Pratik S/O Ashoksing Rawat vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4652 Bom

                                                        wp 2886-2019.odt
1/14



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

              WRIT PETITION No. 2886 OF 2019


        Pratik S/o Ashoksing Rawat,
        Aged about 22 years, Occ : Education,
        R/o Plot no. 407, Hanuman Nagar,
        Nagpur.

                                                        ... PETITIONER
                ...VERSUS...


1.      The State of Maharashtra,
        Through Secretary,
        Social Welfare Department,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2.      The Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny
        Committee No.3, Nagpur Division,
        through its member, Nagpur,
        New Administrative building
        No.2, Wing-B Civil lines, Nagpur

                                                    ...RESPONDENTS


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri H.V. Thakur, Advocate for Petitioner
Shri N.S. Rao, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                         SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, JJ.

wp 2886-2019.odt

RESERVED ON : 27nd APRIL, 2022.

PRONOUNCED ON : 2nd May, 2022.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Smt. M.S. Jawalkar, J.)

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel appearing

for the parties.

2. The petitioner, by this petition is questioning

the legality and validity of order passed by the Secretary,

Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 31/03/2018,

thereby invalidating the claim of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner is the student of Bachelor of

Engineering taking education in Rajiv Gandhi College of

Engineering, Hingna, District Nagpur. He moved an

application for caste validity certificate to respondent no.2

(hereinafter referred as 'Scrutiny Committee'). He claimed

to belong to the caste 'Rajput Bhamta' included at Entry No.

10 in the list of 'Vimukta Nomadic Tribe'.

wp 2886-2019.odt

4. The petitioner submitted his claim to the

Scrutiny Committee for verification of certificate and after

receiving the application, the Scrutiny Committee asked the

petitioner to remain present before the Committee. As there

was no order passed for long period, the petitioner filed Writ

Petition No.5619/2017 (Pratik Vs. State of Maharashtra and

one) before this Court. Due to filing of petition, it is alleged

that, the respondent no.2 made superficial enquiry into the

matter and passed impugned order dated 31/03/2018 and

rejected the caste claim of the petitioner. The petitioner

placed on record genealogy and documents including the

declaration by this Court in respect of his uncle Deepak.

Geneology produced is as under -

Gangusingh.

Ramnarthsingh       Jagganathsingh        Badrinath   Kashinathsingh     Eknathsingh




Rajansingh      Ashoksingh        Umesh      Rajesh        Deepak




       Ashwin                Pratik
                                                           wp 2886-2019.odt

The following documents including documents having great probative value placed before Caste Scrutiny Committee:

Sr. Names Relation Documents Date Caste.

No.                         with the        and
                           petitioner    Certificates
 1     Ashok      Singh     Father        School        28/06/1963    Rajput
       Rawat                              Leaving
                                                                      Bhamta
                                         Certificate     (Date of
                                                        Admission)
 2     Ashok      Singh      Father        Caste        01/09/1981    Rajput
       Rawat                             Certificate
                                                                      Bhamta
 3     Jagganathsingh     Grandfather    Abstract of    10/09/1950    Bhamta
       Gangusingh                        Admission        (Date of
                                                                      Rajput
       Sahab                               Cancel       Admission)
                                          Register
 4     i)Ramnath           Petitioner's 7/12 Extract     1968-69     Caste not
       Gangusingh         paternal side                              mentioned
       ii)Jagganath         relatives
       Gangusingh
       iii)Badrinath
       Gangusingh
       iv)Kashinath
       Gangusingh
       v)Eknath
       Gangusingh
 5     Gangusingh            Great     Abstract of       Date not     Rajput
       Moonsingh          Grandfather Field Book of     mentioned
                                                                      Bhamta
                                       Survey No.
                                       62 of Tahsil
                                          Office,
                                         Nanded
 6     Deepak                Uncle         Caste        06/04/2004    Rajput
       Kashinathsingh                     Validity                    Bhamta
       Rawat                             Certificate
 7     Rajansingh         Uncle (Elder     School       20/06/1960    Rajput
       Jagannathsingh      brother of     Leaving                     Bhamta
       Rawat                  the        Certificate.
                          petitioner's
                            father)
                                               wp 2886-2019.odt

5. From these documents it can be seen that

relatives of paternal side are issued with validity certificate,

however, Caste Scrutiny Committee discarded the

documents without granting any opportunity to cross

examine or lead evidence on these documents. It is

submitted that order passed is patently erroneous, illegal

and contrary to the law laid down by this Court and Apex

Court.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on

following decisions:

1. Mukesh Pandurang Bastav Vs. State of

Maharashtra and others, 2018 (2) Mh.L.J. 180.

