Ku. Nanda Dhanraj Moundekar vs State Of Maharashtra,Thr. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1875 Bom

                                                                  4.mca.35.2022 judge.odt
                                                    1



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

       MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO. 35 OF 2022
                             IN
                WRIT PETITION NO.3905 OF 2000

         Ku Nanda D/o. Dhanraj Moundekar,
         aged about 48 Years, Occ.: Service,
         R/o. Vinkar Colony, MIG, 10/2, Ring
         Road, Manewada, Nagpur
                                                                            ....APPLICANT

                                     // V E R S U S //

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

2.       The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
         Scrutiny Committee,
         Nagpur.                                                      ... RESPONDENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Mr. Hrishikesh S. Chitaley, Advocate for petitioner
           Mrs S. S. Jachak, AGP for respondent Nos.1 & 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND G. A. SANAP, JJ.
                 DATE : 25/02/2022


J U D G M E N T (Per : G. A. SANAP, J.)

1] The applicant/original petitioner has made this

application for review and recall of the order dated 20.12.2021

passed in Writ Petition No. 3905 of 2000. In this application it is

4.mca.35.2022 judge.odt

the case of the applicant that while appreciating the extract from

father's School Register an error has occurred. In the said extract in

the remarks column date of correction of entry has been mentioned.

However, the same has not been taken into consideration.

Similarly, the signature below the correction made by Head Master

were not taken into consideration. Over looking the said fact the

document has been discarded. The remark column was not blank.

It mentions the date as 19.07.1955. The said date ought to have

been presumed to be the date of correction of the relevant record.

The second ground is that relevant entry was made in 1955.

Whereas, the Secondary School Code was enacted and given effect

from 1963. The reliance placed on Clause 26.3 and 26.4 was

therefore, not legally permissible while discarding the document.

On the basis of the documents, the appellant was entitled to get an

order directing the Caste Scrutiny Committee to issue Caste Validity

Certificate to the applicant for 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe.

2] The respondent No.2 has filed the reply and

opposed this application. It is contended that considering the

4.mca.35.2022 judge.odt

available evidence on record the writ petition was rightly rejected.

No error has occurred while deciding the matter. The documentary

evidence collected during the course of Vigilance Cell inquiry were

found doubtful. The report was against the applicant. The

applicant was granted an opportunity to deal with the said report

and documents. It was not properly dealt with by filling the

affidavit of father of the applicant. The affidavit of father would

have clarified all the relevant circumstances which were known to

him only.

3] We have heard the learned Advocate for the

applicant and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for

respondent No.2. We have gone through the record and

proceedings.

4] The Vigilance Cell report clearly indicates that in

order to support this correction of the caste 'Halba' from 'Koshti' in

the School record the documents relating to the father of Dhanraj

were not produced. The claim of the applicant is based on the

4.mca.35.2022 judge.odt

corrections made in the caste of father from 'Koshti' to 'Halba'

somewhere in 1955. It is a matter of record that the voluntary

retirement taken by the father of the applicant coincided with her

appointment. This caste certificate issued in favour of the father was

not submitted for verification to the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

Similarly, the caste certificate issued in favour of the brother of the

applicant was also not submitted for verification to the Caste

Scrutiny Committee. Considering the shaky nature of the

documents and the absence of the contemporaneous evidence, it

was found insufficient to accept the claim of the petitioner. For

discarding this document namely the extract of the entry from the

School register reasons have been recorded. One of the reasons was

that father did not file a detailed affidavit to place on record the

circumstances in which this change was made in the caste from

'Koshti' to 'Halba' in his School record. While going through the

documents, at this stage, it is seen that attested copy of the service

book of the father of the applicant has been placed on record. In the

column of Nationality/Caste/Religion initially the nationality was

mentioned as 'Indian'. The religion was mentioned as 'Hindu'.

4.mca.35.2022 judge.odt

Perusal of the extract would show that the father had joined the

service in 1963. In this extract 'Halba' was later on inserted. If this

document is read with this entry from school register it would show

that even at the time of the entry in service in 1963 his 'Halba' caste

was not initially mentioned. If the correction was made as stated on

19.07.1955, the subsequent corrections in the service book after

1963 was not justifiable. This creates further doubt. Therefore, in

our view the documentary evidence placed on record is not

sufficient to accept the submissions. No error apparent on the face

of the record has been pointed out. The reasons have been recorded

for discarding other school record of the applicant, her brother and

her father where the caste is mentioned as 'Halba'. Therefore, in

our view on this ground this application cannot be allowed.

5] The second ground is that in the year 1955 when

this entry was corrected the Secondary School Code was not in

existence. It is submitted that applying the provisions of Secondary

School Code the documents have been discarded and the claim has

been rejected. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner

4.mca.35.2022 judge.odt

in support of her claim had relied upon the letter dated 15.01.2021

received from the School under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Wherein, it was mentioned that the documents namely the

application and the copy of the affidavit submitted for correction of

the caste as per Rule 26.4 Appendix VI of the Secondary School

Code were not available and therefore, the certified copy of the

application and certified copy of the affidavit could not be issued.

Since, the reference to Rule 26.4 Appendix VI of the Secondary

School Code was made in this application the relevant observations

came to be made in the judgment. However, the claim of the

petitioner has not been rejected solely on the basis of the non-

compliance of the requirement of Clauses 26.4 and 26.3 of the

Secondary School Code. It is to be noted that on the analysis of the

documentary evidence a finding has been recorded that the same

were not sufficient to accept the claim of the applicant. One of the

grounds for rejecting the claim was non compliance of the

provisions of Secondary School Code. Even if it is accepted that

Secondary School Code is not applicable in the case of the applicant

it would not make any difference in as much as that the finding of

4.mca.35.2022 judge.odt

fact that the caste of the applicant's father was Koshti and not Halba

has been recorded on the basis of the documentary evidence. In the

Vigilance Cell report it was specifically mentioned that the record of

the grandfather of the applicant was not produced to substantiate

the correction made in the School record. The applicant had an

opportunity to place the sufficient material to clear this doubt.

Failure to produce the material on record further compounded the

problem of the applicant. In view of this position we are of the

opinion that there is no error apparent on the face of the record.

The evidence which has been produced with this application cannot

make said entry acceptable.

In view of this we are not inclined to accept the

submissions. The review application deserves to be dismissed.

Hence, following order-

ORDER

1] The Review Application stands dismissed.

     2]        No order as to costs.
     3]        The learned Advocate for the applicant submits that

the protection granted vide order dated 20.12.2021 may be continued for further period of four weeks. 4] Considering the facts and circumstances, the

4.mca.35.2022 judge.odt

protection granted vide Clause (3) of the operative part of the order dated 20.12.2021 to continue for further period of four weeks from today. No order as to costs.

                                          (G. A. SANAP, J.)        (A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.)



                                Namrata




Signed By:NAMRATA YOGESH
DHARKAR
P. A.
High Court Nagpur
Signing Date:26.02.2022 14:38