Bombay High Court
Ishwari Raju More vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny ... on 14 August, 2024
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2024:BHC-AUG:18188-DB
908.WP.8576.24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.8576 OF 2024
Ishwari d/o Raju More ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Kinwat,
(Headquarter at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar)
through its Member Secretary ... RESPONDENT
...
Advocate for petitioner: Mr. Mahesh S. Deshmukh i/b.
Mr. Suhas R. Shirsat
A.G.P. for Respondent/State : Mr. S.R. Yadav Lonikar
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
DATE : 14.08.2024
ORDER ( PER : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :
In view of the urgency being pointed out by the petitioner's
learned advocate, we have heard the matter finally at the stage of
admission.
2. We are emboldened to state and even would not hesitate to
concede that the present matter epitomizes the oft quoted phrase "Justice
hurried is justice buried", as we would demonstrate hereinafter.
3. The petitioner is challenging the judgement and order of the
respondent - Scrutiny Committee refusing to validate her 'Koli Mahadev'
scheduled tribe certificate in a proceedings undertaken under Section 7 of
908.WP.8576.24.odt
the Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001.
4. We have heard both the sides extensively and have carefully
gone through the original files of the respondent - Scrutiny Committee in
respect of several individuals.
5. The petitioner obtained 'Koli Mahadev' scheduled tribe
certificate from the Competent Authority, Basmat, District Hingoli on
27.01.2021. With a view to make career she put hard labour and by
appearing at the competitive exam succeeded in securing admission in
reputed Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur. Obviously,
she has been seeking admission against a seat reserved for scheduled
tribes.
6. However, her proposal for validation of the tribe certificate
was received by respondent - Committee on 10.06.2024. Being anxious to
get early decision, she requested the Committee to process her file
promptly. She filed Writ Petition No.8331/2024 and even requested us to
issue a writ of mandamus to respondent - Committee for early decision.
Having been convinced with her anxiety and the need of an early
decision, by the order dated 06.08.2024, we directed the Committee to
decide her proposal by 09.08.2024 and directed her to appear before the
Committee on the next day i.e. 07.08.2024. Accordingly, the impugned
order was passed on 09.08.2024.
7. The Committee has elaborately enlisted the contrary entries
908.WP.8576.24.odt
of the school record of the individuals, wherein, they were referred to as
'Koli', which claim is inconsistent with the claim of 'Koli Mahadev'
scheduled tribe. The former was earlier falling under Other Backward
Class (OBC) category and is, for the present, a Speical Backward Class
(SBC). The Committee is of the view that these contrary entries being
enormous, would not substantiate petitioner's claim.
8. Since the petitioner even sought to derive the benefit of
certificates of validity possessed by several individuals, the Committee
has refused to extend the benefit of these validities by expressly observing
that there was not enough material to establish blood relationship
between her and these validity holders and none of them had come
forward to file affidavit in her support as is required by Rule 11 (2)(iii) of
the Rules of 2003 framed under the Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001.
9. It transpires that the petitioner was banking upon validities
of Virendra Gopalrao More and Champatrao Dinkar More, stated to be
her cousins and even described in the impugned order in the same
fashion. Incidentally, all the contrary entries/record relied upon by the
Committee are in respect of the individuals from the branch/family tree
of those two individuals Virendra and Champatrao. The petitioner sought
to rely upon a genealogy, a copy of which is placed on the record at page
No.32 and reads as under:
908.WP.8576.24.odt
Khanderao
Honbarao Malharrao
Madhavrao Malharrao Khanderao Vyankatrao Ganpatrao
Khanderao Anandrao Honbarao Bhimrao Gulabrao Uttamrao Sahebrao Subarao Malharrao
Suresh Ramchand Balaji Gopal(V.H.) Shivshankar Maroti (V.H.) Jaywant Sanjay Kailas Dilip Vinayak
Shivani Pavan Nagesh (V.H.) Nagnath (V.H.)
Madhav Amol Virendra(V.H.) Aditya(V.H.) Shivani(V.H.) Shweta(V.H.)
(V.H.) Vaishnavi Snehal Shrinath Raosaheb Devidas Keshav Manik Kishan
(V.H.) (V.H.) (V.H.) Malbarao Raju Sanjay
Bhaurao (C.V.) Ishwari Arush
Petitioner
Bhanudas Kalyan Digambar Pandurang
(V.H.) (V.H.) (V.H.)
10. From this genealogy one can prima facie see the relationship
inter se between petitioner and Virendra More. Even this genealogy
demonstrates her relationship from the paternal side with several other
validity holders some of whom were held entitled to have the validity by
the orders of the High Court. However, when we compare this genealogy
with the genealogy furnished and relied upon by Virendra in his own
matter, he had merely given the genealogy relating to the branch of
Honbarao Khanderao stated to be his great great grandfather. There was
also a short genealogy provided, perhaps in respect of Champatrao by
stating that his great great grandfather Khanderao was having a cousin
by name Sadbarao and Champatrao is his descendant. Obviously,
Virendra did not disclose the branch of Malharrao Khanderao. The
genealogy being relied upon by the petitioner demonstrates her to be a
908.WP.8576.24.odt
descendant of Malharrao.
