Bombay High Court
Anandkumar S/O Ramdayal Manjute vs The Scheduled Tribe Cast Certificate ... on 30 August, 2024
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
2024:BHC-NAG:9927-DB
1 wp1459.18.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1459 OF 2018
Anandkumar s/o Ramdayal Manjute,
Aged about 29 years, Occ. - Service,
R/o Mahalgaon, Po. Murdada,
Tq. and District Gondia. .... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, through its
Member Secretary, Adivasi Bhavan,
Giripeth, Nagpur.
2) The State of Maharashtra,
through the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Gondia, Tq. & District Gondia.
3) The Executive Engineer,
Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Company Limited,
Old Power House, Ramnagar, Gondia,
Tq. and District Gondia. .... RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
Mr. V.U. Waghmare, Counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. A.M. Kadukar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2,
Mr. A.D. Mohgaonkar, Counsel for respondent No.3.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE &
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATED : 30th AUGUST, 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Abhay J. Mantri, J.)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the
learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
2 wp1459.18.odt
2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the action of
respondent No.1-The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Nagpur (for short, "the Committee"), in not accepting
(rejecting) the caste claim application of the petitioner for verification
on the ground that the caste certificate was not submitted in Form-C
appended to the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribe Certificate Rules, 2003.
3. The petitioner claims that he belongs to the ' Thakur'
Scheduled Tribe. Accordingly, on 19-10-2006, the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Gondia, issued a Caste Certificate in his favour. On 31-01-2015,
he was appointed as an 'Assistant Electrician' in the Maharashtra State
Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Amravati, from the Scheduled
Tribe category. Then, he was transferred to Gondia.
4. On 20-01-2018, the petitioner submitted his caste
certificate along with the documents to the Committee to verify his
caste claim and grant a validity certificate. Vide communication dated
14-02-2018, respondent No.1 refuses to accept the petitioner's
application as the caste certificate dated 19-10-2006 issued by
respondent No.2 is not in Form-C. The reasons recorded for not
accepting the caste claim of the petitioner are not just and proper. It
also appears that after the non-acceptance of the petitioner's caste
3 wp1459.18.odt
verification application, he again applied to respondent No.2 for
issuance of the caste certificate in Form-C. However, respondent No.2
refused to issue the caste certificate on the ground that the petitioner
failed to satisfy the affinity test and failed to demonstrate that he
resides in the area mentioned in the Presidential Order. Hence, this
petition.
5. Mr. V.U. Waghmare, learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner, has vehemently submitted that the petitioner was not at
fault in submitting the caste certificate to the Committee, but
respondent No.2 was at fault in not issuing the caste certificate in
prescribed Form-C. Therefore, the non-acceptance of the caste
verification application by respondent No.1-Committee is illegal. To
substantiate his contentions, he has relied upon the orders/judgment
passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2216/2016 (Shreya Sudhakar
Gathe v. The Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Amravati and Others); W. P. No.7817/2017 (Apurva d/o Sunil Khare v.
The State of Maharashtra & another) with connected matters; and W. P.
No.1883/2017 (Namdeo Baburao Ingle v. State of Maharashtra and
others); and W. P. No.663/2014 (Divya Arjun Ingale v. State of
Maharashtra and others). Hence, he urged that the Committee be
directed to accept the caste claim of the petitioner and decide it in
accordance with the law.
4 wp1459.18.odt
6. Mr. A.M. Kadukar, learned Assistant Government Pleader
for respondents Nos.1 and 2, and Mr. A.D. Mohgaonkar, learned
Counsel for respondent No.3, have argued that, as per the rules, the
caste certificate must be submitted in Form-C, and the Committee's
non-acceptance of the same is just and proper. Hence, they urged for
the dismissal of the petition.
7. We have appreciated the rival contentions of the parties
and perused the impugned communication and record.
8. It appears that by order dated 12-03-2018, this court has
granted the status quo to the petitioner's employment, which has
continued till this date.
9. It reveals that on 19-10-2006, the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Gondia, had issued a caste certificate in favour of the petitioner that he
belongs to the 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe. Based on the said caste
certificate, he was appointed as Assistant Electrician. The said caste
certificate is neither cancelled nor forfeited; hence, the same remains
as it is. It is pertinent to note that it was the duty of the competent
authority to issue the certificate in Form-C. Thus, it seems that the
petitioner was not at fault for submitting the certificate. On the
5 wp1459.18.odt
contrary, it appears that the competent authority was at fault while
issuing the said certificate. Therefore, non-acceptance/rejection of the
caste verification application by respondent No.1-Committee seems to
be the higher technical approach.
10. It is further apparent that the passing of the order on
15-02-2018 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gondia, appears to be
without jurisdiction. He has no authority to determine the claim of
validity of the petitioner. Moreover, the first certificate, dated
19-10-2006, is neither cancelled nor forfeited, and the same exists.
Therefore, it would not be necessary to direct the petitioner to obtain
the second certificate in "Form-C" from the competent authority.
11. The said issue is squarely covered by the decisions in Writ
Petition No.2216/2016 and other writ petitions above-cited. Hence, in
view of the observations made in the aforesaid decisions, we deem it
appropriate to quash and set aside the communication dated
14-02-2018 for not accepting the caste claim application of the
petitioner for verification by respondent No.1-Committee.
12. Thus, considering the discussion above, we are of the
opinion that the petitioner was not at fault for submitting the caste
6 wp1459.18.odt
certificate before the Committee, and the said certificate exists to this
date. Consequently, we deem it appropriate to allow the petition as
follows:
(i) The impugned communication/order dated 14-02-2018 for
not accepting the petitioner's application for verification of
his caste claim is hereby quashed and set aside.
(ii) Respondent No.1-Committee is directed to accept the caste
claim application of the petitioner and decide the same in
accordance with the law, as expeditiously as possible, and in
any case, within six months from the date of appearance of
the petitioner before it.
(iii) The petitioner is directed to appear before the Committee on
23-09-2024.
(iv) Needless to clarify, the interim order dated 12-03-2018 shall
remain in force till the decision of respondent No.1-
Committee and four weeks thereafter.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
adgokar
Signed by: MR. P.M. ADGOKAR
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 04/09/2024 15:07:04
