Bombay High Court
Sukhdev Ramchandra Ganjakhetwale vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny ... on 6 February, 2024
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
(1) 902 WP1628.2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1628 OF 2020
Sukhdev Ramchandra Ganjakhetwale Vs. Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur & others.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A.A.Dhawas, Advocate and Mr. S.B.Bawanthade, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S.M.Ukey, Addl. GP for respondent no.1.
None for other respondents.
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATED : FEBRUARY 06, 2024.
ORAL ORDER (PER NITIN W. SAMBRE, J):
1. The petitioner, claims to be belonging to 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe
secured an employment with the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 against the seat
reserved for Scheduled Tribe category.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he belongs to 'Halba' Scheduled
Tribe and accordingly, his employer forwarded the proposal for verification of
the tribe claim of the petitioner, vide communication dated January 13, 2016.
In support of the prayer for issuance of validity, the petitioner has produced
before the Committee with the following eight documents:-
v- nLr,sotkps ukao nLr,sotkojhy vtZnkjka'kh tkrhph uksan iqjkO;kpk
Ø- O;Drhps ukao ukrs fnukad
1 tekr izek.ki= lq[knso jkepanz Lor% gyck 14-5-1996
xkatk[ksrokys
(2) 902 WP1628.2020
2 izkFkfed 'kkGk lq[knso jkepanz Lor% gyck 1986
lksMY;kpk nk[kyk xkatk[ksrokys
3 ek/;fed 'kkGk lq[knso jkepanz Lor% gyck 26-6-1992
lksMY;kpk nk[kyk xkatk[ksrokys
4 ek/;fed 'kkGk jktu jkepanz Hkkm gyck 13-5-1983
lksMY;kpk nk[kyk xkatk[ksrokys
5 izkFkfed 'kkGk efujke xaxkjke pqyr dkdk gyck 1961
lksMY;kpk nk[kyk ukxfHkMdj
6 izkFkfed 'kkGk Hkxoku xaxkjke pqyr dkdk gyck 1973
lksMY;kpk nk[kyk ukxfHkMdj
7 ek/;fed 'kkGk Ckchrk ikaMqjax pqyr cgh.k gyck 10-6-1985
lksMY;kpk nk[kyk xkatk[ksrokys
8 'kiFki= lq[knso jkepanz Lor% gyck 4-1-2015
xkatk[ksrokys
3. Since the Committee was of the view that the petitioner's claim is
doubtful, same was referred for Vigilance Cell Enquiry.
4. The Vigilance Cell accordingly issued communications to the
petitioner to appear before it and furnish the information.
5. The petitioner's case was thereafter referred for Field and the
Vigilance Enquiry, vide communication dated 6th June, 2016 and accordingly,
report to that effect was submitted by the Vigilance Cell dated 26 th February,
2019. During such enquiry, since the adverse entries as that of 'Koshti' were
noticed, the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation to the same.
After having offered an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the
respondent-Committee, vide impugned order dated May 14, 2019 rejected the
tribe claim of the petitioner.
(3) 902 WP1628.2020
6. The counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the aforesaid order
would urge that the petitioner has produced an oldest document bearing entry
of 'Halba' in relation to Maniram Gangram Nagbhidkar, cousin grandfather, in
relation to his Primary School record. He would further claim that consistently
the entries of 'Halba' could be noticed from the eight documents, which are
produced on record in support of his tribe claim. His further contentions are
that the adverse entries, which are noticed in the documents collected by the
Vigilance Cell as that of 'Koshti' are based on the occupation of the petitioner
and his ancestors, which the respondent-Committee has failed to consider.
7. Apart from above, the revenue entries which the Committee has
relied on ought not to have been found to be the basis for negating the tribe
claim, in view of the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in the
matter of Dr. Parasram Kisan Nandankar Vs. Vice-Chairman, Scheduled Tribe
Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and others in Writ Petition No.5095 of
2021, decided on 20th October, 2023, as it is not mandatory in law to enter
caste in the revenue record. He has also claimed that affinity test cannot be
formed to be basis for rejection of claim as same is not a litmus test.
