Madhura Ganesh Naikwade vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3583 Bom

                                     1        4-WP.577-22 & ors-oral jud.odt

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         WRIT PETITION NO.577 OF 2022

     1.      Madhura Ganesh Naikwade,
             Age : 20 years, Occu. Student,
             R/o Jeba Pimpri, Tq. &
             District Beed.                          ... Petitioner

                      Versus

     1.      The State of Maharashtra,
             Through it's Secretary,
             Tribal Department,
             Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

     2.      The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
             Committee, Aurangabad
             Through its Deputy Director (R).

     3.      The Commissioner and
             Competent Authority,
             State CET Cell, Maharashtra State,
             Mumbai.
             (Controller of Admission Process),
             8th Floor, New Exelsior Building,
             AK Marg, Fort, Mumbai-1.                ... Respondents

                                    WITH

                      CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1191 OF 2022
                       IN WRIT PETITION NO.577 OF 2022

     Mr. Parmeshwar Bhagwan Khokle,
     Age : 44 years, Occu. Secretary,
     Original for Rights of Tribal,
     R/o Flat No.11, Vadesev Appt.,
     Sutgiriuni Chowk, Garkheda,
     Aurangabad.                                     ... Petitioner

                      Versus




::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2022                     ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2022 00:03:15 :::
                                       2       4-WP.577-22 & ors-oral jud.odt



     1.      The State of Maharashtra,
             Through its Secretary,
             Tribal Department,
             Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

     2.      The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
             Committee, Aurangabad
             Through its Deputy Director (R).

     3.      The Commissioner and
             Competent Authority,
             State CET Cell, Maharashtra State,
             Mumbai.
             (Controller of Admission Process),
             8th Floor, New Exelsior Building,
             AK Marg, Fort, Mumbai-1.

     4.      Madhura Ganesh Naikwade,
             Age : Major, Occu.: Student,            ... Respondents

                                   ...
            Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Jadhavar Pratap V.
               AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. A. R. Kale.
       Advocate for Applicant/Intervenor : Mr. S. N. Lale Yelwatkar.
                                   ...

                               CORAM : R. D. DHANUKA, AND
                                       S. G. MEHARE, JJ.

DATE : 04.04.2022

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER R. D. DHANUKA, J.) :-

1. Rule. Learned AGP waives service of notice for

respondents. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard

finally by the consent of the parties.

3 4-WP.577-22 & ors-oral jud.odt

2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks writ of certiorari for

quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated

02.12.2021 passed by respondent No.2-Committee invalidating

the caste claim of the petitioner as "Koli Mahadev Scheduled

Tribe".

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner belongs

to "Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe" and was issued a tribe

certificate by the competent authority. The concerned authority

forwarded the tribe certificate of the petitioner to respondent

No.2-Committee for verification. On 20.11.2021 the Vigilance

Cell conducted an inquiry in the matter of petitioner's Tribe

claim. On 30.11.2021, the petitioner submitted her explanation

before the Scrutiny Committee. It is the case of the petitioner

that without considering the validity certificate as well as

entire set of documents, the Scrutiny Committee passed the

impugned order on 02.12.2021 thereby invalidating the caste

claim of the petitioner as "Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe".

Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the

caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner by the

4 4-WP.577-22 & ors-oral jud.odt

competent authority, various school records and the genealogy.

It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Vigilance Inquiry

Officer also has recorded findings in favour of the petitioner.

He relied upon the letter addressed by the Tahsildar to the

Vigilance Officer. He would submit that the said letter of the

Tahsilar also would assist the case of the petitioner.

4. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties,

we have perused the impugned order passed by the Scrutiny

Committee and also perused the Vigilance Report. In respect

of document at page No.52, at serial Nos.8, 9 and 11, the

Vigilance Officer had raised doubt and more particularly the

caste mentioned in case of Kailas Dnyanoba Naikwade, Pramila

Dnyanoba Naikwade and Dhanraj Tukaram Naikwade and

observed that there appears to be interpolation by inserting the

word "Mahadev Koli" after the word "Hindu".

5. The Scrutiny Committee in the impugned order at page

No.93 of the petition, however has recorded a categorical

findings in respect of those three entries holding that the words

"Mahadev Koli" has been inserted subsequently after the word

"Hindu". The Scrutiny Committee has also recorded the finding

5 4-WP.577-22 & ors-oral jud.odt

of the conspiracy against the School Management.

