Ankita D/O Gautam Gadmade vs State Of Maha. Thr. Principal ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 10572 Bom

                       1/5                           Judg.28.wp.5102.2021



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

                WRIT PETITION NO. 5102 OF 2021

     Ku. Ankita d/o Gautam Gadmade
     Aged about 23 Years, Occu - Student;
     R/o Plot No. 104, Dravesh Apartment,
     Khangar     Layout,   Matoshri   Nagar,
     Wanadongari, Hingna Road, Nagpur.       ...            PETITIONER

                VERSUS

1.   The State of Maharashtra
     Through its Principal Secretary, Higher
     Education Department, Maharashtra
     State, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2.   The Director of Medical Education and
     Research Govt. Dental College and
     Hospital building Sent Gorges Hospital
     premises PDMELO Road FORT Mumbai.

3.   The Schedule Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
     Committee, Amravati Division, Amravati
     through its Joint Commissioner.

4.   The Maharashtra University of Health
     Sciences Mhasrul-Vani-Dindori Road,
     Nasik-422004,  through     its  Vice
     Chancellor.

5.   Shri Vasantrao Naik Government Medical
     College, Yavatmal, through its Dean.

6.   The Sub Divisional Officer, Darwha
     District Yavatmal.                        ...       RESPONDENTS
                          2/5                        Judg.28.wp.5102.2021



Mr. S. D. Malke, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. N. R. Patil, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3, 5 & 6.
Mr. Abhijit Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent No.4.


                               CORAM     : SUNIL B. SHUKRE &
                                           ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.

                               DATE      : OCTOBER 12, 2022.


ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.]


.          Heard Mr. Malke, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr.

Patil, learned AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3, 5 & 6 and Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.4.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. The Petitioner is claiming to be belonging to 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe. Her claim has been rejected by the Scrutiny Committee, Amravati on the ground that there are inconsistent entries in pre-constitutional documents in respect of her paternal relatives showing them to be Mane Kunbi, Mane and Mana and so on, that the Petitioner failed to pass affinity test and that the validity certificate granted to the real brother of the Petitioner namely, Gauresh Gautam Gadmade was obtained by suppression of facts.

4. While it is proved that there are some entries in the 3/5 Judg.28.wp.5102.2021

pre-constitutional documents showing the paternal fore-fathers of the Petitioner to be belonging to Mane Kunbi, Mane, Kunbi Mane, Mane Kunbi and so on, but it is also proved that brother of the Petitioner has been granted validity certificate as he belonging to Mana Scheduled Tribe, as per the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision rendered in C.A.No. 5270/2004. It appears to us that the Scrutiny Committee has not given any importance to the evidentiary value of the validity certificate granted to the brother of the Petitioner on the basis of the directions issued in that regard by the Hon'ble Apex Court and has given undue importance to some entries in the documents of fore-fathers of the Petitioner, as being inconsistent with each other.

5. Infact, the law is well settled on the question of evidentiary value of validity certificate granted to a person by the competent Scrutiny Committee. The validity certificate granted to a person stands as a conclusive proof of social status of that person, unless it is revoked for legally admissible reasons. Therefore, what stands as a conclusive proof of a social status of a person also stands as sufficient and reasonable proof of the social status of a person, who is related from paternal side to a person in whose favour the validity certificate has been granted. This settled position of the law appears to have been completely ignored by the scrutiny committee and the scrutiny committee has been unnecessarily and unduly swayed away by something, which could not be considered to be as reliable and an 4/5 Judg.28.wp.5102.2021

adequate evidence as the validity certificate granted to Gauresh, real brother of the Petitioner.

6. Then, the Scrutiny Committee, in our considered opinion, has superseded its jurisdiction in making certain comments upon the unreliability of the validity certificate granted to Gauresh. Although the Scrutiny Committee has considered the fact that this certificate has been issued to him on the basis of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Scrutiny Committee makes an observation that this certificate appears to have been obtained by suppression of facts relating to documentary evidence of the ancestors of Gauresh.

7. If the Scrutiny Committee was of the view that Gauresh has obtained validity certificate by suppressing material facts, the Scrutiny Committee ought to have approached the Supreme Court and placed before it the material supporting the doubt of the Scrutiny Committee and sought necessary order from the Hon'ble Supreme Court in review. But, till the time, the Supreme Court recorded a finding that Gauresh had obtained the validity by suppressing the material facts, it was not open to the Scrutiny Committee to have recorded an opinion that he had obtained certificate by suppressing facts, as if the Scrutiny Committee was sitting in appeal over the decision taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. What the Scrutiny Committee has done in the present case is against the well settled principles of law. It amounts to 5/5 Judg.28.wp.5102.2021

usurpation of appellate jurisdiction and also has a potential of travelling into arena of contempt of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

8. Such an order of the Scrutiny Committee cannot be sustained in the eye of law and has to be declared as absolutely bad in law. In the result, we allow the Petition. The impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside.

9. We direct the Respondent No.3 - Scrutiny Committee to issue validity certificate to the Petitioner that she belongs to 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the order.

10. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs.

11. In view of disposal of the present Petition, pending Civil Application (CAW) No.1931/2022 does not survive. The same stands disposed of accordingly.

                       (ANIL L. PANSARE J.)                          (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)



                       Yadav VG




Digitally Signed ByVIJAYA
GOURISHANKAR YADAV
Signing Date:14.10.2022
10:21