8. The Counsel for the petitioner would further urge that the
respondent-Committee in the aforesaid backdrop has erred in rejecting the tribe
claim of the petitioner.
9. As against above, the Additional Government Pleader Mr. Ukey would
oppose the prayer, as according to him, the pre-constitutional entries in relation
to the petitioner speaks of caste entries of 'Koshti', which the petitioner must
explain. He would urge that there is enough material to discuss in the order
(4) 902 WP1628.2020
impugned so as to support the finding of the invalidation. As such, he would
seek dismissal of the petition.
10. The fact about securing employment as against the post reserved for
the scheduled tribe category is not in dispute, as same is borne out of the
record. As a squeal of above, since the respondent-employer has initiated
action against the petitioner of removal from service, for failure to submit the
validity certificate the claim was referred to the Scrutiny Committee.
11. In support of the claim for grant/issuance of validity, the oldest
document, which the petitioner is relying on is in relation to one Maniram son
of Gangaram Nagbhidkar, who happened to be the cousin grandfather of the
petitioner. In the Primary School record, the School Leaving Certificate of
Maniram of 1961, an entry of 'Halba' is noticed, which is consistently said to
be followed in the record of the said person.
12. The Committee thereafter noticed that the petitioner cannot be said
to be belonging to the scheduled tribe category as such referred the claim to the
Vigilance Cell. The Vigilance Cell initially recorded the statement of the
petitioner on May 12, 2016. Subsequent thereto, he was issued
communications dated 21.06.2017, 06.01.2018, 16.02.2018, 14.12.2018 and
15.01.2019 calling upon him to furnish the information in support of his tribe
claim. The petitioner has never responded to the said call of the Committee and
rather has chosen not to cooperate with the Committee in deciding the claim.
13. The Committee thereafter considered the tribe claim of the petitioner
in the backdrop of the Vigilance Cell Report dated 26 th February, 2019. In the
said record, the following entries were noticed:-
(5) 902 WP1628.2020
v- nLr,sotkps nLr,sotkojhy vtZnkjka'kh tkrhph iqjkO;kpk
Ø- Lo:i O;Drhps ukao ukrs uksan fnukad
1 Measurement Ekkjksrh Hkk-xaxkjke Pkqyr dks"Vh &&&&
and Sketch page Hkk- y{e.k o vktskck
(?kj dz-666 okMZ fpUkckth
dz- 50)
2 vlslesaV izr Ekkjksrh Hkk-xaxkjke Pkqyr dks"Vh 1944&47
(?kj dza 112 la- Hkk- y{e.k oYn vktskck
u-17/ch) fpeukth
3 ?kjkps okV.kh i= Ekkjksrh o- fpe.kkth Pkqyr dks"Vh 10-04-1973
(?kj dza 538 UkkxHkhMdj vktksck
okMZ dza-30) xaxkjke o- fpe.kkth -"-
ukxHkhMdj
y{e.k o- fpe.kkth -"-
ukxHkhMdj
jkepanz o- egknso oMhy
ukxHkhMdj
4 uksVhl dj jkepanz o- egknso oMhy dks"Vh 14-02-1975
vkdkj.kh foHkkx] ukxHkhMdj
ukxiqj
5 dj ikorh Ekkjksth Hkk- xaxkjke pqyr dks"Vh 2008&2010
(?kj dza 666 okMZ Hkk- y{e.k oYn vktksck
dza-50) fpeukth
14. The petitioner thereafter was served with the notice to submit his
explanation to the Vigilance Cell. Vide communications dated 1st March, 2019
and 27th March, 2019 calling upon him to attend hearing on 25 th March, 2019
and 15.4.2019 respectively to which the petitioner has failed to respond. The
petitioner has chosen not to attend the hearing before the Committee. The
petitioner thereafter issued a communication to the Committee on April 12,
2019 seeking further adjournments in the matter.
(6) 902 WP1628.2020
15. It appears that the Committee having considered the adverse entries,
which were placed on record by the Vigilance Cell noted that the
pre-independence era entries in relation to the cousin grandfather namely
Maruti Gangaram of 1944 onwards i.e. in relation to the revenue record, the
1973 entry in relation to said Maruti in the partition deed, the entry of 'Koshti'
in the revenue record in relation to the father of the petitioner dated 14 th
February, 1975 and has proceeded to evaluate the claim of the petitioner.
