Bombay High Court
Shreejay Vijay Rokde vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 9 October, 2024
Author: M.S. Jawalkar
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote, M.S. Jawalkar
2024:BHC-NAG:11310-DB
51-wp 5627-2023-j.odt 1/11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5627 OF 2023
Shreejay Vijay Rokde,
Aged about 18 years, Occ. Student,
R/o. Ramkrushna Nagar, Near
Shraddha Nagar, Kaulkhed, Akola,
District Akola. ....PETITIONER
....VERSUS....
1. The State of Maharashtra, through
its Secretary, Social Justice and
Special Welfare Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The District Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Washim
through its Member-Secretary,
Babasaheb Ambedkar Samajik
Nyaya Bhawan, Nalanda Nagar,
Chikhli, Survey Road, Washim ....RESPONDENTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R.N.Ghuge, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri M.J.Khan, AGP for respondents/State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND
SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 20/09/2024
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 09/10/2024
JUDGMENT (PER: SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel
appearing for the parties at the stage of admission.
4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18/07/2023
passed by the respondent no. 2 - the District Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Washim (in short, 'the Scrutiny
Committee'), thereby invalidating the caste claim of the
petitioner for 'Lad' Other Backward Class (O.B.C.), the
petitioner has filed the present petition.
5. It is submitted that, the petitioner has completed
his Diploma in Computer Engineering recently from the
Government Polytechnic, Murtizapur and is interested in
pursuing further education and therefore, has applied for
admission to 2nd Year Engineering for the branch of Computer
Science in the ongoing central admission process for
Engineering. The petitioner is claiming to belong to the caste
of 'Lad', which is at Sr. No. 254 in the State of Maharashtra
and is from O.B.C., his claim was forwarded for verification to
the Scrutiny Committee. Thereafter, the Scrutiny Committee
forwarded the matter to the Vigilance Cell for inquiry. The
Vigilance Cell conducted the inquiry. In the report, the
Vigilance Cell has specifically found document dated
22/06/1920 in respect of the great-grandfather of the
petitioner namely Narayan Lad, bearing the Caste Entry as
that of 'Lad'. Nothing adverse was reported in the Vigilance
Cell report so as to deprive or raise a doubt on the claim of
the petitioner of belonging to the caste of 'Lad'.
6. Further, the petitioner also submits that, his cousin
from paternal side namely Suyog Prashant Rokade has also
been issued caste validity certificate on 27/07/2012 by the
Scrutiny Committee at Akola after due verification and the
same was placed on record during the verification of the caste
claim of his elder brother Sujay.
7. The petitioner has demonstrated that, two persons
in the family have been granted and issued caste validity
certificates and also that in the government record, the entries
in respect of his great grandfather demonstrate the caste as
'Lad'. The Scrutiny Committee after hearing the parties and
considering the documents placed on record on 18/07/2023
invalidated the claim of the petitioner of belonging to caste
'Lad' OBC.
8. The petitioner also submits that, his elder real
brother namely Sujay has been granted validity certificate by
the same Scrutiny Committee on 06/06/2018 and his paternal
cousin Suyog Prashant Rokade has also been granted validity
certificate on 27/07/2012. The petitioner, thus, submits that,
when his elder real brother has been found to be of belonging
to 'Lad' caste, there was no alternative to the respondent no. 2
- Scrutiny Committee except to grant validity certificate to the
petitioner in respect of 'Lad' caste.
9. The respondent no. 2 - Scrutiny Committee also
has relied on certain documents, which are completely out of
knowledge of the present petitioner or his family members. It
is also submitted that, even the claim of his elder real brother
Sujay has been considered and validated, in view of the fact
that, there are documents on record and also cousin of the
petitioner namely Suyog Rokde has been granted validity
certificate.
10. The petitioner had submitted the following
documents prior to cut of date:
Name Relation Document Date of Caste
document
Rambhau Grandfather Proforma 17/06/1967 Lad
Narayansa
Lad
Narayan Lad Great Kotwal Book 22/06/1920 Lad
Grandfather
Narayan Great Kotwali 24/10/1928 Lad
Krushnasa Grandfather Register
Lad
11. The genealogy submitted by the petitioner is as
under:-
FAMILY TREE
Narayan Krushnasa Lad
(Grandfather)
Rambhau Narayansa Kirtisen Narayansa
Lad (Father) Lad (Uncle)
Vijay Rambhau Sanjay Rambhau Ajay Rambhau Prashant Kirtisen
(Rokde (Self) Rokde (Elder Brother) Rokde (Elder Brother) Rokde (Cousin Brother)
Sujay Vijay Shrijay Vijay Suyog Prashant
Rokde (Son) Rokde (Son) (Applicant) Rokde (Nephew) Ja.Vai.Pra.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the
following authority/citation:-
(i) Shreyash Ajay Ghormare V/s. Scheduled Tribe
Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gondia and ors.
[2024(5) Mh.L.J. 347]
(ii) Apoorva d/o. Vinay Nichale V/s. Divisional Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 1, Nagpur and ors.
