Bombay High Court
Priyanaka Dilip Rekulwad vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 20 September, 2023
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Shailesh P. Brahme
2023:BHC-AUG:20358-DB
1 WP 10827.23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 10827 OF 2023
Priyanka D/o Dilip Rekulwad,
Age - 19 years, Occu. : Student,
R/o Gavan, Tq. Jalkot,
Dist. Latur. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Department of Tribal Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32,
Through its Secretary.
2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Kinwat
office at Aurangabad,
Through Member Secretary. .. Respondents
Shri Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate h/f Shri Vivekanand B.
Jadhav, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri S. B. Yawalkar, Addl.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL AND
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT/ORDER : 31.08.2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER PRONOUNCED : 20.09.2023
JUDGMENT (Per Shailesh P. Brahme, J.) :-
. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent
of the learned counsel for respective parties heard finally at the
admission stage.
2 WP 10827.23
2. The petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated
10.08.2023 passed by the respondent No. 2/Scrutiny Committee
invalidating her tribe certificate as belonging to "Koli Mahadev"
(Scheduled Tribe) and confiscating the same.
3. The petitioner has placed on record genealogy at page No.
49 of the petition to point out the validity holders in her family
and her relationship with them. It is pointed out that there are
number of validity holders and predominantly she is relying
upon validities of Vikrant Ganesh Rekulwad and Madhukar
Govind Rekulwad. She is also relying upon her reply to the
vigilance enquiry report, validity certificate issued to her
relatives, the extract of revenue record and the vigilance report
in the matter of Vikrant Ganesh Rekulwad.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit
that the Scrutiny Committee has rightly rejected the caste claim
of the petitioner because the school record of the relatives of the
petitioner was found to be incompatible with the caste claim of
the petitioner. Amongst the contrary entries, entries of 1962 of
Ramrao Marotirao Rekulwad, Sulochana Tukaram Rekulwad
and entry of 1964 of Kamal Tukaram Rekulwad are older than
the entries in the school record sought to be relied by the
petitioner. The learned Addl. G. P. would point out that the
record is indicative of caste Koli, which is non trible. The
Scrutiny Committee has also noticed manipulation in the school
record of Jalba Vishwanath Rekulwad and Balbhim Baburao
3 WP 10827.23
Rekulwad.
5. The learned Addl. G. P. submits that the validity
certificates of Madhukar Govind Rekulwad and Vikrant Ganesh
Rekulwad are not reliable. The relationship of the petitioner
with the validity holders is disputed. Signature of Madhukar
Rekulwad appears to be forged. The learned Addl. G. P. has
placed on record original files of the petitioner and the validity
holders Deepak Subhash Rekulwad, Madhukar Govind
Rekulwad, Vikrant Ganesh Rekulwad and Dilip Narsing
Rekulwad. He has strenuously raised objection for
inconsistencies in the genealogies produced before the Scrutiny
Committee in the respective matters of the above validity
holders.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out the
vigilance report in the matter of Vikrant Ganesh Rekulwad to
support the contention that the entry of 1965 in the school record
of Ganesh Parshuram Rekulwad and entry of 1968 of Balaji
Ramchandra Rekulwad were verified. These two entries indicate
caste as Koli Mahadev. He has also invited our attention to the
reply submitted to vigilance report, which refers to the entries in
the matter of Ganesh and Balaji. He would submit that no
negative comment is passed in respect of those entries. The
learned counsel has tendered justification for not filing affidavit
of the relatives.
7. It is stated in the reply that the petitioner had applied for
4 WP 10827.23
the copies of the documents, but those were not supplied. He
would submit that he is surprised by the findings recorded by the
Committee in respect of forged signature of Madhukar. As the
relevant documents were not produced and the petitioner was
not apprised of the files of the validity holders. He was unable to
respond to that aspect of the matter before the Scrutiny
Committee. Hence the alleged forgery of Madhukar Rekulwad
cannot be considered.
8. He would submit that the entries of Census of 1951
indicating caste Koli is inconsequential because those are
inadmissible in view of Section 15 of the Census Act. He further
submits that the validity holders Vikrant, Madhukar and
Deepak were issued with the validity certificates after following
due procedure of law and the Scrutiny Committee ought to have
granted validity certificate to the petitioner.
