Ku. Dakshata D/O Devrao Mangare vs The Vice Chairman/Member ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 426 Bom

1-WP-3188-20                                                              1/5


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

                      WRIT PETITION NO.3188 OF 2020


Dakshata d/o Devrao Mangare
Aged about 23 years, Occ. Student,
R/o At Post Rashika Layout,
Near Darda Nagar, Yavatmal                              ... Petitioner

-vs-

1. The Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary,
   Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
   Scrutiny Committee, Chaprasipura,
   Amravati

2. The Principal
   Dayabhai Maoji Majithia Ayurved
   Mahavidyalay, Yavatmal

3. The Vice-Chancellor/Registrar,
   Maharashtra University of Health
   Sciences (MUHS) Mhasrul Road,
   Nasik                                                ... Respondents


Smt Preeti Rane, Advocate for petitioner.
Smt K. R. Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
Shri V. B. Bhise, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Shri Kiran Malokar, Advocate for respondent No.3.


                CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.

DATE : January 12, 2022

Oral Judgment : (Per : A. S. Chandurkar, J.)

The learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention to the

schedule of examinations of the final year under graduate BAMS course

which the petitioner is pursuing. It is submitted by the learned counsel that

the last date for submitting the examination form is 15/01/2022 for the 1-WP-3188-20 2/5

Summer-2022 examination. In view of aforesaid, we have taken up the writ

petition for hearing by issuing Rule and making the same returnable

forthwith with consent of learned counsel for the parties.

The challenge raised in this writ petition is to the order passed by

the Scrutiny Committee on 15/09/2020 thereby invalidating the tribe claim

of the petitioner of belonging to 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe. The learned

counsel for the petitioner has invited attention to two documents of pre-

independence era namely, the birth extract dated 12/11/1933 indicating

the birth of a son Ramkrushna to one Dhondya. In the said birth extract

word "Mana" has been written. It is submitted that this document was

sought to be placed before the Scrutiny Committee along with

reply/explanation of the petitioner to the report of the Vigilance Cell. This

was done on 03/09/2020 by forwarding a soft copy of that document and

also by sending the same by registered post. It is submitted that though the

Scrutiny Committee decided the proceedings on 15/09/2020 this birth

extract dated 12/11/1933 has not been taken into consideration.

The second document to which reference is made is another birth

extract dated 19/09/1935 indicating birth of a son Tukaram to Kondba

(Mana). In this regard it is submitted that the Scrutiny Committee has

observed that the petitioner could not establish relationship with Tukaram or

Kondba and that word "Mana" had been subsequently written therein. On

behalf of the petitioner attention is invited to the family tree, details of 1-WP-3188-20 3/5

which were furnished by the petitioner on 04/09/2020 in Form-F to urge

that such relationship has been clearly disclosed therein. It is thus

submitted that failure to consider the birth extract dated 12/11/1933 and the

incorrect observation as regards absence of relationship with Tukaram has

vitiated the order of the Scrutiny Committee.

2. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent

No.1 has supported the impugned order. It is submitted that based on the

report of Vigilance Cell, the Scrutiny Committee had applied its mind and

had proceeded to invalidate the tribe claim of the petitioner. It is however

not disputed that on 03/09/2020 the petitioner had furnished a soft copy of

the birth extract dated 12/11/1933.

The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the

petitioner has been admitted at the respondent No.2-College and is pursuing

her education. The respondent No.3 would abide by the order that would be

passed in the present proceedings.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we have

perused the material on record. It is seen that the Vigilance Cell furnished

the copy of its report to the petitioner on 09/03/2020 and sought the

petitioner's response. Pursuant thereto the petitioner furnished her reply to

the aforesaid report on 29/07/2020. In the said explanation it was stated 1-WP-3188-20 4/5

that the name of Tukaram was not mentioned in the genealogical tree that

was submitted to the Vigilance Cell on the ground that said Tukaram had

expired shortly after his birth. It is however seen that in the family tree

details of which were furnished on 04/09/2020, the name of Tukaram as

son of Kondba (Mana) has been shown. It is also stated therein that said

Tukaram expired shortly after his birth.

As regards the birth extract dated 12/11/1933, it is seen that the

petitioner has placed on record the e-mail by which the soft copy of that

extract was furnished to the Scrutiny Committee in pdf form. A hard copy

was also furnished to the Scrutiny Committee by registered post and the

receipt in that regard dated 14/09/2020 is also placed on record. However

the impugned order dated 15/09/2020 does not indicate consideration of

this birth extract. Since the aforesaid two documents pertain to pre-

independence era and have great probative value, we are of the view that

the tribe claim of the petitioner deserves fresh adjudication after taking into

consideration the effect of the aforesaid two documents. Failure to consider

the birth extract dated 12/11/1933 has definitely caused prejudice to the

case of the petitioner. Hence for the aforesaid reasons the order dated

15/09/2020 passed by the Scrutiny Committee is liable to be set aside.

4. Accordingly the order dated 15/09/2020 passed by the Scrutiny

Committee invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner is set aside. The 1-WP-3188-20 5/5

proceedings are remanded to the Scrutiny Committee for fresh adjudication

in accordance with law by taking into consideration all relevant material.

The petitioner shall appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 01/02/2022

and the Scrutiny Committee shall take appropriate steps to decide the claim

within a period of four months from that date. All questions are kept open

and the Scrutiny Committee shall not be influenced by any observation made

in this order. In the meanwhile the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to

permit the petitioner to continue to pursue her studies. The respondent No.3

shall declare the result of third year BAMS course which has been pursued by

the petitioner. It is however clarified that further continuation of the

petitioner in the said course would be subject to final decision of the Scrutiny

Committee in the validity proceedings.

Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

                             (Anuja Prabhudessai, J.)            (A. S. Chandurkar, J.)




          Asmita




Digitally signed byASMITA
ADWAIT BHANDAKKAR
Signing Date:13.01.2022
17:26:28