[2010(6) Mh.L.J.401] [Judgment of this Court in Writ
Petition No. 1504/2010, dated 27/07/2010]
13. The learned Assistant Government pleader for
the respondents/State supported the order passed by the
Scrutiny Committee. In reply filed by respondent no. 2 - the
Scrutiny Committee, it is contended by the respondent no. 2
that, as per the family tree submitted by the petitioner, he has
failed to produce school or revenue record to complete the
chain of tree i.e. proof of previous records of blood relatives
i.e. Cousins, Aunts, Uncle etc. However, despite granting
sufficient opportunities to the petitioner, the petitioner has
failed to produce the genuine evidence. The petitioner himself
has produced his father's school evidence, which records the
caste entries as of Jains. Therefore, the order passed by the
Scrutiny Committee is perfectly justified, hence, prayed for
dismissal of present petition.
14. Heard both the parties at length. Perused the
record of the Scrutiny Committee produced by the learned
AGP. The oldest document produced by the petitioner is of
dated 22/06/1920, which is in respect of Narayan Lad
showing as "given birth to a son". The petitioner has also
placed on record the documents of the year 1968. These
documents appear to be prior to cut of date. These documents
have been discarded by the Scrutiny Committee by giving a
reason that, on the basis of these documents, the relation is
not established. The documents of the year 1968 were also
discarded on the ground that, they are not prior to cut of date.
The Scrutiny Committee has not considered the documents
which are of the year 1968 itself. However, the entry which is
shown as 'Jain' has been considered, but it is not ready to
consider the document showing as 'Lad' of the year 1968
itself. The Scrutiny Committee failed to take into account the
validity certificate issued in favour of the elder brother of the
petitioner namely Sujay Vijaykumar Rokade by the same
Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee. It has also not taken
into account the validity certificate issued in favour of Suyog
Prashant Rokade, who is cousin of the petitioner from
paternal side.
15. In view of the case of Apoorva d/o. Vinay Nichale
(supra), the claim of the petitioner ought to have been allowed
by the Scrutiny Committee. In the said case i.e. in Apoorva
d/o. Vinay Nichale (supra), it is held in para 7 as under:-
"We thus come to the conclusion that when during the course
of enquiry the candidate submits a caste validity certificate
granted earlier certifying that a blood relation of the
candidate belongs to the same caste as that claimed by the
applicant, the committee may grant such certificate without
calling for Vigilance Cell Report. However, if the committee
finds that the earlier caste certificate is tainted by fraud or is
granted without jurisdiction, the Committee may refuse to
follow and may refuse to grant certificate to the applicant
before it."
It is also held that,
"the matters pertaining to validity of caste have a great
impact on the candidate as well as on the future
generations in many matters varying from marriage to
education and enjoyment, and therefore, where a committee
has given a finding about the validity of the caste of a
candidate, another committee ought not to refuse the same
status to a blood relative who applies. A merely different
view on the same facts would not entitle the committee
dealing with the subsequent caste claim to reject it."
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed
reliance on Shreyash Ajay Ghormare (supra), wherein this
Court has held in para 10 and 11 as under:-
"10. We have noticed that, there are many orders passed
by the Caste Scrutiny Committee against the principle laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by this Court.
There are various judgments passed by the Superior Courts
holding that, if there are genuine documents prior to
independence era, there is no necessity to call for Vigilance
Cell report. It is also time and again held by the Hon'ble
Apex Court as well as this Court that, if there is any
validity issued in favour of the blood relative of the
applicant and there is no dispute about the genealogy, the
Caste Scrutiny Committee ought to have issued a validity
certificate in favour of the applicant.
11. No doubt, it is also held by the Apex Court that, if
there is any instance of fraud and misrepresentation, the
Caste Scrutiny Committee has right to re-open the claim or
invalidate the caste claim, however, the procedure
prescribed under the Act is required to take up before such
invalidation and in cases of such validity certificates issued
in favour of the other blood relatives, the Committee ought
to have issued notice to them, heard them, rendered a
finding of fraud on the basis of material procured,
invalidated all the validity certificates and then only could
have denied validity to the petitioner. Now there is every
possibility that the invalidity of the tribe claim may
adversely affect the validity granted to the blood relatives of
the petitioner, which would be without there being any
notice, due to which, the said beneficiaries would be
deprived of their legal right to defend the validity granted
in their favour. As such, the order passed by the Caste
Scrutiny Committee is totally erroneous....."
17. It is not alleged by the Scrutiny Committee that,
there are any documents obtained by fraud. As such, in
absence of such allegation, there was no reason not to
invalidate the claim of the petitioner, specifically when the
petitioner's cousin as well as real brother are already having
validity certificates in their favour. As such, the order passed
by the Scrutiny Committee is unsustainable and liable to be
dismissed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following
order:-
ORDER
i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
ii) The order dated 18/07/2023 passed by the
respondent no. 2 - the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Washim in the matter of the petitioner - Shreejay
Vijay Rokde, in Case No. fttkizilokf'ke@ykM@fo|kFkhZ@iz-dz-
ED-2022-00842781 is hereby quashed and set aside.
iii) It is held that the petitioner has duly established
that he belongs to 'Lad' Other Backward Class (O.B.C.).
iv) The respondent no. 2 - the Scrutiny Committee,
Washim is hereby directed to issue validity certificate to the
petitioner of belonging to 'Lad' (O.B.C.) within a period of
four weeks.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No
order as to costs.
(Judge) (Judge)
B.T.Khapekar
Signed by: Mr. B.T. Khapekar
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 10/10/2024 14:16:36
