Ku. Bhagyashree D/O Ashok Kashid vs State Of Mah., Thr. Its Secretary, ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11132 Bom

WP 1502-2015                                    1                       Judgment

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                      NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                    WRIT PETITION NO. 1502 OF 2015

Ku. Bhagyashree d/o. Ashok Kashid,
Aged about 28 years, Occ. Service, R/o Dabki Road,
Old City, Akola, Tah. and District Akola.
                                                                    PETITIONER
                                  .....VERSUS.....
1.     State of Maharashtra,
       through its Secretary,
       Department of Social Welfare,
       Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

2.     Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.2,
       Amravati Division, Akola,
       Office at District Collectorate, Akola.

3.     Superintendent of Police, Akola,
       Tah. and District Akola.
                                                                 RESPONDENT S

                   Shri O.Y. Kashid, Advocate for the petitioner.
     Ms. S.S. Jachak, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents/ State.


CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND M.W. CHANDWANI, JJ.

DATE : 20/10/2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

The challenge raised in this Writ Petition is to the order

passed by the Scrutiny Committee dated 5/1/2015 thereby invalidating

the petitioner's caste claim of belonging to "Kunbi" Other Backward Class.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that she and her forefathers

belong to Kunbi community and her claim was sought to be supported by

various old documents including the birth extract of her great WP 1502-2015 2 Judgment

grandfather of the year 1921 as well as his School Leaving Certificate.

The Vigilance Cell while conducting its enquiry had referred to the old

documents and observed that insofar as the document of 1921 was

concerned, the word "Kunbi" was mentioned. The original record of the

said document was however not obtained. Insofar as the document of the

year 1936 is concerned, the same had an entry "Marathe". The Scrutiny

Committee after considering the report of the Vigilance Cell observed that

though in the document of the year 1921 there was an entry of "Kunbi",

the original record was not found to be available and therefore discarded

the said document. On that basis, the claim of the petitioner came to be

rejected.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a son

was born to Rangnath in the year 1921 and in the birth record the entry

as made clearly indicated the word "Kunbi". The petitioner's grandfather

was Manikrao and in his document of the year 1936, the word "Marathe"

was mentioned. Since there was no caste by name "Marathe", it was

submitted that the earlier document of the year 1921 ought to be

considered without giving much weightage to the entry "Marathe". In that

regard, the learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision in Balasaheb

Jaywantrao Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [Writ Petition No.

7034/2019 decided on 20/12/2019]. Since there was no dispute with WP 1502-2015 3 Judgment

regard to the relationship as indicated, the Scrutiny Committee ought to

have accepted the petitioner's claim. By failing to give due weightage to

the document of 1921, grave prejudice has been caused to the petitioner.

On these counts, it was submitted that the impugned order passed by the

Scrutiny Committee was liable to be set aside.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for the

respondents supported the impugned order. She referred to the record of

the Scrutiny Committee and submitted that the document of 1921 was

rightly excluded from consideration since it only mentioned the name

"Rangnath" with no further details. The document of 1936 was discarded

since there was no entry of "Kunbi" therein. Besides these documents,

there was no further material with the petitioner to substantiate her

claim. The Scrutiny Committee after considering the entire record had

rightly invalidated the petitioner's caste claim.

5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and we

have perused the documents on record. We find that the petitioner has

principally relied upon the documents of 1921 and 1936 to substantiate

her claim. Insofar as the document of 1921 is concerned, the same does

bear entry "Rangnath (Kunbi)". Though the Vigilance Cell sought to

procure the old record, it was perhaps not made available for due WP 1502-2015 4 Judgment

verification. The Scrutiny Committee observed that from the report of the

Vigilance Cell, it was not clear that whether the said document was

available or not and proceeded to discard the said document. The

petitioner having relied upon the old document of 1921, it was necessary

for the Vigilance Cell and thereafter for the Scrutiny Committee to have

arrived at some conclusion as regards its genuineness. The said document

could not have been discarded only on the ground that the original record

was not found. The Vigilance Cell could have taken further steps to

procure that document and verify it through other permissible modes.

Being a document of the year 1921, it required consideration. The

document has not been considered in its proper perspective.

6. It is further found that the petitioner submitted details of her

family tree vide affidavit dated 4/1/2013. Though it is the case of the

petitioner that her great grandfather Rangnath had three sons namely

Mahadeorao, Manikrao and Yashwantrao, the affidavit dated 4/1/2013

does not give the names of all the sons of Rangnath. It was necessary for

the petitioner to have submitted a detailed family tree before the

Vigilance Cell and the Scrutiny Committee to enable them to appreciate

that aspect including the relationship as claimed. Though the Vigilance

Cell has not disputed the relationship of Manikrao with Rangnath, in the

light of the fact that the birth extract of 1921 indicates a son being born WP 1502-2015 5 Judgment

to Rangnath coupled with the fact that the petitioner's grandfather

Manikrao was born on 10/7/1929, it was necessary to indicate the details

of the other sons of Rangnath. This aspect would have material bearing

on the claim sought to be raised by the petitioner.

7. The decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the

petitioner no doubt holds that mere reference to the words Marathi/

Marathe would not be very significant insofar as the old documents are

concerned, the said aspect also requires re-consideration in view of the

fact that the document of 1936 refers to the entry "Marathe".

8. For all these reasons, we are of the view that the Scrutiny

Committee ought to re-consider the petitioner's claim of belonging to

"Kunbi" Other Backward Class. The observations made hereinabove are

required to be taken into consideration during the exercise of

re-consideration.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following order is passed :

i. The order passed by the Scrutiny Committee on 5/1/2015 is

quashed and set aside. The proceedings are remitted to the Scrutiny

Committee at Akola for re-considering the petitioner's claim of belonging WP 1502-2015 6 Judgment

to "Kunbi" Other Backward Class. The petitioner shall furnish detailed

family tree in the manner stated hereinabove. The Vigilance Cell as well

as the Scrutiny Committee shall consider the weightage to be given to the

birth extract of 1921 indicating the birth of a son to Rangnath.

ii. To facilitate such re-consideration, the petitioner shall appear

before the Scrutiny Committee on 15/11/2022. The Scrutiny Committee

shall within a period of four months from that date take a decision on the

petitioner's claim. Needless to state that the petitioner shall continue in

employment as earlier subject to the final outcome of the proceedings.

iii. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as

to costs.

                                     (M.W. CHANDWANI, J.)           (A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

                         SUMIT




Digitally signed bySUMIT CHETAN
AGRAWAL
Signing Date:21.10.2022 15:30