9. We have considered rival submissions canvassed by the
parties. With the assistance of the learned counsel we have
examined the papers contained in the files of the petitioner,
Vikrant, Deepak, Madhukar and Dilip produced by the
respondents.
10. The genealogy which is produced at page No. 49 shows that
the petitioner is lineal descendant of Pundaji Rekulwad. Gundaji
and Pundaji are the sons of Sakhu. Sakhu is real brother of
Santu. The validity holders of which the support is sought for by
the petitioner are lineal descendants of Gundaji Sakhu Rekulwad
5 WP 10827.23
and Santu Laxman Rekulwad. It is transpired from the record
that the genealogy at page No. 49 is totally inconsistent with the
genealogies produced in the matters of validity holders.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner is relying upon
entries of the school record of Ganesh Parshuram Rekulwad
(1965) and Balaji Ramchandra Rekulwad (1968) indicating caste
as Mahadev Koli. It reveals from the record that few entries of
the relatives of the petitioner are older than the entry of Ganesh
of 1965. The vigilance officer found that the school record of
Ramrao Maroti Rekulwad of 1962 and Sulochana Tukaram
Rekulwad of 1962 disclose caste Koli. These adverse entries are
not explained by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Besides
that there are further contrary entries of Kamal Ramchandra
Rekulwad (1966), Champawati Parshuram Rekulwad (1967),
Balaji Tukaram Rekulwad (1967) and Vimal Maroti Rekulwad
(1967) to indicate caste Koli which are prior to another entry of
Balaji of 1968 referred by the petitioner.
12. We find that the school entry of 1965 of Ganesh and 1968
of Balaji can be of no help to the petitioner. From 1962 till 1978
there are number of entries indicating caste as Koli, which are
considered by the Scrutiny Committee in paragraph 6(ii) of the
impugned judgment, which cannot be faulted.
13. It also reflects from the record that a tampering was
noticed in the school entry of Jalba, Balbhim and Madhukar. We
do not see any reason to disbelieve the finding of tampering
6 WP 10827.23
recorded by the Scrutiny committee. At the same time, we do not
approve the finding in respect of the Census entries of 1951 being
inadmissible in evidence.
14. The learned Addl. G. P. has referred file of Madhukar, who
is one of the validity holders. The signature on Form - E and his
signature on an affidavit executed on 12.07.2013 which is
produced in the file of Dilip do not match. Therefore, his
affidavit is doubtful. The findings recorded by the Scrutiny
Committee cannot be faulted.
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
validity certificates of Vikrant, Madhukar, Dilip and Deepak.
The learned Addl. G. P. has raised strong objection for the
genealogies produced in the matter of present petitioner,
Madhukar, Deepak and Dilip. Pertinently, the genealogies in
the matters of Dilip, Madhukar and Deepak do not match with
each others. Further these genealogies are totally inconsistent
with the one referred by the petitioner at page No. 49 of the
petition. Following are genealogies stated on affidavits by
Madhukar, Vikrant and Deepak before the Scrutiny Committee.
7 WP 10827.23
A. Genealogy stated by Vikrant Ganesh Rekulwad.
Gundaji Laxman Rekulwad
Grand father
Maruti Bhujang Bapurao Ramchandra Laxman
Gundaji Gundaji Gundaji Gundaji Gundaji
Rekulwad Rekulwad Rekulwad Rekulwad Rekulwad
Govindrao Bapurao
Rekulwad
Madhukar Rekulwad
(Candidate)
Narayan Parshuram Nivrutti
Rekulwad Rekulwad Rekulwad
Ganesh Rekulwad Uttam Rekulwad Tirupati Rekulwad
Vikrant Rekulwad Madhura Rekulwad
(Validity Holder)
