Bombay High Court
Shivanna Narsing Goskulwar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 1 October, 2024
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2024:BHC-AUG:23406-DB
1 wp 9173.19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 9173 OF 2019
Saurabh S/o Shivanna Goskulwar,
Age : 22 years, Occu. : Education,
R/o Madnapur, Tq. Mahur,
Dist : Nanded. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Medical Education and Drugs Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Verification Committee, Aurangabad,
Through its Dy. Director (R),
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9175 OF 2019
Shivanna S/o Narsing Goskulwar,
Age : 47 years, Occu. : Education,
R/o Madnapur, Tq. Mahur,
Dist : Nanded. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Medical Education and Drugs Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Verification Committee, Aurangabad,
Through its Dy. Director (R),
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded,
Dist. Nanded.
2 wp 9173.19
4. The Block Education Officer,
Education Department,
Panchayat Samiti, Mahur,
Dist. Nanded. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9174 OF 2019
Sushant S/o Shivanna Goskulwar,
Age : Minor, Occu. : Education,
R/o Hedgewar Nagar, Kinwat,
Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded,
Through father & natural guardian,
Shivanna S/o Narsing Goskulwar,
Age : 47 years, Occu. : Service,
R/o As above. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Medical Education and Drugs Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Verification Committee, Aurangabad,
Through its Dy. Director ®,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
3. The Commissioner & Competent Authority
Commissionerate of Common Entrance
Test Cell, Government of Maharashtra,
8th Floor, New Excelsior Building,
A. K. Naik Marg, Fort, Mumbai. .. Respondents
Shri Sunil M. Vibhute, Advocate for the Petitioner in all matters.
Shri P. S. Patil, Addl.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in all
matters.
Shri Parvez Shaikh, Advocate h/f Shri S. B. Pulkundwar,
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in W. P. No. 9175 of 2019.
3 wp 9173.19
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL AND
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT ON : 24.09.2024
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 01.10.2024
JUDGMENT (Per Shailesh P. Brahme, J.) :
-
. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard both the
sides finally at the admission stage with consent as there is
exigency to the petitioners.
2. These three petitions are emanating from common
judgment and order dated 18.07.2019 passed by the respondent
No. 2/Scrutiny Committee thereby confiscating and invalidating
tribe certificates of the petitioners as belonging to 'Mannervarlu'
scheduled tribe. There is common record to assess their social
status. We propose to decide all these petitions by this common
judgment. For the sake of convenience, we propose to refer to
papers in Writ Petition No. 9173 of 2019.
3. Petitioners Saurabh and Sushant are real brothers and
petitioner in third petition is their father. They are challenging
common judgment and order dated 18.07.2019 rejecting their
tribe claims. They are relying on the validity certificates issued
to Prachi Bhagwanrao Goskulwar dated 15.07.2008, Vasant
Nanaji Goskulwar dated 19.05.2009 and Subhash Nana
Goskulwar dated 06.04.2010. They are also relying on the old
school record of Nana Shivayya Goskulwar dated 22.06.1927 and
Bankanna Shivayya of the year 1935.
4 wp 9173.19
4. The learned counsel Mr. Sunil Vibhute appearing for the
petitioners would submit that in view of validities issued to the
close blood relatives, the tribe claims should not have been
rejected. He would vehemently submit that old school record of
Shivayya and Bankanna is of pre-independence period having
greater probative value has been discarded arbitrarily. He would
submit that unless earlier validities are revoked, the petitioners
cannot be denied the same social status. It is further submitted
that the petitioners are ready to face the consequences as
contemplated in the matter of Shweta Balaji Isankar Vs. The
State of Maharashtra and others judgment dated 27 July
2018 in W. P. No. 5611 of 2018.
5. It is submitted that Prachi is the first validity holder who
was issued with the validity certificate after conducting vigilance
enquiry and considering favourable as well as contrary entries.
The self same record has been pressed into service by the
petitioners. Therefore, the impugned order is arbitrary and
discriminatory.
6. The learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. P. S. Patil
would repel the submissions of the petitioners. He tenders on
record original papers of earlier validity holders. He would
submit that first validity holder Prachi was issued with the
validity certificate without conducting proper enquiry. The pre-
independence entries of Shivayya and Bankanna are found to be
bogus considering correspondence of the vigilance officer with the
5 wp 9173.19
concern school. If those entries are ignored, then older school
record discovered during the vigilance is incompatible. He would
further submit that by the impugned order an action has been
initiated against Mr. Musale, the then Vigilance Officer, who
misled earlier committee in respect of entries of Shivanna and
Bankanna.
7. The learned Addl. G. P. further submits that other validity
holders are banking on the validity of Prachi. Her validity is
under cloud. Therefore, the Committee has rightly discarded
those certificates. If the petitioners are granted validity, then
that would amount to perpetuation of fraud and mischief.