16. It is a settled principle that a person gets his caste by birth. As such,
the pre-independence era entries in relation to the cousin grandfather of the
petitioner namely Maruti, whereby the entry 'Koshti' is recorded, the
petitioner owes an explanation about the same which the petitioner has failed
to furnish. Section 8 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes,
De-notifed Tribes (Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and
Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste
Certificate Act, 2000 casts burden on the petitioner to prove that the aforesaid
entries are incorrect or that he belongs to 'Halba' scheduled tribe. The fact
remains that the petitioner has failed to discharge such burden.
17. The adverse entries in relation to the cousin grandfather Maruti, his
father Ramchandra along with the Vigilance Cell report were served on the
petitioner. The petitioner in spite of the service of the Vigilance Cell report has
chosen not to respond to the respondent-Committee and has not submitted
explanation to the same. As such, the petitioner has not controverted the
Vigilance Cell report particularly, about the 'Koshti' entries noticed in the
record of blood relations viz., cousin grandfather and father of the petitioner.
(7) 902 WP1628.2020
18. That being so, the aforesaid evidence collected by the Vigilance Cell,
which relegate back to the pre-independence era has more probative value and
same can be safely relied on for rejecting the tribe claim of the petitioner. The
counsel for the petitioner though has relied on the Division Bench judgment of
this Court in the matter of Dr. Parasram Kisan Nandankar Vs. Vice-Chairman,
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and others (cited supra)
particularly paragraph 7, so as to claim that there is no necessity to have entry
of caste in the revenue record, of course, the petitioner is right in claiming so.
However, the said judgment will be of hardly any assistance to the petitioner as
the caste entries in the revenue records, which were existing prior to the
independence i.e. before bringing it into effect the Constitution of the India
Scheduled Tribe Order has to be accepted, as having more evidentiary value.
19. As such, from the available documentary evidence, it cannot be
said that the petitioner has discharged his burden, as provided under Section 8
of the Act thereby proving that he belongs to 'Halba' scheduled tribe.
20. As far as the satisfaction of the affinity test is concerned, the record
depicts that the Vigilance Cell has recorded the statement of the petitioner on
May 12, 2016 thereby depicting the customs, traditions and practices followed
by the petitioner and his family members. After recording the statement of the
petitioner, the record depicts that the petitioner has refused to sign the said
statement given to the Vigilance Cell. The said statement of the petitioner,
which was recorded on 12th May, 2016 depicts that the petitioner's mother
tongue and the language of communication is 'Koshti'. He has also stated that
the traditional occupation of the petitioner is weaving. The petitioner is not
aware about the Jaat Panchayat and the traditional dances.
(8) 902 WP1628.2020
21. We have looked into the information furnished by the petitioner to
the Vigilance Cell. Neither 'Koshti' language nor weaving as an occupation
adopted by 'Halbas' scheduled tribes. Rather weaving is Taboo amongst 'Halba'
scheduled tribes. Halba speaks 'Halbi' language.
22. There is no reason to disbelieve the aforesaid document viz., the
statement given by the petitioner to the Vigilance Cell on 12th May, 2016 for the
reason the record depicts that the petitioner's had on consistent approach of
not cooperating the respondent-Committee in the matter of deciding the
validity. His approach of not signing the statement given to the Vigilance Cell
on 12th May, 2016, even not submitting the reply to the Vigilance Cell
report, the refusal to accept the communication issued by the Committee to
appear for hearing and the failure of the petitioner to attend the hearing
sufficiently prompts us to accept the findings recorded by the Committee.
23. In this background, the petitioner, in our opinion, cannot be said to
be belonging to 'Halba' scheduled tribe. Rather the Committee, in our opinion,
is justified in recording a finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate
that he belongs to 'Halba' scheduled tribe.
24. As such, there is no substance in the petition and the same is
dismissed. No costs.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
Ambulkar
Signed by: Ambulkar (MLA)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 07/02/2024 18:32:29
