Bombay High Court
Chakradhar Baburao Pitlewad vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny ... on 17 January, 2024
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2024:BHC-AUG:1303-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
938 WRIT PETITION NO.9843 OF 2023
Chakradhar Baburao Pitlewad,
Age 20 yrs., Occ. Education,
R/o Ramkhadak, Post - Bitnal,
Tq. Umri, Dist. Nanded.
... Petitioner
... Versus ...
1 Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Kinwat
Headquarter, Aurangabad.
Near Saraswat Bank, CIDCO Bus Stand,
Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad
Through its Member Secretary.
2 State Common Entrance Test Cell,
Maharashtra, Mumbai,
8th Floor, New Excelsior,
A.K. Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai.
Through its Commissioner &
Competent Authority.
... Respondents
...
Mr. M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. P.S. Patil, AGP for respondent No.1
Mr. N.S. Tekale, Advocate for respondent No.2
...
2 WP_9843_2023_Jd
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &
S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.
DATE : 17th JANUARY, 2024
JUDGMENT :
(PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)
1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Advocates
for the parties finally, by consent.
2 The petitioner challenges the invalidity of his caste claim by
respondent No.1 by Judgment and order dated 02.08.2023.
3 The petitioner contends that he belongs to "Koli Mahadev"
Scheduled Tribe. He had received the Tribe Certificate from competent
authority on 07.01.2016. He was prosecuting study and, therefore, the
Principal of his college submitted proposal with respondent No.1 on
20.06.2023 for verifying and issuing validity in respect of the same. The
petitioner appeared and submitted documents before respondent No.1 -
Committee. Vigilance Cell inquiry was conducted. Report was forwarded to
the petitioner on 24.07.2023. He has filed say explaining the circumstances
and the documents relied by him as well as the alleged contra entries. In
spite of production of documents and explanation, that has been given, his
caste validity has been negatived. It is also submitted that the Judgment of
3 WP_9843_2023_Jd
respondent No.1 suffers from legality. The well settled principles of law laid
down by this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court have not been
considered. The petitioner, therefore, prays for issuance of appropriate writ
for setting aside the Judgment and order passed by respondent No.1 and to
declare him as belonging to 'Koli Mahadev' Scheduled Tribe and direction to
respondent No.1 to issue the validity certificate.
4 Heard learned Advocate Mr. M.S. Deshmukh for the petitioner,
learned AGP Mr. P.S. Patil for respondent No.1 and learned Advocate Mr. N.S.
Tekale for respondent No.2.
5 Learned Advocate for the petitioner has taken us through the
documents which the petitioner had produced before the Scrutiny Committee
and made submissions. It has been contended that the oldest documents
have also not been considered by respondent No.1. The school record of the
uncle is of 11.07.1977 and then it is held that there are erasers and insertion.
The school record of other uncle was perused by respondent No.1 and it is
said that word 'Mahadev' has been inserted later on. In fact, the said word
was in existence since inception, but it appears that it has been re-written just
to have consistency in the name of the caste as per the Constitution of India.
It was not brought before the Committee that the petitioner had ever played
4 WP_9843_2023_Jd
any role in the insertions. The documents were coming from a proper
custody and, therefore, those ought to have been accepted. It is further
submitted that respondent No.1 has unnecessarily made observations about
census. The reliance of the Committee on census of 1971 was misconceived
in respect of Section 15 of Census Act, 1948. He relied on the Writ Petition
No.13550 of 2023 decided by this Court on 30.10.2023, wherein it has been
observed that in view of Section 15 of the Census Act, 1948 the entry in the
census register was not admissible in evidence. The report of the Vigilance
Cell inquiry does not show that the Research Officer has made any adverse
remark. Therefore, it ought to have been held that the petitioner has proved
his claim even by applying test of affinity. The documents in the nature
pertaining to the real uncle Lalaji @ Mukund i.e. his school admission form,
general administration register, documents pertaining to uncle, second
degree uncle Pundlik Narayan ought to have been considered by the
Committee.
6 Per contra, the learned AGP submits that there was no validity
certificate in the family issued earlier and, therefore, respondent No.2 was
justified in considering the matter in detail. The documents ought to have
been relied and the oldest one of Lalaji @ Mukund would show that word 'M'
has been written in different handwriting as it differs from word 'Koli'.
5 WP_9843_2023_Jd
Similarly, the entries in respect of uncle Pundlik and Pandurang show that
word 'Mahadev' has been written later on. Even if we ignore the
observations in respect of area restriction and the affinity; yet, the documents
produced by the petitioner were not sufficient to support his claim and,
therefore, the Judgment passed by respondent No.1 - Committee is legal.
7 The first and the foremost fact to be considered is that the
petitioner should establish his claim on the basis of certain documents, on its
own. Thereafter the question would be - Whether he supports his claim with
the fact that some of his near relatives or the person in the family has
received the validity certificate ? Thereafter, the further things would come
as regards the area restriction and affinity test. Here, the petitioner appears
to have come with a case that there is no validity certificate in favour of
member of his family. In such circumstance, respondent No.1 was justified in
calling upon the Vigilance Cell report.
8 The petitioner is relying on the admission form of his real uncle
Lalaji @ Mukund Maroti Pitlewad. Coloured photo copy has been produced
along with the petition and in the File of respondent No.2 also we could find
the document. However, we are unable to get as to how this document
Annexure 'D' was obtained by the petitioner. It does not have any stamp of
6 WP_9843_2023_Jd
the school. It is said to be the admission form, but the alleged signature is in
the same handwriting and in fact, whether it can be said to be a signature
itself, is a question. Word 'Mukund' has been scored and above it word
'Lalaji' has been written. Though it is said that the student who was seeking
admission i.e. Lalaji Maroti Pitlewad is 'Hindu Koli Mahadev'; yet, the
authenticity of this document cannot be cross checked. The petitioner has
not come with a case that he had obtained the said document under the
Right to Information Act. If that document would have been collected by the
Vigilance Cell Officer, then, how a copy of the same could have been received
by the petitioner, is also another question. On the said document the
authority has not stated or endorsed that the student was admitted to school
on the basis of the said application. At the cost of repetition, it can be said
that the document does not bear any endorsement on behalf of the school.
9 The next document is in respect of second degree uncle
Pandurang and in the File of the petitioner there is similar document of
Pandurang's real brother Pundlik. However, it can be seen that there are
erasers and corrections. Though there are initials or signature, in respect of
correction, yet the question would be - When the said correction was made
and why it was made ? The corrections and insertion of word 'Mahadev'
below the word 'Koli' is in different handwriting. Therefore, these documents
7 WP_9843_2023_Jd
have been rightly not accepted by respondent No.1. In absence of a clear
document coming on record to support the contention of the petitioner, we
do not find any illegality or error committed by respondent No.1.
10 There cannot be a dispute as regards the interpretation of
Section 15 of the Census Act, 1948. The observation to that effect of
respondent No.2 might be wrong, but it was not the only ground on which
the caste claim of the petitioner has been discarded. There are contra entries,
which came on record through the Vigilance Cell inquiry. Those are in
respect of the school record of Lalaji and Pundlik with Zilla Parishad School,
Ramkhadak, Tq. Umri, Dist. Nanded as 'Koli'. The other documents produced
by the petitioner are of recent years and, therefore, we are of the opinion that
the Judgment and order passed by respondent No.1 cannot be said to be
illegal. The petition is devoid of merits. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
1 The Writ Petition stands dismissed.
2 Rule is discharged.
(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )
agd
