Bombay High Court
Nirmala D/O Punaji Khapekar @ Nirmala ... vs Shishuvihar Madyamik Vidya Mandir, ... on 16 October, 2024
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
2024:BHC-NAG:11969-DB
1 wp.7944.18-J.odt
N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 7944 OF 2018
Nirmala D/o. Punaji Khapekar @
Nirmala W/o. Sachin Padlkar,
Aged - 38 Years, Occ. - Service,
R/o. Kirtida Co-op. Soc. MD Keni Marge,
Bhandup (East) Mumbai,
Tq. Dist. - Mumbai. ... PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. Sishuvihar Madyamik Vidya Mandir
through its Head Mistress,
Lakhamasi Nappu Marg, Hindu Colony,
Dadar (East) Mumbai - 400014.
2. Schedule Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Nagpur, through its Vice-President/Secretary,
Giripeth, Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. M. V. Bute, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. S. S. Hulke, A.G.P. for Respondent No.2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND
MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 16.10.2024
JUDGMENT (PER : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.):
-
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of
learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of
invalidation of caste claim of the petitioner by order
2 wp.7944.18-J.odt
No.S.AA/AJPRATS/NAG/III/443/31/2013, Case ID:6-ST/2013/13193
dated 31.08.2018 passed by the respondent No.2 Scheduled Tribe
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the respondent
has invalidated the caste claim without giving an opportunity and without
considering the documents filed by the petitioner in support of proof of the
entry of 'Halba'. On 10.08.2000, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant
Teacher under Scheduled Tribe Category and she is working there since
then. In the year 2013, for the first time, the respondent has demanded the
caste validity certificate from the petitioner. The petitioner has stated that
though she has given the old document showing the entry of 'Halba' of her
cousin of the year 1968, the Caste Scrutiny Committee has relied on the
documents of the Extract of School Register of her father and paternal
uncle, which were not available, when she enquired about it under the
Right to Information Act. The respondents relied on the said documents
and also the affinity test and rejected the claim of the petitioner.
4. The learned A.G.P. has stated that the documents on which the
Committee has relied are pre-independence documents. The caste of the
father and paternal uncle is shown as 'Koshti' which are the entries of the
year 1942 and 1953. The petitioner has not filed any documents of pre-
3 wp.7944.18-J.odt
indenpendence era to prove her caste as 'Halba' and therefore, the
respondent has rightly invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner.
5. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. for
the respondent/State.
6. On perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner has produced
nine documents in support of her claim. The document i.e. School
Certificate produced by her which is of pre-independence era i.e. dated
05.02.1946 of Baliram, mentioning the entry as caste 'Koshti'. Other
documents are of the year 1990, 1992 and 2013. During investigation of
the blood relatives and verification of the documents, the Scrutiny
Committee had found the entry of caste 'Koshti' in the documents dated
15.11.1942 and 15.07.1953 of her uncle Sadashiv Baliram and father
Punaji Baliram respectively. Therefore, the document of pre-independence
era is having the entry of caste 'Koshti'.
7. The document on which the petitioner has relied is of Sudhakar
Parasram Khapekar, it is of 01.06.1968, the School Leaving Certificate
mentioning 'Halba' Caste. Though she has stated that he is her cousin, the
family tree is not given and the relation of Sudhakar or Parasram with the
petitioner is not proved.
4 wp.7944.18-J.odt
8. The reply given by the petitioner stated that though she tried to
collect the School Leaving Certificates of her father and paternal uncle from
the School under the Right to Information Act, the school had given the
reply that the same is an old record and in the meantime the school is also
shifted, which is why it is not available with the school. Though she has
stated that the said documents are not correct and the record was not
available, she herself has given the School Certificate of Baliram, who is the
father of Punaji of the year 1946 which mentions the caste as 'Koshti'. As
there is no documentary proof about 'Halba' caste, the Scrutiny Committee
has rightly come to the conclusion and invalidated the caste claim. The
affinity test also could not be satisfied. Though the petitioner was called for
interview in February, 2018, she remained absent for five times and she was
interviewed on 03.08.2018. The reply is not filed by the respondents, but on
perusal of the order passed by the respondent No.2, by giving the citations
of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the caste claim was invalidated.
9. This Court in the case of Priya and Others Vs. Scheduled Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee and Ors. [Writ Petition No.2571/2001] has
observed that the genuineness of the caste claim has to be considered not
only on thorough examination of documents submitted in support of the
claim, but also on the basis of the affinity test, which would include the
anthropological and ethnological traits etc. However, it has been held that
the said test cannot be applied mechanically. It has further been held that
5 wp.7944.18-J.odt
the affinity test cannot be applied as a litmus test while determining the
claim of a candidate.
10. While dealing with the documentary evidence, a greater reliance has
to be placed on pre-independence documents, because they furnish higher
degree of probative value to the declaration of status of a tribe.
11. In the facts of the present case, it would reveal that the petitioner
herself has produced the pre-independence documents of her father Baliram
Punaji i.e. Extract of School Register of the year 1946, the Extract of School
Register of his father Punaji of the year 1953 and of her paternal uncle of
the year 1942, in all the above documents, the caste is mentioned as
'Koshti'. Therefore, relying on these documents, the respondent has rightly
invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner. No interference at the hands
of this Court is required.
12. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gajanan
Marotrao Nimje & Ors. Vs. The Reserve Bank of India & Ors [Civil Appeal
No(s). 10396/2018] with connected matter, the petitioner is entitled to
protection of her service as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the
said judgment.
6 wp.7944.18-J.odt
13. The petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
RGurnule
Signed by: Mrs. R.M. MANDADE
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 23/10/2024 17:17:25