11. The validity holders Shivani Jaywant More and Shweta
Jaywant More are being shown by the petitioner in genealogy also from
the branch of Malharrao. We had called for even their original files
maintained by respondent - Scrutiny Committee. We extended
opportunity to the learned advocate for the petitioner to go through these
files and the genealogies furnished by them. Having gone through those,
the learned advocate would point out from the file of Shweta that the
genealogy prepared by the vigilance officer on the instructions of her
father Jaywant Gulabrao More demonstrates the branch of Malharrao
and petitioner's great grandfather Vyankatrao as the sons of Malharrao
and also shows that Shweta and Shivani's great grandfather Khanderao is
real brother of Vyankatrao.
12. However, the learned AGP submits that a bare look at the
genealogy demonstrates that there is some manipulation and the branch
of Vyankatrao has been added in the genealogy at some later point of
time. He would also submit that there is every room to believe that even
Ganpatrao and Malharrao's branch has been added therein subsequently.
He would try to justify his such inference by stating that while preparing
the genealogy all other lines have been put by use of a measuring scale
but the lines in respect of Vyankatrao and Ganpatrao's branches have
been marked in hand and are irregular.
908.WP.8576.24.odt
13. Obviously, in the impugned judgment, we do not find any
scrutiny having been undertaken by respondent - Scrutiny Committee by
making comparison of the genealogies furnished by the petitioner and the
one referred to in the matters of Shivani and Shweta.
14. Faced with the situation, we even asked the learned advocate
for the petitioner to demonstrate as to if the impugned order contains any
reference to school record of any of the individuals who are, like the
petitioner, descendants of Vyankatrao Malharrao. He was unable to point
out any such record having been referred to or relied upon in the matters
of the validity holders, Virendra, Gopal, Shivani Jaywant More or Shweta
Jaywant More.
15. Interestingly, the petitioner, may be due to the urgency, was
allowed to, and filed a reply to the vigilance report conducted in the
matter of Virendra and one Priti Digambar More. The vigilance report in
the matter of Virendra and Priti was a common vigilance inquiry report
which in turn was prepared by taking aid of the vigilance conducted in
the matter of Shweta Jaywant More. Conspicuously, in Chart No.3 at
Serial No.51 there is a reference to the school record of petitioner's father
Raju Devidasrao More but describing him as 'Bhavki' (distant relative, of
Virendra and Priti). If the petitioner is claiming to be related to the
Virendra by blood from the paternal side and was responding to the
vigilance report conducted in his matter, she ought to have objected to
908.WP.8576.24.odt
the reference to her father as a distant relative of Virendra (Bhavki). In
her reply (Annexure-G) dated 31.07.2024 she has not objected to the
description of her father as distant relative of Virendra as distinguished
from a blood relative.
16. The Committee on the one hand is refusing to treat Virendra
as related to the petitioner by blood but on the other hand is referring to
the contrary record of the individuals related to him by blood, to discard
the petitioner's claim. Apparently, we have not been demonstrated about
Committee having referred to any record of the individuals from the
branch of her great great grandfather Vyankatrao Malharrao.
17. It is in the light of the above state of affairs, we have no
manner of doubt that it is only because the proposal had reached
respondent - Scrutiny Committee as late as in the month of June 2024
and since on the request of the petitioner we had directed the Committee
to decide the proposal within three days of our passing the order on
06.08.2024, the Committee has had no opportunity to undertake a
threadbare scrutiny and incidentally even the petitioner could not get
sufficient opportunity to substantiate her claim. This is why we are
embolden to state that it is a matter epotomizing the phrase "Justice
hurried is justice buried" and even we are ready to share the blame for
the unprecedented situation.
18. Apart from the above state of affairs, it appears that the
908.WP.8576.24.odt
petitioner is also simultaneously seeking to derive the benefit of the
validity possessed by her mother, in the peculiar facts and circumstances.
It is being demonstrated that there is a marital dispute between her
parents and recently they have obtained a divorce by mutual consent by
the judgment and order dated 24.07.2024 in petition No.F-140/2023 of
the Family Court, Nanded. If she intends to derive the benefit of the
validity possessed by her mother, in the light of the decisions in the
matter of Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.; Civil
Application No.654/2012 and is intending to rely upon the decision of a
coordinate division bench in the matter of Ku. Noopur d/o Prashant
Ambre Vs. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and
Anr.; Writ Petition No.1737/2018 (Nagpur Bench), decided on
08.07.2019, it would be imperative for the petitioner to make out a
specific case to derive the benefit of mother's validity.
19. All the aforementioned circumstances in our considered view
would demonstrate that it is a matter which needs to be remanded to the
Scrutiny Committee, which would enable the petitioner to justify her
claim by leading cogent and sufficient evidence and would enable the
committee to undertake a threadbare scrutiny.
20. The writ petition is allowed partly. The impugned order is
quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall appear before the Committee
on 19.08.2024. The Committee shall thereafter decide the proposal
908.WP.8576.24.odt
afresh by extending her an opportunity to lead evidence. The Committee
may resort to a fresh vigilance enquiry.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ]
JUDGE JUDGE
habeeb
