Bombay High Court
Ramesh S/O Parvatrao Chavan vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Its ... on 23 January, 2024
Author: M.S. Jawalkar
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote, M.S. Jawalkar
2024:BHC-NAG:927-DB
wp 1025-2015.odt 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1025/2015
Ramesh s/o Parvatrao Chavan,
aged about 56 years, Occupation-
Service, Resident of Ward No.18,
Gandhi Nagar, Chikhali, District-
Buldhana.
....PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Tribal
Welfare Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,
2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Amravati
Division, through its Member
Secretary, Irwin Chowk,
Amravati.
...RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri G.R. Kothari, Advocate for petitioner
Shri A.M. Joshi, AGP for respondent Nos.1 & 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND
SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, JJ..
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 15/01/2024
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 23/01/2024
wp 1025-2015.odt 2/6
JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of Shri Kothari, learned Counsel for petitioner and
Shri A.M. Joshi, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
3. The challenge to the petition is to the order of invalidation
of the Caste claim of the petitioner by the Caste Scrutiny
Committee, Amravati. The petitioner claims to be belonging to
"Thakur" Scheduled Tribe, which is recognized at Sr. No.44 in the
Constitution (Scheduled Tribe) Order, 1950. The petitioner is in
service of an Irrigation Department and was appointed as
Sectional Engineer on 16/11/1981. It is contended that the
petitioner had applied for the verification of his Tribe claim for
"Thakur" Schedule Tribe for service purpose through the Under
Secretary, Irrigation Department, Mantralay, Mumbai on
23/07/1996. It is contended that the petitioner has been conferred
with caste certificate as "Thakur" Schedule Tribe on 20/08/1979.
It is further contended that there are three validity certificates
issued by the Scrutiny Committee of Nashik and Aurangabad to
the close relatives of the petitioner; one to the petitioner's sister's
son namely Girish Vithalrao Thakur on 13/08/1993 by the Caste
Scrutiny Committee, Nashik and other to the petitioner's elder
daughter namely Swapna Ranesh Chavan by Aurangabad
Committee on 21/04/2001 and the third one is granted to the
petitioner's real brother's daughter namely Priti Sunil Chavan
(who is niece of petitioner) on 30/08/2002 by Aurangabad
Committee. The Respondent no. 2 discarded all the above validity
certificates and other pre-constitutional documents and rejected
the Tribe claim of the petitioner and passed impunged order.
4. Oldest document is of the year 1915 which is first page of
service book of Parvat Ramji who is shown as belonging to Thakur
Scheduled Tribe of the father of Petitioner. Another entry death
extract of Rajaram Thakur dated 19/01/1916 grand-father of
Petitioner. The birth extract of Sitaram Thakur dated 04/07/1933
showing belonging to "Thakur" Tribe. Consistently, in all the
documents as many as 103 documents which shows the relatives
of the petitioner belonging to "Thakur" Tribe. Similarly, there are
documents consistently showing that person in blood relation of
the petitioner as belonging to "Thakur" Tribe. Not only this, there
is caste validity certificate issued by Aurangabad Scrutiny
Committee in respect of Sapna Chavan dated 21/04/2001 and
Priti Chavan dated 30/08/2002 issued by Aurangabad Scrutiny
Committee. In the said validity certificate, Priti and Sapna both
were shown belonging to "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe. There is no
dispute over genealogical tree and relation of petitioner with Priti
and Sapna.
5. In view of decision in Writ Petition No.2685/2022, it is
already held by this Court by the ground of rejection put-forth in
the impugned order is illegal as there is no law which restrict, the
validity certificate only to the area over which the Scrutiny
Committee has its jurisdiction. Once the validity certificate is
granted to a claimant, it would become conclusive proof of social
status acquired by that person for all purpose and in any territory
where such proof is required to be submitted.
6. In our considered opinion, the only reason for not
considering those validity certificates appears to be that the same
was issued by Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad.
Once the validity certificate is granted to a claimant, it becomes
the conclusive proof of the social status acquired by that person
for all purpose and in any territory where such proof is required to
be submitted. Therefore, such validity certificate can also be used
as having sufficient evidentiary value in the caste or tribe claim
placed by the other relatives of a person in whose favour, those
certificates are issued. As such, reasoning adopted by the Scrutiny
Committee is totally erroneous and contrary to the law laid down
by this Court. As such, petitioner is entitled to have his tribe
certificate validated by the Scrutiny Committee.
7. The petition is allowed in terms of prayer Clause 'A'. The
Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati is
directed to issue validity certificate to the petitioner as belonging
to "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe within a period of three weeks from
the date of this order.
8. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
R.S. Sahare
Signed by: Mrs. Ranjana Sahare
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 23/01/2024 18:14:04
