Bombay High Court
Ku. Sushma D/O Tulshiram Kalskar @ ... vs Sheduled Tribe Caste Certificate ... on 8 August, 2024
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
2024:BHC-NAG:9119-DB
1 wp1745.2018..odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1745 OF 2018
Ku. Sushma d/o Tulshiram Kalskar
@ Sushma w/o Gopal Dhone,
Aged 47 yrs, Occ. Service,
R/o. Celebration Sector, Kharghar,
Taluka Panwel, District Raigad. ...... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, through its
Member, Secretary, Bye pass road,
Camp Amravati
Tahsil and District Amravati
2. Sha. Kru. Pantwalawalkar
Madhyamik Vidyalaya,
through its Head Mistress, Nehrunagar,
Kurla (East)
Tahsil District Mumbai 400 024. .....RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. M.V. Bute, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. N.S. Rao, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- NITIN W. SAMBRE & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE :08.08.2024
JUDGMENT (Per : Abhay J. Mantri, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by
the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner is assailing the order dated 30.08.2016
2 wp1745.2018..odt
passed by the respondent Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Amravati (for short - " the Committee"), whereby the
caste claim of the petitioner as that belonging to " Koli-Mahadev" has
been invalidated.
3. The petitioner claims that she belongs to the " Koli-
Mahadev" Scheduled Tribe. Accordingly, on 06.02.1982, the
Executive Magistrate, Amravati, issued a caste certificate in her
favour. On 02.08.1999, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant
Teacher against the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe Category. On
29.06.2006, the Committee received the caste certificate with
necessary documents through the Headmistress of the School for
caste verification. Being dissatisfied with the documents submitted,
forwarded the same to the Vigilance Cell for a detailed enquiry. The
Vigilance Cell conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted a report
to the Committee on 29.01.2016.
4. During the enquiry, the Vigilance Cell found two
documents from 1940 and 1950 of her grandfather wherein his
caste was recorded as "Koli", therefore, the Committee called upon
an explanation from the petitioner. However, the petitioner neither
3 wp1745.2018..odt
appeared nor submitted her explanation before the Committee.
Later on, 15.07.2016, the petitioner's husband appeared before the
Committee and admitted the enquiry report of the Vigilance Cell.
Having considered the said admission, the Vigilance Cell Report,
and the documents on record, the Committee has invalidated the
caste claim of the petitioner.
5. Mr. Bute, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has
submitted that the petitioner, to substantiate her caste claim, has
submitted the documents depicting her caste as "Koli-Mahadev."
However, the Committee has not considered the same and erred in
relying upon the documents discovered during the enquiry. He has
argued that considering the caste certificate submitted by the
petitioner, the Committee ought to have issued a validity certificate
to the petitioner as belonging to the ' Koli-Mahadev' Scheduled Tribe.
Hence, he urged for quashing and setting aside the impugned order.
.
6. As against this, Mr. Rao, the learned Assistant
Government Pleader, has supported the impugned order and argued
that during the Vigilance Enquiry, the adverse entries of ' Koli' were
noticed by the Vigilance Cell, and the petitioner's husband has
4 wp1745.2018..odt
admitted the same. Therefore, the Committee has rightly rejected
the petitioner's claim. Hence, he has prayed for the rejection of the
petition
7. We have considered the rival submissions and gone
through the impugned order and record.
8. At the outset, it seems that, except for the caste
certificate, the petitioner has not filed any document before the
Committee showing her caste as 'Koli-Mahadev'. On the contrary,
during the enquiry, the Vigilance Cell found two documents from
1945 and 1950 of the petitioner's grandfather, whose caste was
recorded as 'Koli'. The petitioner does not dispute those documents,
on the contrary, the petitioner's husband admitted them by
admitting the Vigilance Cell report. Therefore, there is no reason to
disbelieve the report. It is also a settled legal position that the pre-
constitutional era documents have more probative value. As such,
from the available documentary evidence, it cannot be said that the
petitioner has discharged the burden cast upon her under Section 8
of the Maharashtra Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, Vimukta Jati,
Other Backward Class and Special Backward Class (Regulation of
5 wp1745.2018..odt
Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificate) Act, 2000 thereby
proving that she belongs to 'Koli-Mahadev' Schedule Tribe.
9. In this background, in our opinion, the petitioner has
failed to discharge the burden as contemplated under Section 8 of
the Act, and the petitioner cannot be said to be belonging to the
"Koli-Mahadev" Scheduled Tribe. Rather, the Committee, in our
view, is justified in recording the finding that the petitioner has
failed to demonstrate that she belongs to "Koli-Mahadev".
10. As such, the petition has no substance and, being bereft
of any merit, deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the same is dismissed
accordingly. No costs.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
R. Belkhede,
Personal Assistant
Signed by: Mr. R. S. Belkhede
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 17/08/2024 16:51:03
