Bombay High Court
Ku. Kalpana Anandrao Rodge vs Scheduled Tribe Caste ... on 26 October, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil Laxman Pansare
Judgment WP 1638.2021 & 1639.2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1638 OF 2021
Ku. Kalpna Anandrao Rodge
about 53 years, Occupation - Service,
resident of New Gilani Nagar, Behind .. Petitioner
SBI, Umarsara, Dist. Yavatmal
Versus
1. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, through its Principal
Secretary, Amravati - 414601
.. Respondents
2. Amolakchand Mahavidyalaya, through
its Principal, Godhani Road, Umarsara,
District - Yavatmal, Pin - 445001
WRIT PETITION NO. 1639 OF 2021
Umesh S/o Anandrao Rodge
aged about 46 years, Occupation Service,
Resident of Vinkar Vasahat, Near
Jagdamba Vidyalaya, Achalpur,
.. Petitioner
Dist.Amravati.
Versus
1. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, through its Principal
Secretary, Amravati - 414601
2. The President, Multipurpose Education
Society, Sindhi (Bu.) Tq.Achalpur, Dist.
Amravati
.. Respondents
3. The Secretary, Multipurpose Education
Society, Sindhi(Bu.) Tq.Achalpur,
Dist.Amravati
4. The Head Master, Janta High School,
Paraspur, Tq. Achalpur, Dist.Amravati
PAGE 1 OF 7
::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2021 02:49:25 :::
Judgment WP 1638.2021 & 1639.2021.odt
Mr. Ashwin Deshpande, Advocate for petitioners in both petitions.
Mr. A. M. Kadukar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1.
None for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.
DATED : 26/10/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Nobody appears
for respondent Nos.2 to 4, though served.
(2) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties present before
the Court.
(3) The impugned order has been assailed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner on various grounds. The grounds
taken are that the Scrutiny Committee has completely ignored the per-
constitutional documents of the years 1932 and 1946 showing the
social status of blood relatives of the petitioner on the paternal side as
PAGE 2 OF 7
Judgment WP 1638.2021 & 1639.2021.odt
that of "Halbi" community, that the document dated 26/06/1921 was
never submitted by the petitioner, but, has been shown to be submitted
by the petitioner, that the validity certificate granted by the Scrutiny
Committee on the basis of the directions issued by this Court in Writ
Petition No.2300 of 2007 to the real brother of the petitioner was not
accepted by the Scrutiny Committee on the specious ground that tribe
claim of the real sister of the petitioner has been invalidated by the
Scrutiny Committee in the year 1999, thereby meaning that the
validity certificate granted on the directions of the High Court was
invalid and the invalidity of the claim of the sister of the petitioner
recorded by the Scrutiny Committee in the year 1999 on its own was
valid, that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner to
establish his say that the invalidation of the claim of the sister of the
petitioner in the year 1999 was insignificant as at that time there was
no vigilance enquiry contemplated and that validation of the claim of
the real brother of the petitioner was most significant as it was done
after considering the vigilance enquiry report and evidence available
on record and that there was no application of mind on the part of the
Scrutiny Committee to the valuable facts and circumstances.
PAGE 3 OF 7
Judgment WP 1638.2021 & 1639.2021.odt
(4) The learned AGP, however, disagrees. He submits
that the subsequent validity granted to the real brother of the
petitioner on the strength of the directions issued by this Court was
probably obtained by the brother of the petitioner by suppressing the
material fact of invalidation of the tribe claim of the real sister of the
petitioner, although the submission regarding suppressing of material
fact is vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the petitioner.
(5) On going through the impugned order, we find great
force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner and no
merit in the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader.
(6) The documents of the years 1932 and 1946 standing
in the names of the blood relatives of the petitioner from the paternal
side showing those relatives to be belonging to Halbi community, have
been completely ignored by the Scrutiny Committee. It is further seen
that the contention of the petitioner that the document dated
26/06/1921 not submitted by the petitioner has also been considered.
It is further seen that the petitioner has not been given any opportunity
to submit his explaination as regards the reliability of the tribe validity
certificate granted to the real brother of the petitioner and doubtful
PAGE 4 OF 7
Judgment WP 1638.2021 & 1639.2021.odt
character of the invalidation of the tribe claim of the sister of the
petitioner.
(7) It is further seen that while rejecting the validity
certificate granted to the brother of the petitioner on the strength of
the directions issued by this Court, the Scrutiny Committee has taken
the invalidation of the claim of the sister of the petitioner as a gospel
truth and that too without giving any reason. When two apparently
contradictory pieces of evidence are to be considered and it is decided
to reject one of them, the Authority which does so must give reasons as
to why the piece of evidence proposed to be accepted is reliable. Here,
the piece of evidence in the nature of validity standing in the name of
the real brother of the petitioner has been rejected by giving reason of
suppression of material fact of invalidation of the claim of the sister of
the petitioner. But, when it is said so, the Scrutiny Committee has also
presumed that the invalidation of the claim of the sister of the
petitioner was correct. Before such a finding was recorded, the
Scrutiny Committee ought to have considered as to whether or not
invalidation of the claim of the sister of the petitioner was itself a
reliable piece of evidence or not and that has not been done by the
PAGE 5 OF 7
Judgment WP 1638.2021 & 1639.2021.odt
Scrutiny Committee. It also appears that there are other documents
which are not appropriately considered by the Scrutiny Committee and
therefore, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, there is also non-application of mind by the Scrutiny
Committee in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. In view of the
above, the petition deserves to be allowed, hence, the following
order :-
1. The petition is allowed.
2. The impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside.
3. The matter is remanded back to the respondent No.1 for fresh
consideration of the claim of the petitioner, in accordance
with law, as expeditiously as possible.
4. The petitioner to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on
08th November, 2021.
5. The respondent No.1 is directed to decide the claim of the
petitioner in accordance with law within a period of three
months from the appearance of the petitioners.
PAGE 6 OF 7
Judgment WP 1638.2021 & 1639.2021.odt
6. We direct that no coercive action shall be taken in relation to
the service of the petitioner till his claim is decided by the
Scrutiny Committee and if the decision goes against the
petitioner, no such coercive steps shall be taken for further
period of two weeks from the date of the order.
Rule made absolute in above terms. No costs.
[ANIL L. PANSARE J.] [ SUNIL B. SHUKRE J.]
KOLHE
PAGE 7 OF 7