8 WP 10827.23
B. Genealogy stated by Madhukar Govind Rekulwad.
Gundaji Laxman Rekulwad
(Great Grandfather)
Bapurao Gundaji Laxman Gundaji Ramchandra Gundaji
(Grand father) (Cousin grand father) (Cousin grand father)
Subhash Ramchandra Suryakant Ramchandra
(Cousin Uncle) (Cousin Uncle)
Jyoti Subhash Deepak Subhash Sachin Subhash
(Cousin Sister) (Cousin Brother) (Cousin Brother)
Govind Bapurao Pandurang Bapurao
(Father) (Real Uncle)
Madhukar Govind
(Validity Holder)
9 WP 10827.23
C. Genealogy stated by Deelip Narsing Rekulwad.
Laxman Rekulwad
(Great Great Grandfather)
Gundaji Laxman Rekulwad Pundaji Laxman Rekulwad
(Cousin great Grandfather) (Great Grandfather)
Ramchandra Maroti Bapurao
Gundaji Gundaji Gundaji
Rekulwad Rekulwad Rekulwad
(Cousin grandfather) (Grandfather) (Cousin grandfather)
Subhash Ramchandra Gangadhar Maroti Govind Babpurao
Rekulwad Rekulwad Rekulwad
(Cousin uncle) (Cousin uncle) (Cousin uncle)
Deepak Subhash Venkat Gangadhar Madhukar Govind
Rekulwad Rekulwad Rekulwad
(Cousin brother) (Cousin brother) (Cousin brother)
(validity) (validity) (validity)
Tukaram Pundaji Rekulwad
(Grandfather)
Narsing Tukaram Rekulwad
(Father)
Deelip Narsing Rekulwad
(Candidate)
10 WP 10827.23
16. Madhukar who states genealogy on affidavit is not showing
the branch of Pundaji at all of whom the petitioner is lineal
descendant. Vikrant has filed genealogy on affidavit also does
not show branch of Pundaji. Whereas Dilip on affidavit does not
show branch of Santu. These inconsistent genealogies create
serious doubt about relationship of the petitioner with the
validity holders. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not
tendered any explanation for inconsistencies in the genealogies
pointed out by the learned Addl. G. P.
17. It would have been a different matter that only incomplete
genealogies are produced on record. But what we noticed is that
on affidavits the inconsistent genealogies are produced on record
and shown to us. We have reason to infer that false affidavits
are filed. It is common knowledge that the parties produce
incomplete genealogy to suit the convenience. This tendency is of
lessor evil than to produce the genealogies on false affidavit. We
are shocked to notice that the branch of which the petitioner is
lineal descendant is altogether absent in the genealogies
produced by Madhukar and Vikrant. This conduct of the
petitioner and her supporters cannot be overlooked. We are of
the considered view that a fraud has been played to secure the
social benefit. The petitioner is not related to the validity
holders, which are sought to be relied upon by her in the present
matter.
18. The learned Addl. G. P. has drawn our attention to the
original papers of Dilip Narsing Rekulwad. He is the father of
11 WP 10827.23
the petitioner. It transpires from the papers that a show cause
notice for reverification was issued to him on 07.07.2023. He has
submitted reply on 25.07.2023. By an application submitted on
even date, he requested the Committee to recall the validity
certificate issued to him as he has secured the service from
unreserved category. His matter is closed for orders. This
conduct creates doubt about the genuineness of the caste claim of
the petitioner.
19. The scrutiny committee has jurisdiction to conduct
reverification of the validity certificates issued earlier. If a fraud
is noticed, then the validity certificates can be revoked. While
exercising extraordinary jurisdiction if it is noticed by the High
Court that there is apparent fraud, then there is no reason to
grant conditional validity and defer the matter for reverification.
High Court is the guardian of the rights of the citizens under
Article 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. We feel
that it is our bounden duty to keep watch on abuse of the
constitutional provisions. The caste validation has a nexus with
the lawful implementation of reservation policies. High Court
has every jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution,
when it is seized with the matter of invalidation of the caste
claim to prevent abuse of provisions of the Constitution.
Otherwise, if the matter is left open for reverification despite
noticing fraud, it would amount to perpetuation of fraud on
Constitution. In that view of the matter, High Court cannot be a
silent spectator for mischief mongers.
12 WP 10827.23
20. Considering the conduct of the petitioner, fraud disclosed
from the papers and the contrary entries, we are not inclined to
exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner. We do not find
any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and order.
We, therefore, dismiss the writ petition. There shall be no order
as to costs. Rule is discharged.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.] [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J.]
bsb/Sept. 23
