Bombay High Court
Pankaj S/O Kawadu Gadgilwar vs District Caste Certificate Scrutiny ... on 23 January, 2024
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
2024:BHC-NAG:1152-DB
(1) 2301 wp2909.2022 J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 2909/2022
Shri Pankaj s/o Kawadu Gadgilwar,
Aged about 28 years,
Occ. Presently Nil,
R/o Nikatwada, Tah. Chamorshi,
Dist. Gadchiroli. ... Petitioner.
Versus
1. District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Gadchiroli, Through it's Chairman,
Dr. Ambedkar Samajik Nyay Bhavan,
ITI Square, LIC Road, Gadchiroli.
2. The Tahsildar, Chamorshi,
having office at Tah. Chamorshi,
Dist. Gadchiroli.
3. State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai. ... Respondents.
...
Mr. Rohan Bhishikar, Advocate h/f Mr. Nitin Bhishikar, Advocate for
petitioner.
Mr. N.R. Patil, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3.
...
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATED : 23/01/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Nitin W. Sambre, J)
(2) 2301 wp2909.2022 J
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Patil, learned
Assistant Government Pleader waives notice on behalf of the
respondents. Heard finally by consent of the parties.
2. The challenge in the petition is to the order dated
25th January, 2019 passed by the respondent no.1 - Caste Scrutiny
Committee, whereby the claim of the petitioner as that of belonging to
"Zade" nomadic tribe came to be rejected.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was
appointed as Kotwal from Nomadic Tribe (C) category and as such the
claim of the petitioner was referred to respondent no.1 - Committee by
the Employer i.e. Tahsildar, Chamorshi for the purpose of verification, as
the appointment of the petitioner was against a post reserved for
Nomadic Tribe (C) category.
4. In support of the claim put forth by the petitioner, the
petitioner has submitted in all five documents as under:
v-dz- dkxni=@iqjkO;kps fooj.k tkr vtZnkjk'kh
ukrs
1 mifoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh] pkeks'khZ ;kauh vtZnkj& iadt >kMs Lor%
doMq xkMfxyokj ;kl fnysys tkr izek.ki= dz-
R.C.No.311/MRC-81/2014-15/fnukad
02.12.2014
(3) 2301 wp2909.2022 J
2 eq[;k/kkid ftYgk ifj"kn izkFkfed 'kkGk fudrokMk >kMs Lor%
rk-pkeks'khZ ft-xMfpjksyh ;kauh vtZnkj iadt doMq
xkMfxyokj ;kauk 5 oh ph 'kkGk lksMY;kpk
nk[kY;kph fnysyh izr tk-dz- 399/2014 fnukad
17.09.2014 (f'k{k.kkpk dkyko/kh 01.07.1999 rs
04.05.2004)
3 doMq :"kh xkMfxyokj fudrokMk ;kaps ukos oMhy
xzkeiapk;r ?kksV ;sFkhy dj olqyh ikorh 1995-96
4 xzkeiapk;r ?kksV ia-la- pkeks'khZ ft- >kM;k vktksck
xMfpjksyh ;sFkhy :"kh o- foLrkjh ;kaps ukos uksan dq-
vlysyh dj vkdkj.khph izr lu 1951-1952
fuxZfer fnukad 23.10.2017
5 oa'kkoG izfrKkys[k fn-01.11.2017
5. The Committee upon analysis of the aforesaid evidence
having noticed that since they create serious doubt as to whether the
petitioner belongs to Nomadic Tribe (C) category referred to the matter
to the Vigilance Cell.
6. The Vigilance Cell having noticed that the petitioner is not
belonging to the Nomadic Tribe (C) category, served the said report on
the petitioner calling upon his explanation. After considering the
explanation of the petitioner, the Committee has rejected the claim of
the petitioner and as such, this petition.
7. Mr. Bhisikar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would urge that the petitioner belongs to "Zade" Nomadic Tribe (C)
category. According to him, in the wake of the documentary evidence
(4) 2301 wp2909.2022 J
submitted by the petitioner to the concerned authority - the Sub
Divisional Officer, Chamorshi, he was issued caste certificate on
2nd December, 2014. The petitioner thereafter substantiated his claim
based on the documents, which are informed to be of pre-independence
era.
8. The counsel for the petitioner would urge that the entry in
the revenue record as that of "Zade Kunbi" in relation to Durga, which
is of 1940-41 and 1950-51 clearly depicts only Zade nomadic tribe and
not caste. He would claim that the words "'Kunbi" cannot be said to be
that the petitioner belongs to "Kunbi" caste and not "Zade nomadic
tribe" (C)category. His further contentions are the respondent -
Committee has erred in recording a finding that the petitioner has failed
to satisfy the affinity test.