2. Milind Bhimsing Shirsath Vs. State Vs. State of

Maharashtra and others, 2020 (3) Mh.L.J. 529.

3. Bharat Bhagwan Tayade Vs. State of

Maharashtra and others, in Writ Petition No. 11617 of 2017

dated 15/07/2022.

wp 2886-2019.odt

4. Mayuri D/o Jagannatha Pandhare Vs. State of

Maharashtra Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2021 (2)

Mh.L.J. 487.

5. Apoorva D/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste

Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1, Nagpur and others

reported in 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401.

7. As against this learned Assistant Government

Pleader Shri N.S. Rao supported the order passed by the

Scrutiny Committee and submits that there is difference in

caste mentioned in the documents. The enquiry was

conducted through vigilance cell. The vigilance cell verified

school leaving certificate with record and found that in the

column of caste the words 'Rajput Bhamta' were written in

different handwriting and different ink. The entries are

recorded by playing fraud. It is also further submitted that

so far as validity certificate of Deepak Kashinathsing Rawat

is concerned, the Caste Scrutiny Committee rightly held

that the person is distant relative of the petitioner and the

validity certificate is issued by the Aurangabad Committee as wp 2886-2019.odt

per the direction of the Court and hence it was not

considered appropriately. The Scrutiny Committee rightly

invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner.

8. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties

at length. Perused genealogy and documents placed on

record. In view of the Government Resolution dated

21/11/1961, 'Rajput Bhamta' is notified as Nomadic Tribe.

Considering that, as cut off date, there are documents prior

to cut off date on record in respect of blood relatives of the

petitioner. There is extract of admission cancel register of

grandfather of the petitioner dated 10/09/1950 wherein his

caste is shown as 'Bhamta Rajput'. There is one school

leaving certificate of uncle Rajnathsing Rawat of the

petitioner dated 20/06/1960 showing his caste as 'Rajput

Bhamta'. Apart from this, there is caste validity certificate

issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in respect of the

uncle Deepak Rawat, showing his caste as 'Rajput Bhamta'.

If genealogy of the family is not in dispute and caste

certificate has been issued to close paternal relations, claim wp 2886-2019.odt

of other close relations must be upheld. The Scrutiny

Committee invalidated the claim on the ground that the

caste 'Rajput Bhamta' is written in different ink and

handwriting in respect of documents pertaining to

Gangusingh Moonsing Rajput Bhamta and Ashoksing. It is

held by the Scrutiny Committee that the school leaving

certificate in respect of grandfather of the petitioner, the

caste is mentioned as 'Bhamta Rajput' against column of

caste. Observing that there is no such caste 'Bhamta Rajput'

and it is 'Rajput Bhamta' discarded the document. The said

certificate shows that the date of admission is 10/09/1950,

thus caste is recorded in the year 1950. The caste claim is

also invalidated on the ground that the petitioner has not

proved his affinity and linkage towards 'Rajput Bhamta'

(VJ). While invalidating the claim of the petitioner, the

Caste Scrutiny Committee failed to appreciate that in respect

of uncle of the petitioner Aurangabad, Bench of this Court

concluded this issue. Similar objections were raised by the

Committee while invalidating the claim of the uncle Deepak

of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4755/2003. Petitioner wp 2886-2019.odt

relied on same documents on which the present petitioner is

relying. This Court observed in paragraph No.7 as under :

7. The original 'C' Register of Vajirabad is produced before us. At r. no. 77, it bears the entry of one Gangusinha Munnasinha, grand-father of the petitioner. The caste Rajput Bhamta is mentioned below the entry of his name. It appears that all the entries on the said page are in the handwriting of same person. In such circumstances, it is very difficult to hold that, the entry was made afterwards for the purposes of the caste certificate.

8. In such circumstances, there was no reason for the Scrutiny Committee to doubt the petitioner's caste, Rajput Bhamta (V.J.). We have already seen that, there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of all these documents. Therefore, the Scrutiny Committee was wrong in holding that, the petitioner did not belong to Rajput Bhamta (V.J.). The impugned order is manifestly illegal and, as the same resulted in failure of justice, our interference is called for in exercise of Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

9. So far as affinity is concerned this Court

observed in paragraph No.4 as under :

4. What we find from the findings recorded by the committee is that the Committee has classified documentary evidence in different groups. Firstly, it is wp 2886-2019.odt

seen that the Vigilance Cell had properly made enquiry in this matter and submitted the report. It does not appear that the petitioner did not have any basic knowledge about the characteristics, customs and the culture of the Rajput Bhamta (V.J.). In such circumstances, it will be wrong to say that, the petitioner failed to prove his affinity and those linkage towards Rajput Bhamta (V.J.).

