Bombay High Court
Harsh Gaurav Gaikar vs State Of Maharastra Thr Tribal ... on 19 January, 2024
Author: M.M.Sathaye
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, M.M.Sathaye
Trupti 1 15-wp-557-2024..doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 557 OF 2024
Harsh Gaurav Gaikar ... Petitioner
versus
State of Maharashtra and Others ... Respondents
.......
Mr.Vishal Patil for the Petitioner.
Mr.S.B.Kalel, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2-State.
.......
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR &
M.M.SATHAYE, JJ.
DATE : 19 JANUARY 2024
P.C.:
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Leave is granted to the Petitioner to join members of the
Scrutiny Committee by name. Amendment to be carried out within
three working days from today.
3. The Petitioner was granted the caste certificate as belonging to
Kunbi community by the Sub Divisional Officer, Wada Division,
Wada on 20 May 2016. The Petitioner had sought admission in
Respondent No.3- Engineering College on the basis of his caste
certificate which was referred by the Engineering College to
Respondent No.2-the Scrutiny Committee for verification. By the
Trupti 2 15-wp-557-2024..doc
impugned order dated 26 April 2022, the caste certificate of the
Petitioner was invalidated.
4. Having perused the impugned order, we find that it is not only
bereft of any reasoning, but it is also passed contrary to the procedure
laid down under the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes, De-Notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribes, Other
Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of
issuance and verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (the Act of
2000) and the Rules framed therein.
5. The Petitioner had relied upon the caste validity certificates
issued to his father Gaurav Balu Gaikar of 28 December 1990 and
his elder brother Mayur of 15 January 2021 which have been
discarded on the basis that the Petitioner has not been able to
produce the evidence based on which validity certificate was issued.
This is the only reasoning in the impugned order. Then, there is
reference to a judgment rendered by this Court that the candidate
should prove genealogy. There is no finding that Gaurav Balu
Gaikar is not father of the Petitioner or that Mayur is not elder
brother. To make the matters worse, Respondent No.2- the Scrutiny
Committee has not even bothered to order a Vigilance Cell enquiry.
No reasons are given why the Vigilance Cell enquiry is not ordered.
6. Therefore, not only the impugned order is required to be
quashed and set aside, but we find that the order prima facie is an
Trupti 3 15-wp-557-2024..doc
abuse of power by the members of the Scrutiny Committee and
resulting harassment to the Petitioner.
7. Accordingly, we quash and set aside the impugned order
dated 26 April 2022 passed by Respondent No.2- the Scrutiny
Committee and restore the caste claim of the Petitioner to the file of
Respondent No.2- the Scrutiny Committee. Respondent No.2- the
Scrutiny Committee shall follow the procedure laid down under the
Act of 2000 and the Rules framed therein and deal with the validity
certificate issued to the Petitioner within a period of four months
from today.
8. We intend to impose costs on the State for harassment to the
Petitioner.
9. Issue notice to the added Respondents as to why the State be
not directed to recover the costs from the added Respondents. Notice
is made returnable on 18 March 2024.
10. Pendency of this writ petition on this notice will not come in
the way of proceeding on remand.
(M.M.SATHAYE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)