8. We have considered rival submissions. The petitioners are
relying on validities of Prachi Bhagwan Goskulwar, Vasant
Nanaji Goskulwar and Subhash Nanaji Goskulwar. Prachi is the
first validity holder relying on whose validity Vasant and
Subhash were issued with the validity certificates. Vigilance
enquiry was conducted in the matter of Prachi. The incompatible
school record was considered in her case, which is as follows :
Sr. Name of Person Name of Date of Caste
No. school Admission recorded in
school
1 Kishan Bankanna Z. P. Primary 27.07.1962 Munnurwar
School
Madnapur
2 Ramrao Bankanna --"-- 04.07.1966 Munnurwar
3 Deubai Nana --"-- 03.07.1967 Munnurwar
6 wp 9173.19
4 Shashikala --"-- 07.07.1969 Munurwar
Bankanna
5 Bhagwan Nana --"-- 24.09.1970 Telgi
Munurwad
6 Vasant Nana --"-- 07.07.1975 Munnurwad
Simultaneously, supporting school record of Ramchandra
Bankanna Goskulwar of 01.07.1971 and Subhash Nana of
15.07.1974 showing caste as Munnurvarlu and Mannervarlu was
also verified.
09. The order of the scrutiny committee in the case of Prachi
shows that vigilance cell found out school record of Shivayya
Nana of 22.06.1927 and Bankanna Shivayya of 28.06.1935 and a
report was called for. It was reported by the vigilance officer vide
letter dated 16.05.2008 that the above record was genuine.
Precisely, being impressed by the pre-independence record,
having greater probative value, the Committee issued validity
certificate to Prachi.
10. While conducting vigilance in the present matter it was
disclosed that the above record was fictitious and bogus. The
Committee verified from Head Master of the concerned school
vide letter dated 15.07.2019 as to the existence of the entries of
Nana Shivayya and Bankanna Shivayya. It was reported by the
Head Master by letter dated 17.07.2019 that the school was
established in the year 1939 (Fasli 1349). Thus school record of
Nana Shivayya of 1927 and Bankanna Shivayya of 1935 is ex-
facie fictitious and bogus. The vigilance officer Mr. Musale had
7 wp 9173.19
given a false report and that could not have happened without
connivance of Prachi. By impugned order the Committee has
initiated an action against the then erring vigilance officer Mr.
Musale.
11. Thus, the first validity of Prachi is tainted with bogus
record and conduct of connivance to usurp caste benefits. Once
the pre-independence bogus entries are ignored, what remains is
abundant contrary record from 1962 to 1979. We have no
hesitation to hold that validity certificate of Prachi was not
issued in accordance with law, rather, it was dishonestly got
issued.
12. Though there are other validities of Vasant Nana and
Subhash Nana, they were issued on the basis of validity of Prachi
and considering self same bogus record. No endeavour was made
to verify the genuineness of old entries of 1927 and 1935 from the
school concerned. There is no reason for us to rely on those
validities due to absence of any independent material and in
depth enquiry.
13. The learned Addl. G. P. Mr. P. S. Patil has rightly
submitted that validities of Prachi and others are bordering
fraud. He is justified in pointing out the mischief of the then
vigilance officer and the action initiated against him. We are not
examining the matter as an appellate forum. We are of the
considered view that the validities pressed into service cannot be
relied on considering the principles laid down by the Supreme
8 wp 9173.19
Court in the matter of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat
Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in
2023 SCC Online SC 326.
14. Interestingly, the petitioners have not relied on the pre-
independence record of Nana Shivayya and Bankanna Shivayya.
When this pre-independence record was supporting their claims,
naturally they would have relied upon those before the
Committee. The record was suppressed, but unsuccessfully as
during vigilance those entries were discovered and foul play was
unearthed. This reflects on the conduct of the petitioners who
are seeking equitable relief from this Court in the writ
jurisdiction.
15. The learned Addl. G. P. has referred to following
incompatible school record of close blood relatives of the
petitioners, whose relationship has not been disputed.
Sr. Name of Person Relationship Caste Date of
No. with the recorded admission
petitioner
Sushant
1 Kishan Cousin Munnurwar 27.07.1962
Bankanna grandfather
2 Deubai Nana Sister of cousin Munnurwar 03.07.1967
grandfather
3 Ramrao Cousin Munnurwar 04.07.1966
Bankanna grandfather
4 Sheshikala Sister of Munnurwar 07.07.1969
Bankanna grandfather
9 wp 9173.19
5 Bhagwan Nana Cousin Munnurwar 24.09.1970
grandfather
6 Subhash Nana Cousin Mannervarlu 15.07.1974
grandfather
7 Vasant Nana Cousin Munnrwad 07.07.1975
grandfather
16. The above referred school record was before the Committee
in the matter of first validity holder Prachi, but being influenced
by the bogus pre-independence entries, validity was issued to
her. The record referred to above is undisputedly older than the
favourable record pressed into service by the petitioners. The
comparison reveals that oldest entry of 27.07.1962 of Kishan
Bankanna is of Munnurwar followed by entry of Ramrao
Bankanna of 1966 and so on. We have not come across any
convincing material to corroborate the petitioners' claims. Thus,
we find that the Committee has rightly appreciated the material
on record and has arrived at reasonable and plausible conclusion.
No case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment
and order.
17. There is no merit in all the petitions. The writ petitions
are dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to
costs.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ]
18. After pronouncement of the judgment, learned advocate for
the petitioners submits that by way of interim relief, the
10 wp 9173.19
petitioner in Writ Petition No. 9175 of 2019 has been protected
being in the employment and the protection may be continued for
the reasonable time to enable the petitioner to approach the
Supreme Court.
19. Interim protection of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.
9175 of 2019 stands extended till 18.10.2024.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ]
bsb/Sept. 24