6. Perusal of the record further indicates that at page No.91

(internal page 5 of the impugned order) the Scrutiny

Committee has framed four issues. Insofar as the issue No.3 is

concerned, no findings are recorded by the Scrutiny Committee

in the impugned order.

7. In our view, since the Scrutiny Committee has recorded a

finding that the words "Koli Mahadev" has been subsequently

written after the word "Hindu" in respect of those three entries

in case of Kailas Dnyanoba Naikwade, Pramila Dnyanoba

Naikwade and Dhanraj Tukaram Naikwade which findings is

different than the prima facie findings recorded by the

Vigilance Officer, the Scrutiny Committee ought to have

obtained expert opinion and without recording any evidence

could not have recorded such finding of interpolation

conclusively. Similarly, the Scrutiny Committee also could not

have recorded any findings of the conspiracy against the

Management even if that would be correct, without recording

any reasons.

8. The Scrutiny Committee having framed four issues, the

6 4-WP.577-22 & ors-oral jud.odt

Scrutiny Committee ought to have recorded findings on all the

issues framed and not on some of the issues which according to

the Scrutiny Committee could be sufficient to be dealt with. In

this case, the Scrutiny Committee has not recorded any reasons

though frame issue whether petitioner has taken any

advantage of the caste certificate.

9. Though under the provisions of the Maharashtra

Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes

(Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and

Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and

Verification of ) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 read with rules, the

opinion of this Vigilance Inquiry Officer may not be

conclusively binding on the Scrutiny Committee, if the Scrutiny

Committee seeks to take a different view or to reject the

opinion/recommendation of the Vigilance Inquiry Officer,

reasons have to be recorded while rejecting such opinion/

recommendation given by the Vigilance Inquiry Officer.

10. We are accordingly of the opinion that the impugned

order passed by the Scrutiny Committee is required to be

quashed and set aside with a direction to remand the matter

7 4-WP.577-22 & ors-oral jud.odt

back to the Scrutiny Committee for considering the matter

afresh and shall also deal with the directions issued and

observations made in this order.

11. The impugned order dated 02.12.2021 passed by

respondent No.2-Committee is accordingly quashed and set

aside. The caste claim made by the petitioner is restored before

respondent No.2-Committee. Respondent No.2-Committee

shall consider the matter afresh in accordance with law

without being influenced by the observations made and the

conclusion drawn in the impugned order dated 02.12.2021.

12. Insofar as the contra entries produced on record by the

Vigilance Officer is concerned, the Scrutiny Committee shall

verify those documents also in accordance with law while

passing a fresh order.

13. If the Scrutiny Committee seeks to differ with the prima

facie observations made by the Vigilance Inquiry Report, the

Scrutiny Committee shall follow the procedure prescribed

under the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes,

Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other

Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation

8 4-WP.577-22 & ors-oral jud.odt

of Issuance and Verification of ) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 and

the Rules before recording any finding on the prima facie

opinion rendered by the Vigilance Inquiry Officer.

14. The Scrutiny Committee shall pass a fresh order within a

period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of communication

of this order after granting personal hearing to the petitioner.

15. The original records produced by the learned AGP for

perusal of this Court shall be returned to respondent No.2-

Committee within a period of three (3) days from today.

16. The order that would be passed by respondent No.2-

Committee shall be communicated to the petitioner within a

period of one (1) week from the date of passing such order.

17. If respondent No.2-Committee is of the view that the

petitioner has made out a case for validating the caste claim

made by the petitioner, caste validity certificate should be

issued in favour of the petitioner within a period of one (1)

week from the date of passing such order. If the order is

adverse against the petitioner, the petitioner would be at

liberty to file appropriate proceedings.

9 4-WP.577-22 & ors-oral jud.odt

18. Writ Petition is disposed off in the aforesaid terms. Rule

is made absolute accordingly. In view of the disposal of the

writ petition, Civil Application No.1191 of 2022 does not

survive and is accordingly disposed off. No order as to costs.

Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

       (S. G. MEHARE, J.)                     (R. D. DHANUKA, J.)

                                     ...

     vmk/-