Attempt was made to show that petitioner could not establish, with satisfactory evidence that he belongs to Rajput Bhamta (V.J.). The petitioner has produced on record voluminous documentary evidence, which is classified and consider as under :

(i) The petitioner, in order to substantiate his case that he belongs to Rajput Bhamta (V.J.) has produced on record his caste certificate, sworn statement and school leaving certificate.

(ii) From the extract of school admission register, issued by the Headmaster, Gandhi Rashtriya Vidyalaya, Nanded, dt.1.7.1950, it is seen that the caste of petitioner's father is shown as Rajput Bhamta.

(iii) The school leaving certificate, the abstract from school admission register issued by the Headmaster, Gandhi Rashtriya Vidyalaya, Nanded, dt.1.7.1971, the sworn statement, caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate, Nanded, dt.7.9.1993, etc go to show that the caste of petitioner's sister is shown as Rajput Bhamta.

(iv) The caste certificate of cousin of petitioner is issued by the Executing Magistrate, Nanded. Dt.1.9.1981 and by abstract of the school wp 2886-2019.odt

admission register issued by the Headmaster, Gandhi Rashtriya Hindi Vidyalaya, Nanded. Dt.20.8.1963, show that the caste of cousin of petitioner is Rajput Bhamta.

(v) The school leaving certificate issued by the Headmaster, Rashtriya Hindi Vidyalaya, Nanded. Dt.12.6.1989, abstract of school admission register issued by the Headmaster dt.12.6.1989, caste certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate, Nanded, dt.13.7.1995, and the caste certificate issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nanded, dt.20.6.1998 show that the caste of the son of cousin of petitioner is Rajput Bhamta.

(vi) The caste certificate issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Nanded, of the daughter of cousin of petitioner shows that she belongs to Rajput Bhamta.

(vii) The abstract of Appendix "C" Patrak of Vajirabad dated 16.4.2003 issued by the Awwal Karkun, Tehsil Office, Nanded, in the name of grand father of the petitioner shows his caste as Rajput Bhamta.

10. Accordingly the uncle of the petitioner Deepak

was issued with validity certificate. The judgments so

referred above have concluded that the paternal side

relatives' caste validity certificate, unless quashed and set

aside, must be relied upon, as held in Mukesh (supra), wp 2886-2019.odt

Milind Shirsath (supra), Bharat Bhagwan Taude (supra)

Mayuri Pandhare (supra) and Apoorva Nichale (supra).

When caste validity certificates have been granted to close

blood relatives on the paternal sides the claim of other close

relations ought to be upheld. It is only in case where the

earlier caste validity certificate of close blood relations are

shown to have been obtained by fraud/fabrication, a detail

scrutiny and verification of the claim is required to be

undertaken. As discussed above this Court already held by

calling original documents that the documents relied on

cannot be said to be fabricated and the said order has

become final and conclusive.

11. Thus, tribe validity certificate granted to the

uncle of the petitioner is a conclusive proof of the social

status and it confirmed the genuineness of social status,

status claimed by that person. A document which stands as a

conclusive proof for one person would also stand as a

conclusive proof of social status of another person if such

other person is paternal relatives of the first person wp 2886-2019.odt

possessing the validity certificate. The relatives from

paternal side cannot be members of different caste or tribe

and must be considered to be in law as having same caste or

tribe or community to which their common ancestral from

paternal side belongs. Thus, we find that there was no

reason for Caste Scrutiny Committee to reject the validity

certificate granted to Deepak Rawat and they ought to have

been accepted as conclusive proof of status of the petitioner

as he belongs to 'Rajput Bhamta' (VJ). Considering the

documents and validity certificate placed on record, we find

that petitioner has proved his claim as belonging to 'Rajput

Bhamta'. Accordingly, we pass the following order

ORDER

1. The writ petition is allowed.

2. The impugned order dated 31/03/2018 passed

by the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.3,

Nagpur Division, Nagpur, respondent No.2 is hereby

quashed and set aside.

wp 2886-2019.odt

3. The respondent No.2 is hereby directed to issue

validity certificate to the petitioner that he belongs to

'Rajput Bhamta' (VJ) within a period of four weeks from the

receipt of the copy of the order.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No

order as to costs.

(Smt. M.S. Jawalkar, J.) (Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

Jayashree..

Signed By:JAYASHREE SHARAD SHINGNE

Signing Date:02.05.2022 19:30