Bombay High Court
Sakshi Shankar Govindwar vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 7 August, 2024
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2024:BHC-AUG:17779-DB
1 947.WP-7982-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Writ Petition No. 7982 OF 2024
Sakshi d/o Shankar Govindwar
Age 18 years, Occu. Student,
R/o Savarmal, Tq. Mukhed,
Dist. Nanded. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification
Committee, Kinwat,
Headquarter Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,
Through its Deputy Director (Research)
and Member Secretary.
Near Saint Lawrence High School,
Town Centre, CIDCO,
Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, ...Respondents
___
Mr. Thorat Chandrakant R., Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S.R. Yadav Lonikar, AGP for Respondents/State.
___
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ..
DATE : 07 AUGUST 2024
FINAL ORDER [Per: Shailesh P. Brahme, J.] :
. Heard both the sides finally as the petitioner aspires to
pursue further education on the basis of reservation.
2 947.WP-7982-2024.doc
2. The petitioner is challenging judgment and order dated
22.07.2024 passed by the Scrutiny Committee, confiscating and
invalidating her tribe certificate of 'Mannervarlu' Scheduled Tribe.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner refers to validity
certificates issued to Venkant Tulsiram Govindwar, who is cousin
grandfather and validities of cousin uncles Tushar and Mahesh.
He would submit that the validity certificates are reliable and
selfsame record has been scrutinized previously to issue validity
certificates. On the ground of parity he prays to allow the
petition.
4. Learned AGP opposes the submission of the petitioner. He
would point out that the Committee has taken a reasonable and
plausible view. The validity holders are found to be unreliable
considering incompatible school record of the relatives. He would
submit that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned
judgment and order.
5. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties.
We find that there is no dispute about the relationship of the
petitioner with the validity holders. They are her parental side
relatives figuring in the genealogy. The impugned judgment
shows that there are number of other validity holders in the
family. Venkat Tulsiram Govindwar is the first validity holder.
There was vigilance report in his matter. Even the contrary
3 947.WP-7982-2024.doc
record was considered during the inquiry alongwith old
favourable record. He was issued with validity certificate by a
speaking order of the Scrutiny Committee. There is no reason to
discard his validity certificate.
6. It reveals that Tushar and Mahesh are issued with validity
certificate by our order dated 20.07.2024 in Writ Petition
No.2167/2022. We prefer to adopt the same course and reasons
for granting the petitioner validity. Unless earlier validity
certificates are revoked, it would be discriminatory to deny the
validity certificate to the petitioner.
7. Petitioner is ready to abide by the result of the re-
verification undertaken by the Scrutiny Committee. In view of
law laid down in the matter of Shweta Balaji Isankar Vs. the
State of Maharashtra and Others, in Writ Petition No.5611/2018,
we propose to issue validity certificate to her conditionally. We,
therefore, pass following order :
ORDER
a. The writ petition is allowed partly.
b. The judgment and order dated 22.07.2024 passed
by the Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside.
c. The Scrutiny Committee shall issue tribe validity
certificate of 'Mannervarlu' scheduled tribe to the
petitioner forthwith. The same shall be subject to the
outcome of re-verification proposed by the Scrutiny
Committee.
4 947.WP-7982-2024.doc
d. The petitioner shall not be entitled to claim equities.
SHAILESH P. BRAHME MANGESH S. PATIL
JUDGE JUDGE
Najeeb..
