Bombay High Court
Laiba Fatima Irfan Khan vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 9 August, 2024
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2024:BHC-AUG:17783-DB
1 WP / 13167 /2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
941 WRIT PETITION NO. 13167 OF 2023
LAIBA FATIMA IRFAN KHAN
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
ITS SECRETARY AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for petitioner : Mr. C.R. Thorat
AGP for the respondent - State : Mr. N.D. Batule
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.
DATE : 09 AUGUST 2024
ORAL ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :
Heard both sides.
2. The petitioner is challenging the order of invalidation
passed by the scrutiny committee.
3. Though it appears that the petitioner's father possesses
validity certificate, we have gone through the original file of her father.
The then committee had resorted to vigilance enquiry and even there is
a reasoned order holding him entitled to have a certificate of validity.
However, pertinently, petitioner's father was granted validity only on the
basis of his own school record and the school record of father - Osman
Khan stated to have been admitted in the Kendritya Prathamik Shala
on 01-06-1961 at serial no. 29 / 240.
2 WP / 13167 /2023
4. The vigilance officer in the present matter has reported that
the entry could not be traced in the school register.
5. The statement of headmaster Mr. Sapkal who had issued
the extract of the school register relied upon by the petitioner and even
her father was called by the committee. He admitted the claim and
since having retired had submitted that he would respond within a
week but had not turned up.
6. Even the petitioner in her reply to the vigilance report, has
not expressly controverted the remark of the vigilance officer about
having verified the school record.
7. In the light of such circumstances, the learned advocate for
the petitioner submits that the matter be remanded back to the scrutiny
committee for taking a decision afresh by extending the petitioner an
opportunity to lead evidence.
8. Simultaneously, if the school record of the petitioner's
grandfather is of such a decisive nature, and there was already enquiry
report questioning the genuineness, it was imperative for the
committee to extend the petitioner an opportunity to explain the
circumstances or could have taken initiative in calling for the school
record and examining it. Nothing seems to have happened. For the
reasons best known to the committee, it relied upon headmaster who
had issued extract of the school record and believing him that he would
3 WP / 13167 /2023
respond, had passed the judgment and order without there being any
response by him.
9. Since, it is not an adversarial litigation, we deem it
appropriate that the committee should undertake a threadbare scrutiny
of the claim, in the light of the above-mentioned observations and
decides it afresh by extending an opportunity to the petitioner, and if
necessary, by resorting to fresh vigilance enquiry.
10. The writ petition is allowed partly.
11. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter
is remanded back to the committee for fresh enquiry, in the light of
above observations. The petitioner shall appear before the committee
on 19 August 2024 and the committee shall decide the proposal as
expeditiously as possible and in any case within four (4) weeks
thereafter.
12. As regards the school record of petitioner's father, stated
to have been seized in connection with some crime and has been lying
with the District and Sessions Court, the committee may also
undertake necessary steps for inspecting even that school register if it
entertains a doubt about its genuineness.
[ S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ]
JUDGE JUDGE
arp/
