Bombay High Court
Gangadhar S/O Pandharinath ... vs The Vice - Chairman/ ... on 17 April, 2023
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, M. W. Chandwani
1 wp4281.21 & others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
(I) WRIT PETITION NO.4281 OF 2021
Santosh s/o Pandharinath Ingle,
aged about 48 years, occupation :
service, r/o Dedobaraja Kastuba
Convent, Gadi Madipura, Taluka :
Deulgaon, District Buldana. ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1) The Vice-Chairman/Member-
Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Chaprashipura, Amravati Division,
Amravati.
2) The Manager/President,
Deulgaon Raja Education Society,
Deulgaon, District Buldhana.
3) The Headmaster, Deulgaon Raja
High School, Deulgaon Raja-443204,
District Buldhana.
4) The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Buldhana. ... Respondents
-----------------
Ms. Preeti Rane, Advocate for petitioner.
Mrs. S.S. Jachak, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.1
and 4.
Shri M.R. Joharapurkar, Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3.
----------------
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2023 06:43:21 :::
2 wp4281.21 & others
(II) WRIT PETITION NO.4282 OF 2021
Gangadhar s/o Pandharinath Thakur/
Ingle, aged about 58 years,
occupation : service, r/o Vivekanand
Nagar, Taluka Lonar, District Buldana. ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1) The Vice-Chairman/Member-
Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Chaprashipura, Amravati Division,
Amravati.
2) The President, Shivaji Shikshan
Sanstha, Lonar, District Buldhana.
3) The Headmaster,
Shri Shivaji High School,
Lonar, District Buldhana.
4) The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Buldana. ... Respondents
--------------
Ms. Preeti Rane, Advocate for petitioner.
Mrs. S.S. Jachak, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.1
and 4.
--------------
(III) WRIT PETITION NO.4341 OF 2021
Vaishali s/o Gangadhar Thakur/Ingle,
aged about 26 years, occupation :
Student, r/o Vivekanand Nagar,
Taluka Lonar, District Buldana. ... Petitioner
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2023 06:43:21 :::
3 wp4281.21 & others
- Versus -
The Vice-Chairman/Member-Secretary,
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Chaprashipura,
Amravati Division, Amravati. ... Respondent
-----------
Ms. Preeti Rane, Advocate for petitioner.
Mrs. S.S. Jachak, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent.
------------
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR AND
M.W. CHANDWANI, JJ.
DATED : APRIL 17, 2023
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.) :
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
2) The challenge raised in these writ petitions is to the
orders passed by the Scrutiny Committee dated 28/8/2021 and
23/8/2021 thereby invalidating the claim of the petitioners of
belonging to "Thakur" (Scheduled Tribe). Since the petitioners are
blood relatives and have relied on the same set of documents in
support of their tribe claim, the writ petitions are decided together.
4 wp4281.21 & others
3) To substantiate their claim of belonging to "Thakur"
(Scheduled Tribe), the petitioners have relied upon various
pre-constitutional documents including document dated 30/6/1937
that pertains to their grand-father Pandhari as well as birth extract
dated 25/5/1944, which pertains to their cousin grand-father. The
Scrutiny Committee while invalidating the claim as made has
referred to a document dated 2/7/1968 with the entry "Maratha" as
well as a document dated 7/3/1973 wherein entry "Maratha" has
been scored out and the word "Thakur" has been inserted. Two
other documents dated 18/11/1927 and 1/2/1931 have been
disbelieved on the ground that relationship of the petitioners with
the said persons has not been established. Another reason assigned
is that the forefathers of the petitioners hail from Taluka Risod,
District Washim where members of "Thakur" (Scheduled Tribe)
do not reside traditionally. The aspect of affinity has also been
referred to.
4) On perusing the records of the proceedings, we find that
though the petitioners heavily rely upon the documents dated
30/6/1937 and 25/5/1944, the Scrutiny Committee has not
recorded any finding whatsoever on these documents. The said
5 wp4281.21 & others
documents have been referred to in the report of the Vigilance Cell
and since the petitioners seek to rely upon the same, it was necessary
for the Scrutiny Committee to have considered the said aspect. It is
also found that the aspect of area restriction cannot be given such
importance so as to invalidate the claim on that count. With the
removal of area restrictions in the year 1976, the documentary
evidence along with affinity test ought to be the primary basis for
adjudicating such claim. We also find that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in its recent decision in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat
Swarakshan Samiti vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2023 (2)
Mh.L.J. 785) has held that the affinity test cannot be treated to be
the litmus test while considering such claim and relevance of
pre-constitutional documents has been reiterated.
5) In the aforesaid facts, we find that since there has been
non consideration of relevant documents and as the aspect of area
restriction has been given undue importance, re-consideration of the
petitioners' claim is warranted. This is for the reason that
determination of social status has the effect on entire family and
hence, when a claim is made, all relevant aspects deserve
6 wp4281.21 & others
consideration. For this reason, the impugned orders dated
28/8/2021 and 23/8/2021 are set aside.
6) The petitioners shall appear before the Scrutiny
Committee on 2nd May 2023 to enable the Scrutiny Committee to re-
consider their claim. Since the report of the Vigilance Cell is already
on record, it is not necessary to call for a fresh report in that regard.
The Scrutiny Committee shall re-consider the entire record in the
light of the observations made hereinabove and pass a fresh order
within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the
petitioners.
7) In Writ Petition No.4281/2021, since the order passed
by the Scrutiny Committee has been set aside, the consequential
order terminating the services of the petitioner on 21/9/2021 is set
aside. The respondent nos.2 and 3 shall reinstate the service of the
petitioner with continuity. The continuation of the petitioner in
service would be subject to final outcome of the proceedings for
verification. Similarly, the prayer for grant of back wages would also
be dependent upon the outcome of those proceedings. After
reinstatement, the petitioner will be entitled to receive regular salary.
7 wp4281.21 & others
8) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
khj
