Bombay High Court
Aditi D/O Sandip Jadhav vs S.T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny ... on 3 September, 2024
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
2024:BHC-NAG:10180-DB
1 61.wp4801.2024..odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 4801 OF 2024
Aditi d/o Sandip Jadhav,
Aged about 19 yrs, Occ. Student,
R/o. Dadham, Tahsil Balapur,
District Akola ...... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Amravati
Office in front of State Information
Commissioner, Sana Building,
Chhaprasipura, Amravati
Pin 444 602. .....RESPONDENT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.D. Chopde, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. J.Y. Ghurde, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- NITIN W. SAMBRE & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE : 03.09.2024
JUDGMENT (Per : Abhay J. Mantri, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally,
with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 31.07.2024,
passed by respondent Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Amravati (for short "the Committee"), whereby the tribe
claim of the petitioner that she belongs to ' Gond' Scheduled Tribe
2 61.wp4801.2024..odt
came to be negated.
3. The petitioner claims that she belongs to the ' Gond'
Scheduled Tribe. Accordingly, on 13.09.2022, the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Balapur, issued a caste certificate to that effect in favour of
the petitioner. While pursuing studies in Smt. Meherbanu Junior
College of Science and Commerce, Akola, on 02.05.2023, the
petitioner submitted a caste certificate along with necessary
documents to the Committee for verification to pursue further
studies from the 'Gond' Scheduled Tribe Category.
4. Upon consideration of the documents, the Committee felt
it necessary to conduct a detailed enquiry and forwarded the
documents to the Vigilance Cell. The Vigilance Cell thoroughly
enquired and submitted its report to the Committee on 25.06.2024.
During the enquiry, the Vigilance Cell noticed adverse entries of
Koli, Mahadev Koli, and 'Mahadev Gond' pertain to the petitioner's
ancestors. According to the report, the Committee issued a show
cause notice to the petitioner, calling upon her to explain the
adverse entries found during the enquiry and asked her to appear
on 27.06.2024 before the Committee. The petitioner's father and
3 61.wp4801.2024..odt
uncle appeared before the Committee and contended that Smt.
Laxmibai Sahdeo Jadhav is not their relative. On 09.07.2024, the
petitioner appeared before the Committee and denied all the
adverse entries. After consideration of the Vigilance Report, the
relevant documents and the explanation tendered, vide impugned
order, the Committee negated the caste claim of the petitioner.
5. Mr. S.D. Chopde, the learned Counsel for the petitioner,
vehemently contended that the petitioner, in support of her claim,
has produced as many as nineteen documents, out of which six were
from 1923 to 1948. The oldest document of 1923 pertains to her
cousin's great-grandfather Chandrabhan s/o Tryambak, whose caste
was recorded as Gond. However, the Committee has not considered
the same properly and has discarded the document. It is further
submitted that the validity certificate of Laxmi Sahdeo Jadhav,
which was produced on record, was discarded on the grounds that
the petitioner has not established a relationship with her. He argued
that the findings given by the Committee are contrary to the
documents on record, and therefore, the Committee erred in
rejecting the petitioner's claim.
4 61.wp4801.2024..odt
6. Per contra, Mr. J.Y. Ghurde, the learned Assistant
Government Pleader, strenuously argued that during Vigilance
enquiry, entry of the year 1932 pertaining to the cousin great
grandfather of the petitioner was discovered wherein his caste was
recorded as Koli. Also, the petitioner tampered with the 1960
document by erasing the Koli and Gond caste written there. He
pointed out that the petitioner failed to explain the adverse entry in
the father's School Leaving Certificate, wherein the caste is recorded
as Koli Mahadev. Therefore, considering the documents available on
record, the Committee has rightly rejected the petitioner's claim.
7. We have perused the record and appreciated the rival
submissions advanced by the learned counsel for parties.
8. At the outset, it is apparent that in the six pre-
constitutional era documents from 1923 to 1948, a caste of the
ancestors of the petitioner is recorded as 'Gond', so also, during the
enquiry, the Vigilance Cell has discovered three adverse entries
pertains to cousin great grandfather Chandrabhan Tryambak of the
year 1932 wherein his caste was recorded as Koli. Further, the
petitioner, in her reply to the show cause notice, has not disputed
5 61.wp4801.2024..odt
the school leaving certificate of her father, which denotes his caste
as Koli Mahadev, but only averred that she has produced a fresh
copy of the said document wherein Chandrabhan's caste is recorded
as 'Gond' by striking down Koli caste. Moreover, it is tried to canvass
that the report submitted by the Vigilance Cell is incorrect and
misleading. It further reveals from the record that on 05.12.2023,
the Vigilance Cell recorded the statement of the petitioner's father
wherein he categorically admitted that his mother belongs to the
'Koli' caste. Mother has obtained the Special Backward Caste Validity
Certificate. His wife belongs to the Koli caste, and his sister is
married in the Koli community. The family tree is incomplete, and a
detailed description of her ancestors is not mentioned in it. Further,
the petitioner shows two family trees. In one family tree, she has
stated his father's name, Mahadev Lolaji, and grandfather's name,
Tryambak, whereas, in another family tree, she has stated her
father's name, Mahadev Shedu Tryamba, and there is no
explanation on record about these discrepancies.
9. In the affidavit dated 02.01.2023 sworn before the
Executive Magistrate describing two family trees, in both the family
trees, the names of Chandrabhan Tryambak, Govinda Tryambak and
6 61.wp4801.2024..odt
Bhagwan s/o. Govinda has not been evinced. This fact itself shows
that the petitioner or her father is not sure about the names of their
ancestors and their relations with them. Similarly, the petitioner has
produced a validity certificate pertaining to Laxmi d/o. Sahdev, but
there is no explanation as to how Laxmi or her father Sahdev are
related to her, and therefore, the Committee has rightly discarded
the said validity certificate. It is pertinent to note that in the School
Leaving Certificate dated 07.06.1996 of the petitioner's father, his
caste is recorded as 'Koli Mahadev'. So also, when the Vigilance Cell
verified the School Admission Register and School Leaving Register
of the father of the petitioner, it found that on 01.07.1983, he left
the school, and his caste was recorded as ' Koli Mahdav' in the
register; thus, it can be concluded that the document was tampered
by writing 'Gond' caste.
10. Considering the above discussion, it appears that the
petitioner has failed to demonstrate that Govinda Tryambak, Laxmi
Sahdev, or Chandrabhan was related to her, so there is a discrepancy
in the family trees about the ancestors' names. During the pendency
of the petition, the petitioner tried to produce some documents on
record to substantiate her claim, which were not produced before
7 61.wp4801.2024..odt
the Committee.
11. In light of the above discussion, to resolve the
controversy, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter to the
Committee for reconsideration with direction to conduct a thorough
enquiry into the matter by offering the opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner to substantiate her claim. As a result, we proceed to pass
the following order:
i) The petition is partly allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 31.07.2024, passed by
respondent Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Amravati, is hereby quashed and set aside.
iii) The matter is remanded back to the Committee for
a fresh decision by offering an opportunity to hear to the
petitioner, in accordance with law.
iv) The petitioner is directed to appear before the
Committee on 23.09.2024.
v) The Committee is directed to decide the caste
claim of the petitioner within a period of four months
from the date of appearance of the petitioner before the
Committee.
8 61.wp4801.2024..odt
12. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
R.S. Belkhede, P.A.
Signed by: Mr. R. S. Belkhede
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 10/09/2024 15:09:54
