Bombay High Court
Gaurav S/O Pradeep Wagh vs The Vice - Chairman/ Member ... on 15 August, 2023
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote, M. W. Chandwani
1 15-08-WP-7815-22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION No. 7815 OF 2022
PETITIONER: : Gaurav s/o Pradeep Wagh,
Aged about 18 yrs, Occ. Student,
R/o House No.121, Holi Maidan,
Katol, Distt. Nagpur - 441302
Vs.
RESPONDENTS : 1 The Vice-Chairman / Member
Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Nagpur
2 The Principal,
Yeshwantrao Chavan College of
Engineering, Wanadongri, Nagpur
3 The Commissioner, State Common
Entrance Test Cell, Maharashtra State,
8th Floor, New Excelsior, A.K. Nayak
Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 400001
Ms. Preeti Rane, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Nitin Rao, AGP for respondent No.1 / State
Mr. P.D. Meghe, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Mr. N.S. Khubhalkar, Advocate for Respondent No.3
CORAM: AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND
M.W. CHANDWANI, JJ.
DATED : 15th AUGUST, 2023
ORAL JUDGMENT (P.C.)
1. The matter is taken up today on the urgent request
of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the
2 15-08-WP-7815-22.odt
petitioner has applied for the engineering course and the time
for submission of the validity, the benefit of which, the
petitioner desires to have, was 3:00 p.m. on 16/08/2023, on
account of which, the matter has been taken up today for
urgent hearing. Though now we have been informed that the
time for submission of the validity has been extended till 5:00
p.m. of 17/08/2023, and we could have passed an interim
order, however, in view of what has been held in Dilip Vitthal
Bambale and others Vs. Vinit Kumar Motiram Totlade and
others Civil Appeal Nos.11234-48 of 2017 decided on
06/09/2017 where the passing of interim order in such
matters has been disapproved and since we have heard the
matter, we are proceeding to decide the same with the consent
of the respective learned counsels for the parties.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard Mrs.
Rane, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Rao, learned
Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.1; Mr.
Meghe, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and Mr.
Khubalkar, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.
3. The petition questions the decision of the Caste
Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur dated 10/11/2022 (pg.198)
whereby the certificate issued to the petitioner by the
competent authority dated 18/09/2018 of belonging to Mana
3 15-08-WP-7815-22.odt
Scheduled Tribe has been cancelled by the committee by
holding that the petitioner does not belong to the said tribe.
4. Mrs. Rane, learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that the father of the petitioner Pradeep Wagh has
already been issued a validity certificate by the same
Committee on 22/06/2019 (pg.30). Not only this, the uncle of
the petitioner, namely Nishakant Laxman Wagh has been
issued a validity certificate on 09/02/2010 (pg.59) and so also
the first cousins of the petitioner, namely, Harshal Nishikant
Wagh has been issued a caste validity certificate on
15/11/2018 (pg.122); Chaitanya Nishikant Wagh on
02/02/2019 (pg.82); Ankita Vinod Wagh on 25/04/2019
(pg.83). It is further contended that in the case of Harshal
Nishikant Wagh, there was a vigilance enquiry conducted
(pg.61) and based upon the same entries and documents,
which are extant in the present petition, the validity certificate
has been granted to him on 10/11/2018 (pg.122). She also
submits that earlier in point of time Vrushali Vinod Wagh has
also been granted validity by the Committee on 26/10/2009
(pg.220); Vidya Laxmanrao Wagh, the paternal aunt of the
petitioner, was also granted the validity by the committee on
28/01/2009 (pg.219); Vaibhav Vinod Wagh the first cousin of
the petitioner was also granted validity on 21/10/2009
4 15-08-WP-7815-22.odt
(pg.220). It is, therefore, submitted that it was not
permissible, for the Committee, to question the validity
granted to these persons and by not relying upon them to hold
that the petitioner did not belong to the Mana Scheduled
Tribe, specifically so, when the inter se relationship is not
disputed.
5. Mr. Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
the respondent no.1/Committee justifies the impugned
decision of the Committee contending that the certificates
granted to Vidya, Vrushali, Nishikant, Vaibhav were without a
vigilance cell enquiry and therefore, have rightly not been
relied upon by the Committee. He further submits that the
certificate issued in favour of the father of the petitioner,
namely, Pradip Wagh is also without vigilance cell enquiry and
on this ground also the refusal to rely on the same by the
Committee is justified. He therefore supports the impugned
decision of the Committee. It is also contended that there are
contra entries as considered by the Committee, for which he
invites our attention to the entry for the year 1928 in the
school register of Mahadeo Kashinath the common ancestor
and the subsequent entries in the tax assessment of Kashinath
Bapu Wagh, Bala Bapu Wagh for the assessment years 1941-42
to 1953-54, the great grandfather and the cousin great
5 15-08-WP-7815-22.odt
grandfather of the petitioner respectively. Reliance is also
placed upon the school record of Bhaskar Kashinath, the real
grandfather of the petitioner, which depicts the entry of Mane
in the year 1942 to 1955. He, therefore, submits that since
there were contra entries, the decision of the Committee is
justified.
6. Mr. Meghe and Mr. Khubalkar, learned counsels for
the respondent nos.2 and 3 respectively have nothing to say in
the matter.
