Bombay High Court
Roshna D/O. Rajkumar Rokde vs District Caste Certificate Scrutiny ... on 29 November, 2023
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
2023:BHC-NAG:17005-DB
1 wp 515.23 Judg.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.515/2023
Roshna d/o Rajkumar Rokde,
Aged about 30 years, Occ.-At present in service,
R/o. At Post Adgaon, Taluka Pusad,
District Yavatmal 445215
Mobile No.9011431034. .... Petitioner.
Versus
1. District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Yavatmal, having its office at
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Social Justice Bhawan,
Darwa Road, Yavatmal, through its President/Secretary.
2. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution
Company Limited, having its office at
Panvel Gramin Vibhag, Vidyut Bhawan,
Bhingari, Taluka Panvel 410206, through its
Executive Engineer, having a landline
telephone facility No.022-27452898. .... Respondents.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.K. Tambde, Advocates for Petitioner.
Mr. A.S. Fulzele, Additional Government Pleader for respondents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : Nitin W. Sambre & Abhay J. Mantri, JJ
DATE : 29-11-2023.
Oral Judgment (Per Abhay J. Mantri, J.)
Heard. Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. The petitioner being disgruntled and aggrieved by the
order dated 07-11-2022 passed in matter No. OBC/456545/3490
2 wp 515.23 Judg.doc
by respondent no.1-District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Yavatmal (for short, the "Scrutiny Committee"), invalidating the
claim of the petitioner that she belongs to ' Lad' Other Backward
Class (O.B.C.) category, has preferred this petition.
3. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Yavatmal
District. She has passed I.T.I. Diploma in Electric Trade. Based on
her educational qualification, she came to be appointed as an
Electrical Assistant under O.B.C category with respondent no.2
vide order dated 07-12-2021.
4. It is contended that she belongs to Jain religion.
Her caste is 'Lad'. As per the Government decision dated
09-08-1995, 'Lad' caste is recognized as Other backward Class in
the State of Maharashtra. On 20-10-2021, the Sub-Divisional
Officer issued a Caste Certificate in her favour.
5. On 16-11-2021 respondent no.2 submitted a
proposal to respondent no.1 for issuance of Caste Validity
Certificate in favour of the petitioner. The Scrutiny Committee
after conducting the enquiry and considering the Vigilance Cell
Report has passed the impugned order thereby invalidating the
claim of the petitioner as of she belonging to ' Lad' OBC category.
Hence the petitioner has preferred this petition.
3 wp 515.23 Judg.doc
6. The learned Advocate for the petitioner
vehemently contended that respondent no.1 had ignored the
pre-constitutional document dated 11-06-1927 issued in the name
of great grandfather of the petitioner and thereby erred in
invalidating the claim of the petitioner as she belongs to ' Lad'
caste. Secondly, he submitted that respondent No. 1 had ignored
the Government decision dated 22-08-2007 and erred in
discarding the Validity Certificate issued in favour of the cousin
sister of the petitioner. In support of his contention, he has relied
upon the judgment in the case of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale vs
Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others
(2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401) and submitted that in view of the ratio laid
down in the said judgment the respondent no.1 ought not to have
refused to issue Validity Certificate in favour of the petitioner
being a blood relative of Yashsvi. During the argument, he has
invited our attention to the Vigilance Cell Report and other
documents on record and submitted that passing of the impugned
order by respondent no.1-Scrutiny Committee is illegal and
bad-in-law. Therefore, the same shall be liable to be set aside.
7. Per contra, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 strongly
resisted the petition on the ground that the Vigilance Cell Report
denotes the caste of the petitioner's father as ' Jain', so also the
subsequent entries in the School Leaving Certificate and other
documents show that petitioner belongs to ' Jain' caste. The
petitioner failed to produce any document to show that she
4 wp 515.23 Judg.doc
belongs to 'Lad' caste. Therefore, passing of the order by
respondent No. 1 is just and proper, and no inference is required
in it. It is also canvassed that the Caste Validity Certificate of
Ku. Yashaswi Rokade, cousin sister of the petitioner, produced by
the petitioner found to be a different one and therefore the same is
not helpful for the petitioner in supporting her claim. Therefore,
the respondents nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the petition is devoid
of merits and deserves to be rejected.
8. Having considered the rival contentions of the
parties, we have gone through the record and the impugned order.
It is pertinent to note that the petitioner in support of her claim
has relied upon the extract of the birth register dated 11-06-1927.
The said entry denotes that one baby was born on 11-06-1927 and
the name of his father was shown as Nemasa Chandansa and his
caste was mentioned as 'Lad'. The said fact also appears in the
Vigilance Cell Report. The Vigilance authorities have not disputed
the said document. While passing the order, the Scrutiny
Committee considered the said document at serial No. 'A' which is
a revenue record. The Scrutiny Committee has also observed that
they have inspected the original record of the Tahsil office, Pusad,
and found that the entry dated 11-06-1927 denotes the name of
Nemasa Chandansa as the father of the newly born baby and his
caste was mentioned as ' Lad' is correct. As such the evidential
value of the said document is not disputed. The Scrutiny
Committee has not disputed the said document but only observed
5 wp 515.23 Judg.doc
that the subsequent documents indicate that the petitioner and his
father belong to 'Jain' caste. Undisputedly, in the Vigilance Cell
Report, the Vigilance Officer disclosed that ' Jain' is a religion and
'Lad' is a caste. Despite the said fact, the Scrutiny Committee has
discarded the said document and observed that the petitioner
failed to produce any document showing that she belongs to ' Lad'
caste.
