Vivek S/O Tukaram Ingle vs Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 784 Bom

WP 5420.21 judg.                                                                                              1/


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

                               Writ Petition No.5420/2021


       Vivek Tukaram Ingle,
       Age 18 years, Occ.-Student,
       R/o.-Kaulkhed, Tq & Dist. Akola.                                                ..... Petitioner


                                                      - Versus -


       Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
       Old By Pass, Chaprashipura, Amravati,
       through its Vice Chairman/Jt. Commissioner.          .....Respondent.

     **********************************************************************
                         Mr. A.P. Kalmegh, Advocate for petitioner.
               Mrs N.P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent.
     ***********************************************************************************************************

      CORAM          : A.S. CHANDURKAR &
                       PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.

DATE : 20-01-2022.

Oral Judgment (Per : Pushpa V Ganediwala, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with

the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The challenge in this petition is to the invalidation of the

tribe claim of the petitioner by the respondent-Scrutiny Committee

vide order dated 29-10-2020. The petitioner claims to be of 'Thakur'

Scheduled Tribe which is recognized at serial no.44 in the list of

Scheduled Tribe in Notification. Accordingly, Sub Divisional Officer,

Washim has issued caste certificate dated 29-12-2019 of 'Thakur'

WP 5420.21 judg. 2/

Scheduled Tribe in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is

prosecuting his study and for availing the benefit prescribed for

reserved category candidate, the petitioner has submitted his caste

certificate along with necessary documents for verification through the

college which includes documents of the year 1922, 1926, 1928, 1948

etc. showing the entry of 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe.

3. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner was forwarded for

conducting the Vigilance Cell Enquiry. The report of the Vigilance Cell

Enquiry was submitted on 15-10-2020. The respondent-Scrutiny

Committee issued show cause notice dated 15-10-2020 to which the

petitioner has submitted his written submission on 19-10-2020. The

respondent-Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the tribe claim of the

petitioner vide impugned order dated 29-10-2020.

4. Learned Counsel Mr. Kalmegh appearing for the petitioner

invited our attention to all the pre-constitutional documents on record

filed by the petitioner in support of his tribe claim as 'Thakur'. The

learned Counsel submitted that the respondent-Scrutiny Committee

has failed to consider the oldest entry in the documents of father and

grand father etc. consistently showing caste 'Thakur' and hence it is

binding on the respondent-Scrutiny Committee to consider the above

said documents, particularly documents prior to year 1950 and the

same cannot be discarded on the ground of affinity.

WP 5420.21 judg. 3/

5. Per contra, Mrs. Mehta, learned Assistant Government

Pleader on behalf of respondent-Scrutiny Committee while opposing

the claim of the petitioner submitted that the respondent-Scrutiny

Committee has rightly invalidated the tribe claim of the petitioner as

the alleged pre-constitutional documents are vague in nature as the

documents of 1922, 1926 and 1928 do not prove that Vithoba Thakur

is from applicant's genealogy. It is stated that the name of son of

Vithoba so also name of father of Vithoba is conspicuously absent in

the document. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mrs. Mehta also

pointed out from the impugned order that the petitioner has submitted

the records from two districts i.e. record is from Akola district and old

record is from Washim district upto his father, which create doubt in

the claim of the petitioner.

6. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned

counsel on behalf of both the sides. We have perused the documents

filed on record by the petitioner so also the documents and genealogy

tree submitted by the Vigilance Cell before the respondent-Scrutiny

Committee. We have also perused the record and proceedings of the

respondent-Scrutiny Committee. At the outset, genealogy tree at page

no.53 submitted by the officer of Vigilance Cell confirms Vithoba as

father of Namdeo (born in 1920), Waman (born on 24-08-1922),

Sadashiv (born on 10-06-1926) and daughter Siti (born on

11-12-1928). The genealogy tree would further reflect the name of

WP 5420.21 judg. 4/

Dagadi as daughter of Namdev which is consistent with petitioner's

document of 1941 reflecting Dagadi the daughter of Namdev Vithoba

Thakur residents of Waghi (Bk), Taluka Malegaon, District Washim. All

these pre-constitutional documents filed by the petitioner are related

to birth certificates of children of Vithoba Thakur and daughter of

Namdev Vithoba Thakur. These documents are consistent with the

genealogy tree collected by the officer of the Vigilance Cell during

vigilance enquiry. Therefore, the respondent-Scrutiny Committee is

not justified in rejecting the tribe claim spaciously on the ground that

the birth entries of the children of Vithoba cannot be considered as

Vithoba is not from applicant's genealogy. In the aforesaid genealogy

tree at page 53, the name of applicant Vivek is reflected as great grand

son of Vithoba.

7. With regard to inconsistency of the entry in the document

of the year 1937 showing one Kisani as daughter of Vithoba who died

at the age of seven months, showing caste of Vithoba as 'Thakur

Marathe', the learned Counsel for the petitioner clarified from the

genealogy tree that the said Kisani is not related to the genealogy of

the petitioner as collected by the Vigilance Officer during enquiry. The

learned Counsel for the petitioner has also clarified from the record

that Waman, Sadashiv and Sita (Siti) were sons and daughter of

Vithoba who were born on 10-06-1926, 24-08-1922 and 11-12-1928

respectively. Sadashiv is grand father of the petitioner. All these

documents consistently show 'Thakur' as the caste of the father and

WP 5420.21 judg. 5/

forefathers of the petitioner and therefore as rightly submitted by

learned Counsel Mr. Kalmegh that the aforesaid documents being prior

to issuance of Presidential Order, 1950, showing caste 'Thakur', have

more probative value for determining the tribe claim of the petitioner

and the same cannot be discarded on the ground of affinity. The

learned Counsel also clarified that initially district Washim was part

of district Akola and the same came to be separated in the year 1988

and therefore the contention of the respondent-Scrutiny Committee

that the documents have been submitted from two districts does not

hold water.

8. In the conspectus of the above facts on record, in our

considered view, the respondent-Scrutiny Committee is not justified in

rejecting the tribe claim of the petitioner on the spacious ground that

the pre-constitutional documents do not clarify the relation of the

petitioner with the birth entries in the aforesaid documents. We found

merit in the petition and hence the same needs to be allowed and we

allow the same accordingly. We pass the following order.

9. The order dated 29-10-2020 issued by respondent-

Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati is set

aside. The respondent-Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue Caste

Validity Certificate to the petitioner within a period of four weeks.

WP 5420.21 judg. 6/

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

costs.

11. Petition stands disposed of.

(Pushpa V. Ganediwala, J.) (A.S. Chandurkar, J.)

Deshmukh