7. It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner,
namely, Pradeep Wagh has been granted a validity certificate
by the same Scrutiny Committee on 22/06/2019 (pg.30). It is
also not in dispute that the first cousins of the petitioner,
namely Harshal, Chaitanya and Ankita have also been granted
validity certificate by the Committee, as indicated above. It is
also not in dispute that Vidya, Vaibhav and Vrushali, the
cousins of the petitioner, whose relationship is not disputed, as
is indicated from the genealogical tree prepared by the
vigilance cell (pg.143) have also been granted validity
certificates. What is material to note is that while granting
validity certificate to Ku. Vidya Laxmanrao Wagh, Shri Vaibhav
Vinod Wagh and Ku. Vrushali Vinod Wagh, the Scrutiny
Committee has rendered a finding that the tribe claim made by
6 15-08-WP-7815-22.odt
the applicants based upon the documents submitted by them
was genuine and therefore as per the Maharashtra Act
No.23/2001 and Rule 12 (2) the case has not been handed
over to the police vigilance cell of the Scrutiny Committee for
conducting the school and home enquiry and the scrutiny
Committee has given decision on merit, whereupon based
upon the entries made in the documents, the scrutiny
Committee has granted the validity certificate. It is also
necessary to note that based upon the same documents, which
were before the Scrutiny Committee the first cousin of the
petitioner, namely, Harshal Nishikant Wagh has after a
vigilance enquiry the report of which is at page 61 also been
granted a validity certificate by the Committee on 15/11/2018
(pg.122). It is thus apparent that where found necessary a
vigilance enquiry has been conducted and the claim in respect
of the first cousin of the petitioner has been found to be
genuine. In Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan
Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 326 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that only when the
Scrutiny Committee after holding enquiry is not satisfied with
the material produced by the applicant, the case can be
referred to the vigilance cell. In the instant case, as pointed
out above, a vigilance enquiry was conducted on the same set
7 15-08-WP-7815-22.odt
of documents and the entries made therein in respect of
Harshal Nishikant Wagh and being satisfied with the claim the
Scrutiny Committer vide the decision dated 15/11/2018
(pg.122) has granted a validity certificate to the said first
cousin of the petitioner. That being the position, when as many
as seven persons from the same genealogical tree (pg.143)
have been granted validity certificates by the same Committee,
there was no reason whatsoever for the Committee to doubt
the veracity of the claim made by the petitioner. The finding
rendered by the Committee that the certificates issued to
Vidya, Vaibhav, Vrushali and Nishikant, in absence of the
vigilance cell enquiry could not be relied upon, is clearly
untenable in law, in view of what has been said by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan
Samiti (supra) [para 38 (a)].
8. That takes us to the plea that there are contra
entries in the vigilance cell report. It is an undisputed fact that
the original entry of 01/02/1922 of Mahadeo Kashinath, was
of Mana (pg.55). There is contra entry of Mani in the school
entry register, of 24/02/1922 (pg.147). In Priya Pramod Gajbe
Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others Civil Appeal
No.7117/2019 decided on 11/07/2023 by the Hon'ble Apex
Court it has been held that the earliest entry, should be given
8 15-08-WP-7815-22.odt
credence. In that case the earliest entry was 10/03/1924
showing the caste as Mana while another document of
14/04/1926 showed the caste as Mani. It was an admitted
position, there that there was no caste named as Mani and
therefore, it was held that there was a possibility of some
mistake in writing when the caste was written. The instant
case is not dissimilar to the position as considered in Priya
Pramod Gajbe (supra), inasmuch as in the school entry
register the entry dated 24/02/1928 is also of Mani and
therefore, what has been said in Priya Pramod Gajbe (supra)
regarding the nature of the entry would equally apply to the
present petition.
9. Since the validity certificates had been granted to
the first cousins, uncle and father of the petitioner as indicated
above, based upon the same set of documents and entries
made therein, the learned Scrutiny Committee could not have
commented upon them and discarded them, unless the
procedure as prescribed in Section 7 of the Maharashtra
Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes
(Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and
Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and
Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000, was adopted,
resulting in the consequence indicated therein. However, till
9 15-08-WP-7815-22.odt
such time, these validity certificates stand, they will continue
to hold the field and bind even the Scrutiny Committee.
10. A very peculiar position has arisen in the present
matter inasmuch as the father of the petitioner, namely,
Pradeep Wagh holds the caste validity certificate of belonging
to the Scheduled Tribe Mana, which is also the position in
respect of his uncle Nishikant Laxman Wagh and his children
and so also of the children of his other uncle Vinod Wagh, as
against which, the same status, has been denied to the
petitioner. So the father in this case is a tribal and the son
because of the decision of the Committee becomes a non-
tribal, which is a situation, which cannot be countenanced.
11. In light of what has been held above, in our
considered opinion, the decision of the caste Scrutiny
Committee dated 10/11/2022 (pg.198) cannot be sustained.
The same is hereby quashed and set aside and it is held that
the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Tribe Mana as
included in entry 18 of the Constitution (ST) Order, 1950. The
respondent no.1 is, therefore, directed to issue an appropriate
validity certificate to the petitioner, on 17/08/2023 before
5:00 p.m. Till such time, this judgment shall be treated as a
document certifying the validity of the petitioner being
entitled to the benefits of the Scheduled Tribe Mana. The
10 15-08-WP-7815-22.odt
respondent nos.2 and 3, who are present before us will
accordingly act upon this judgment in the matter of
entertaining the claim of the petitioner for granting him
admission.
12. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is
made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.
(M.W.CHANDWANI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
Wadkar
