Bombay High Court
Tejas S/O Ramesh Katole vs Scheduled Tribes Caste ... on 7 October, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil S. Kilor
Judgment WP 3758.2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3758 OF 2020
Tejas S/o Ramesh Katole,
Aged about 19 years, Occ. Student,
R/o. Dhanki, Post Dhanki, Tah.Umrkhed, .. Petitioner
District : Yavatmal
Versus
1. The Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, through it's Member
Secretary and Deputy Director, Sanna
Building, Opp. Govt. Rest House Camp,
Amravati - 444601
2. State Commission Entrance Test Cell,
State CET Cell, The Commissioner, 8th
Floor, New Excelsior Building, A.J.Nayak
Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 411001(M.S.)
[deleted as per order dated 30/09/2021]
3. Directorate of medical Education and
Research, Through its Director
(Education), Govt. Dental College and .. Respondents
Hospital Compound Near V. T. Mumbai -
400 001.
[deleted as per order dated 30/09/2021]
4. The State of Maharashtra, Through its
Principal Secretary, Department of Health
Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road,
Mumbai - 400032
[deleted as per order dated 30/09/2021]
5. State of Maharashtra, Through its
Principal Secretary, Tribal Development
Department, Mantralay Extension,
Madam Cama Road, Mumbai - 400 032
PAGE 1 OF 7
::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2021 02:37:22 :::
Judgment WP 3758.2020.odt
6. The Dean, Brijlal Jindal College of
Physiotherapy, Pune
[deleted as per order dated 30/09/2021]
Mr. Ashwin Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms. Mayuri Deshmukh A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 5.
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATED : 07/10/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)
Heard Mr. Ashwin Deshpande, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Ms. Mayuri Deshmukh, learned AGP for respondent
Nos.1 and 5.
(2) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
(3) The petitioner claims himself to be belonging to
'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe. When he submitted his application for
verification of his social status to the respondent No.1 - Scrutiny
Committee, the Scrutiny Committee considering the vigilance enquiry
PAGE 2 OF 7
Judgment WP 3758.2020.odt
report, documents obtained by the Vigilance Officer and documentary
evidence produced by the petitioner before it and considering other
material available on record, declined the claim of the petitioner by its
order dated 20/10/2020, which is impugned herein.
(4) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the impugned order is perverse and illegal, as it places reliance upon
the document shown to be standing in the name of one Mahadu
Koshti, not related to the petitioner and rejects overwhelming
documentary evidence of pre-constitutional period establishing the
claim of the petitioner as regards, he is 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe.
(5) The learned AGP submits that since there were
contradictory entries in different documents, which were considered
by the Scrutiny Committee, no fault could be found with the
conclusion drawn by the Scrutiny Committee regarding failure of the
petitioner to prove his Tribe claim. She submits that the document
dated 14/02/1918 being the oldest one had the highest probative
value and this document did not show that the ancestor of the
petitioner was belonging to the 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe community.
She submits that even two documents of the year 1949 and 1980 show
PAGE 3 OF 7
Judgment WP 3758.2020.odt
that the relatives of the petitioner were of 'Haalbi' and 'Halaba'
communities, which are different from 'Halbi' community.
(6) It is seen from the impugned order that the Scrutiny
Committee has rejected the Tribe claim of the petitioner on two
grounds; first is that 1918 document shows ancestor of the petitioner
as 'Koshti' and the second ground is to the effect that the entries in the
documents of the year 1942 and 1943 relating to 'Halbi' community
were not consistent with the entries made in the year 1949 and 1980
documents, which were of 'Haalbi' and 'Halaba' communities and
therefore, the Scrutiny Committee came to the conclusion that the
petitioner could not prove his Tribe claim.
(7) As regards the entry of 'Koshti' taken in the birth
and death register dated 14/02/1918, in the name of Mahadu Koshti,
we find that there is an explaination given by the petitioner and this
explaination, if we consider the other documents available on record,
would have to be accepted as supporting the argument of the
petitioner that Mahadu Koshti was not relative of the petitioner. In
fact, this explaination was also submitted before the Scrutiny
Committee but, it is seen from the impugned order that it was not
PAGE 4 OF 7
Judgment WP 3758.2020.odt
properly considered by the Scrutiny Committee.
(8) As per the family tree shown by the petitioner,
which is not in dispute, one Madho/Mahadu was the great grandfather
of the petitioner and he had no daughter but, only two sons. Since the
family tree has not been disputed by the Scrutiny Committee or the
Vigilance Officer, it has to be accepted that Madho/Mahadu had no
daughter, which is the contention of the petitioner. The petitioner had
also stated so in his explaination given to the Committee. Considering
the position emerging from the family tree, it was necessary for the
Scrutiny Committee to have appropriately considered the
explainantion given by the petitioner but, the Scrutiny Committee has
ignored it. The family tree, in our opinion, clearly establishes the
claim of the petitioner that Mahadu Koshti, whose name appears in
1918 document and who has been shown therein as having had a
daughter was not the relative of the petitioner.
(9) There is another document which is an extract of
Admission Register of Zilla Parishad School at Fulsawangi,
Tal.Mahagaon, Dist. Yavatmal. About this document also there is no
dispute. The name of the great grandfather of the petitioner appears
PAGE 5 OF 7
Judgment WP 3758.2020.odt
therein as one of the students, who was admitted to primary school at
Fulsawangi in the year 1913. This Admission Register also takes an
entry about the year of the birth of this relative, who has been named
as Madhya Chimnaji. This Madhya Chimnaji was also known as
Mahadu about which no dispute is raised. His year of birth has been
shown as 1907. If the entries in this document are not disputed, the
only conclusion that would be possible in this case is that in the year
1918 or to be precise at the age of about 11 years, the possibility of
the great grandfather of the petitioner by name Madhya @ Mahadu
fathering a child was almost in the realm of fiction. Therefore, we find
that the adverse finding given by the Scrutiny Committee by treating
the 1918 document as reliable is perverse.
(10) About the other ground taken in the impugned
order, we find that although there are entries of 'Haalbi' and 'Halaba'
in 1949 and 1980 documents, we are of the view that these entries
being stray and inconsistent with each other and of years much after
the earlier consistent entries, would have no bearing upon the earlier
documentary evidence of reliable nature. The earlier entries in
documents of 18/06/1942, 01/07/1942 and 24/03/1943, all of which
show that the social status of the blood relatives of the petitioner was
PAGE 6 OF 7
Judgment WP 3758.2020.odt
'Halbi', being consistent with each other strongly probabilise the social
status claimed by the petitioner and, therefore, later documents of
1949 and 1980, which are not only inconsistent with each other but
also earlier documents would have to be discarded as unreliable and
we do so. This aspect of the matter has not been appropriately
considered by the Scrutiny Committee.
(11) For the reasons recorded above, we find that the
impugned order is perverse and illegal, therefore, it deserves to be
quashed and set aside.
i. The Writ Petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside.
iii. It is declared that the petitioner belongs to 'Halbi' Scheduled
Tribe.
iv. The respondent No.1 is directed to issue Tribe validity
certificate to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks
from the date of the receipt of the order.
Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs.
[ ANIL S. KILOR ] [ SUNIL B. SHUKRE ]
KOLHE
PAGE 7 OF 7
