Priyanka Kishanrao Gungewad vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9974 Bom

2023:BHC-AUG:21145-DB

                                                      1                   WP / 5706 / 2019

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                       952 WRIT PETITION NO.5706 OF 2019

                                      PRIYANKA KISHANRAO GUNGEWAD
                                                  VERSUS
                                  THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                                                      ...
               Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Golegaonkar Madhur A. And Mr. Golegaonkar Anil S.
                              AGP for the respondent - State : Mr. S.G. Sangale
                                                     ...

                                               CORAM      : MANGESH S. PATIL &
                                                            SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.

DATE : 27 SEPTEMBER 2023

ORAL ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :

Heard both the sides for final disposal. Considering the

urgency mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this matter

is taken up for final adjudication.

2. The petitioner is challenging judgment and order dated

12.07.2018, invalidating caste claim of the petitioner of 'Koli Mahadev'

scheduled tribe. Her grievance is that in spite of having eight validity

certificates from his paternal side close relatives, she is being denied

the validity certificate. In support of her claim, a genealogy is placed on

record which is at page no. 35. During the course of hearing the

reasoned orders passed by the Scrutiny Committee validating the

certificates of Chandrakant Govindrao Gungewad, Balaji Narsingrao

Gungewad are placed on record. The extract of vigilance report in case

2 WP / 5706 / 2019

of Chandrakant Gungewad is placed on record by learned counsel for

the petitioner.

3. Learned AGP is supporting the impugned judgment and

order. According to him, the Scrutiny Committee has rightly discarded

the validity certificate because the genealogy is doubtful. There is

suppression of order of invalidity passed in case of Sangita. The

validity certificates were obtained suppressing material facts. It is

further informed that the Scrutiny Committee has issued show cause

notice to the validity holders.

4. The genealogy is placed on record at page no. 35. It is

pointed out that there are eight validity holders in the family of the

petitioner, namely Balaji, Gajanan, Chandrakant, Sujata, Suryakant,

Kishan, Jairam and Durgesh. Pertinent to note that Kishan is the father

of the petitioner. The reasoned orders passed in case of Chandrakant

and Balaji are also placed on record. It is seen from those orders that

they were issued with validity certificates on the basis of documentary

evidence on record. Therefore, submission of learned AGP that the

order of invalidation passed in case of Sangita D/o. Narsing Gungewad

was suppressed is sans merit. The suppression of the invalidity of the

close relative does not act as a res judicata. Every matter of the

claimant has to be adjudicated on the basis of material on record and it

is an individual centric enquiry.

3 WP / 5706 / 2019

5. It is matter of record that after following due procedure of

law, validity certificates were issued to Chandrakant and Balaji. The

contrary entries and the relevant material was taken into account by

the Scrutiny Committee. It would not be out of place to mention that

contrary entries which are at page no. 86 bearing admission number

2525 and 2224 were considered in the matter of Balaji and, thereafter,

the validity was issued. Similarly, order of invalidation in case of

Sangita was placed before the Committee in matter of Balaji.

Therefore, we are of the view that validity certificates of Balaji and

Chandrakant can form basis for validating petitioner's claim.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

contrary entries in respect of the alleged manipulation of the school

record of petitioner's father and aunt is already explained by the

petitioner in reply which is at page no. 73. In case of petitioner in the

application for admission, the caste was mentioned as 'Koli Mahadev'.

However, in the school record it was mentioned as 'Mahadev Koli'. The

procedure was followed under Rule 26.4 of the Secondary School

Code and obvious mistake was corrected. Similar is their explanation in

case of admission entry no. 2286 in case of petitioner's paternal uncle

and petitioner's aunt. We find that this explanation is satisfactory to

dispel the allegations of manipulation in the school record.

7. The submissions of the learned AGP that genealogy in the

matter of Chandrakant is suspicious, the validity holders suppressed

4 WP / 5706 / 2019

material facts cannot be gone into. In the absence of the validity

holders before us, we cannot pass any adverse comment. The Scrutiny

Committee has already issued show cause notices to them. Therefore,

it would be in the fitness of the things to grant conditional validity to the

petitioner.

8. We hold that impugned judgment and order is

discriminatory and liable to be quashed and set aside. We, therefore,

pass following order :

i. The impugned judgment and order dated 12.07.2018, is quashed

and set aside.

ii. The Scrutiny Committee shall issue caste validity certificate in

favour of the petitioner for 'Koli Mahadev' scheduled tribe within a

period of two weeks from today on following conditions :

a. That the validity certificate shall be subject to the result of re-

verification of the validity certificates undertaken by the Scrutiny Committee.

b. That the petitioner shall not claim any equity.

iii. Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms.

      [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ]                            [ MANGESH S. PATIL ]
             JUDGE                                            JUDGE

arp/