9. As against above, Mr. Patil, the learned Assistant
Government Pleader would oppose the prayer of the petitioner.
According to him, the caste "Kunbi" in the revenue record of the 1950-
51 and 1940-41 clearly depicts that the petitioner belongs to Kunbi
caste and not Zade Nomadic Tribe(C) category. He would claim that
reliance placed on the revenue entries of 1954-55 in relation to Ghurkya
brother Chinna Ganga walda Durga has to be read in tune with the
(5) 2301 wp2909.2022 J
earlier entries in relation to the distinct persons. According to him, in
view of the provisions of Section 8 of 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,
it is for the petitioner to discharge the burden, thereby explaining the
aforesaid entries which he has failed too. As such, he would urge that
the petition is liable to be dismissed.
10. We have considered the rival submissions.
11. The petitioner applied to the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Chamorshi for issuance of the caste certificate and accordingly the same
was issued in his name on December 02, 2014 as that of belonging to
'Zade' Nomadic Tribe (R.No.29(15)). The petitioner thereafter got
selected on the post of Kotwal which was reserved for the Nomadic
Tribe (C) category. As the petitioner secured the appointment in the
public office against a reserved post, the Appointing Authority
forwarded the caste certificate of the petitioner for verification.
12. In support of issuance of validity certificate, the petitioner has
relied on the school leaving certificate of the petitioner, tax receipt
issued by Gram Panchayat Ghot of 1995-96, tax receipt
(6) 2301 wp2909.2022 J
of the year 1951-52 issued by Gram Panchayat Ghot in the name of
petitioner's grandfather.
13. Since the aforesaid documents were not establishing the fact
of the petitioner belonging to 'Zade' Nomadic Tribe (c) category, the
case of the petitioner was referred to the Vigilance Cell. The Vigilance
Cell conducted home and field enquiry and submitted reports dated
October 15, 2018 and December 03, 2018 to which the petitioner
submitted his explanation.
14. During the Vigilance Enquiry, it is noticed that the Dakhal-
Kharij Register in relation the petitioner depicts an entry of caste 'Zade'
and occupation 'Agriculturist'. The said caste entry as 'Zade' appears to
have been substituted pursuant to an order passed by the Executive
Magistrate thereby substituting the same in place of 'Kunbi'. As such, it
appears that the original caste mentioned in the primary school record
of the petitioner was 'Kunbi' which was substituted to 'Zade' by taking
recourse to unauthorized means. The petitioner has failed to
demonstrate the powers of the Executive Magistrate to order change of
the entries in Dakhal-Kharij Register of the primary school in which the
petitioner was studying. Only Education Authorities are empowered
either under the Secondary School Code or other relevant
(7) 2301 wp2909.2022 J
Statute/Regulation to deal with request of correction/change in the
school record.
As such the change of entry from `Kunbi' to `Zade' was
unauthorisedly carried out to the benefit of petitioner.
15. It is for the petitioner to discharge the burden pursuant to the
mandate of Section 8 of the Act of 2000 thereby demonstrating that he
does not belong to 'Kunbi' caste which is included in Other Backward
Classes but belongs to 'Zade' Nomadic Tribe (C) category.
16. Similarly, so far as the entry of caste 'Zadya Ku.' in the tax
receipt issued by Gram Panchayat Ghot of the year 1951-52 in the name
of grandfather of the petitioner is concerned, the caste entry is that of
'Zade' whereas the word 'Ku.' denotes Kunbi. As such, entry 'Ku.' cannot
be in any case read as 'Zade Kunbi' or 'Kunbi Zade', rather the said entry
has to be inferred to be 'Kunbi' as could be noticed in the record relating
to the petitioner and his ancestors. Apart from above, the Scrutiny
Committee has noticed that the petitioner has failed to show his affinity
to 'Zade' Nomadic Tribe (C) category.
17. In the aforesaid backdrop, the rejection of claim of the
petitioner for issuance of the validity certificate cannot be faulted with
as the petitioner has failed to discharge the primary burden by proving
(8) 2301 wp2909.2022 J
that he and his ancestors belong to 'Zade' Nomadic Tribe (C) category.
Rather, the record depicts that the petitioner and his ancestors belong to
'Kunbi' Other Backward Classes.
18. That being so, no case for causing interference in the
impugned order passed by respondent-Committee is made out. As such,
the writ petition fails 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: 30/01/2024 18:18:59