9. It is to be noted that similarly in paragraph 14 of the
order, the Scrutiny Committee has observed that the petitioner
belongs to 'Lad' caste and 'Jain' religion. Despite the said fact the
Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the claim of the petitioner of
she is belonging to 'Lad' caste. The said finding appears to be
contrary to the observations made in the order as well as in the
Vigilance Cell Report. In fact, the document dated 11-06-1927 is
of a pre-constitutional era and has a greater probative value than
the subsequent documents that have relied upon by the Scrutiny
Committee, and therefore on that count alone, the claim of the
petitioner could not have been rejected.
10. Moreover, the Vigilance Cell Report did not dispute
the document dated 11-06-1927. In the report in Clause "A" they
have mentioned the document dated 11-06-1927, likewise in
Clause 'C' they observed that during the discreet enquiry, it was
found that the father of the petitioner belongs to the ' Lad' caste
and they are following "Jain" religion. However, the Scrutiny
6 wp 515.23 Judg.doc
Committee has not considered the said observation in the
Vigilance Report. The Scrutiny Committee has also observed that
the petitioner has deliberately and intentionally produced the
document on record that the great-grandfather of the petitioner
belonged to 'Lad' caste. The Scrutiny Committee has not
considered the fact that they have inspected the original record
and the entry of the year 1927, which is of the pre-constitutional
era, the petitioner or Authority has no reason to insert the caste of
the great grandfather of the petitioner as ' Lad '. The observation
of the Scrutiny Committee has not been supported by any cogent
evidence and therefore we do not find substance in the finding
given by the Scrutiny Committee.
11. Besides, the petitioner has produced the verification
report about the Validation Certificate issued by the Caste
Scrutiny Committee, Amravati, in favour of her paternal uncle
Dilip Kamlakar Rokade, stating that the Caste Certificate issued in
his favour is valid. Likewise, the petitioner has produced the caste
Validity Certificate issued in favour of her cousin sister i.e.
Ku. Yashaswi Kailas Rokade on 29-10-2015 before the Caste
Scrutiny Committee, Amravati. However, the Scrutiny Committee
has observed that the name of Ku. Yashaswi is not mentioned in
the pedigree/genealogy. Nevertheless, the Scrutiny Committee has
not taken into consideration the name of Kailas Rokade which is
mentioned in the pedigree, who is the father of Ku. Yashaswi.
Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Scrutiny Committee has
7 wp 515.23 Judg.doc
erred in discarding the said certificate. In fact, since the case in
hand is covered by the ratio laid down in the case of Apoorva
Nichale (supra). Therefore, the Scrutiny Committee is required to
issue a caste certificate in favour of the petitioner, unless the
Scrutiny Committee finds that the validity certificate of such
relation has been obtained by fraud. In the order, the Scrutiny
Committee has not observed that the said certificate was obtained
by fraud or the said certificate was issued without any jurisdiction
by the Scrutiny Committee, and therefore, there is no reason for
the Scrutiny Committee to discard the said certificate. On the
contrary, the Scrutiny Committee ought not to have refused the
same status to the petitioner who is in blood relation to
Ku. Yashaswi and therefore the finding of the Scrutiny Committee
appears to be contrary to the ratio laid in the aforesaid judgment.
12. Moreover, the Scrutiny Committee by filing a reply
has not disputed the entry dated 11-06-1927 but only stated that
the subsequent documents on record show that the petitioner
belongs to 'Jain' caste. The Scrutiny Committee has stated that
'Jain' is not caste but it is religion. Likewise the Scrutiny
Committee has neither disputed the Validity Certificate issued in
favour of Dilip Rokade as well as to Ku. Yashaswi Rokade, but
only contended that the name of Ku. Yashaswi is not mentioned
in the pedigree. To counter the same, the petitioner has filed a
rejoinder affidavit and clarified each fact. The said affidavit is
neither denied nor disputed by the Scrutiny Committee.
8 wp 515.23 Judg.doc
13. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion and
documents on record, to sum up, it clearly reveals, that the entry
dated 11-06-1927 shows that the caste of the great-grandfather of
the petitioner was shown as 'Lad' in the revenue record which is
not disputed by the Scrutiny Committee. The said document has a
greater probative value than the subsequent documents being a
document of a pre-constitutional era. Secondly, the field
Verification Report of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Amravati in
respect of Dilip Rokade shows that the validity certificate issued in
his favour denotes that he belongs to "Lad" caste. The caste
Validity Certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee, Amravati in
favour of Ku. Yashaswi, cousin sister of the petitioner, denotes that
she belongs to the 'Lad' caste and therefore as per the ratio laid
down in the case of Apoorva Nichale (supra) the Scrutiny
Committee ought not to have refused the same status to the
petitioner that she belongs to ' Lad' caste. Thus, it seems that the
findings given by the Scrutiny Committee are contrary to the ratio
laid down in the case of Apoorva Nichale (supra) as well as the
facts on record. Therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and set
aside in the present petition. Hence, we deem it appropriate to
pass the following order.
(i) Impugned order dated 07-11-2022 passed in matter
No. OBC/456545/3490 by the respondent no.1-
Scrutiny Committee is hereby quashed and
set aside.
9 wp 515.23 Judg.doc
(ii) It is declared that the petitioner has proved that
she belongs to "Lad" Other Backward Class category.
(iii) Within a period of four weeks of receiving the copy
of this judgment, the respondent No. 1- Scrutiny
Committee shall issue a Validity Certificate to the
petitioner.
(iv) On production of the Validity Certificate, the
respondent no.2 shall take steps for recalling the show
cause notice dated 19/12/2022 and shall protect
the services of the petitioner, if she is otherwise not
disqualified.
14. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as
to costs.
(Abhay J. Mantri, J.) ( Nitin W. Sambre, J.)
Deshmukh
Signed by: Mr. S.Deshmukh
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/12/2023 11:00:52
