Bombay High Court
Rakesh S/O Daulat Tunkalwar vs The District Caste Certificate ... on 13 February, 2025
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
2025:BHC-NAG:1955-DB
1 wp5417.2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5417/2023
Rakesh S/o Daulat Tunkalwar,
aged about 20 Yrs., Occ. Service,
R/o At & Post Usegaon, Tahsil Saoli,
Distt. Chandrapur. ... Petitioner
- Versus -
The District Caste Certificate
Verification Committee, Chandrapur
through its Member Secretary,
office at Social Justice & Special
Assistance Department, Milk Diary
Road, Chandrapur 442 402. ... Respondent
-----------------
Ms. Mugdha A. Mundle, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. H.D. Marathe, A.G.P. for the respondent.
----------------
CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE & MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED: 13.2.2025.
JUDGMENT (Per Mrs. Vrushali V. Joshi, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of learned Advocates for the parties.
2 wp5417.2023
2. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 9.9.2022
passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating the caste
claim of petitioner belonging to Zade (Nomadic Tribe-C).
3. The petitioner belongs to caste Zade which is included in
the list of NT-C category in the State of Maharashtra. The
petitioner had obtained a caste certificate for Zade NT-C issued
by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mul, District Chandrapur on
13.9.2021. Caste certificate of petitioner was forwarded to
respondent Committee for verification. The respondent
Committee has invalidated the caste claim by order dated
9.9.2022. The petitioner had filed documents of 1927-1928
school leaving certificate issued in favour of his great-grandfather
Shiva Ramdas mentioning as 'Zadya', school leaving certificate of
his father Daulat 22.7.1999 and his school leaving certificate
dated 21.6.2019.
4. The respondent Committee directed the Vigilance Cell
enquiry. Vigilance Cell recorded statements of witnesses who
3 wp5417.2023
confirmed that the family of the petitioner belongs to Zade caste.
The report of Vigilance Cell was supporting the claim of the
petitioner.
5. After the first Vigilance Cell enquiry, the respondent
committee directed second Vigilance Cell enquiry in case of
petitioner in view of complaints filed by Dhangar Caste Officers
and Employees Organization. The said organization has raised
the objection pertaining to the claim of members of Zade caste for
NT-C category. The second Vigilance Cell enquiry report was
submitted on 31.3.2012. The petitioner had submitted his reply
to vigilance cell report. The caste claim was rejected on the
ground that the petitioner has failed to prove that he belongs to
caste Zade (Dhangar). Hence he has filed the instant writ
petition.
6. The respondent Committee has filed affidavit-in-reply and
denied the contents in the petition and stated that as the
4 wp5417.2023
petitioner failed to prove the caste Zade Dhangar and has failed to
prove that the validity certificate which belongs to one Datta
Doma Dunkulwar is related to him and, therefore, the caste claim
is rightly rejected by the respondent Committee.
7. On perusal of record it appears that as per the Government
Resolution dated 17.1.1990 Dhangar caste includes Zade but the
condition was that the person from the family of Zade must go
from village to village for raising goats and sheeps and migrate
from village to village for the said purpose. Said condition came
to be deleted vide Government Resolution dated 6.8.1992. In
both the Government Resolutions it is not mentioned that it is
mandatory to suffix Dhangar after the caste Zade. The caste of
petitioner was not invalidated on the ground that he does not
belong to caste Zade but on the ground that Dhangar is not
mentioned after caste Zade. The vigilance report supports the
claim of the petitioner that he belongs to caste Zade of NT-C.
The decision of Research Officer dated 9.9.2022 is in favour of
5 wp5417.2023
petitioner to which the Deputy Commissioner and Chairman of
the Committee were not agreeable and, therefore, they have given
separate decision by which the claim of Zade Dhangar is rejected
by the Committee.
8. On perusal of the order passed by the respondent
Committee it appears that the Committee relied on the
Government Resolution dated 18.4.1986 which is not filed on
record. Though the Committee has not disputed documents
showing that the petitioner belongs to Zade Caste again
Committee has stated that it is not mentioned as Dhangar after
caste Zade. According to respondent Committee Zade is the
sub-caste of Dhangar and, therefore, the caste claim of the
petitioner is invalidated. On perusal of the Government
Resolution dated 6.8.1992 it is not mentioned that it requires to
suffix Dhangar to Zade caste. Nothing is there to reject the caste
claim of the petitioner. Hence we pass the following order:-
6 wp5417.2023
9. The impugned order dated 9.9.2022 passed by the
respondent Committee is quashed and set aside.
The respondent Committee is directed to issue validity
certificate in favour of the petitioner as Zade NT-C as
expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of four
months from today.
(MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
Tambaskar.
Signed by: MR. N.V. TAMBASKAR
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 27/02/2025 11:35:06
