for conduct of the proceedings afresh from the stage of

production of the documents by the petitioner.

5. The petitioner, apart from questioning the legality and

correctness of the impugned order passed by the Scrutiny Committee,

is also seeking other relief in the nature of quashing and setting aside

the new appointment order. However, at this stage, we are not inclined

to consider this prayer and we grant liberty to the petitioner to raise his

grievance in this regard, if any, after the Scrutiny Committee takes its

appropriate decision afresh in the matter.

6. Accordingly, we pass the following order:

        i)         The petition is partly allowed.


        ii)        The impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside.


        iii)       The matter is remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee

for its fresh consideration and decision in accordance with law from the stage of consideration of the documents which are now permitted to be placed on record by the petitioner.

  Judgment                                  5                              wp2421.14.odt




        iv)        The petitioner is permitted to place on record a fresh

genealogical tree and the Tribe Validity Certificate issued to Pragati Dharamdas Galmale.

v) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent No.1-

Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli on 9th August 2021 at 11:00 a.m.

vi) The respondent No.1-Committee shall decide the tribe claim of the petitioner, as directed herein above, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of appearance of the petitioner.

Rule accordingly. No costs.

                   ( ANIL S. KILOR, J )            ( SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)



 RRaut..