Bombay High Court
Uddhav Motiram Sarje vs State Of Maha And Ors on 20 January, 2025
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2025:BHC-AUG:2106-DB
*1* wp5301o03
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.5301 OF 2003
Uddhav Motiram Sarje,
Age : 39 years, Occ : Service,
R/o C/o Shivaji Khandu Patil
Behind Pille Niwas, Vikramnagar,
Latur. ...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Maharashtra.
Through the Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Verification Committee,
Through its Chairman/ Director,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
3. The Taluka Executive Magistrate,
Ausa, Dist. Latur.
4. The Disciplinary Authority,
Union Bank of India,
Industrial Relations Department,
Central Office, Latur.
5. The Assistant General Manager,
Union Bank of India,
Regional Office, Pune.
6. The Collector,
Collectorate, Latur.
...RESPONDENTS
*2* wp5301o03
...
Shri A.S. Golegaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri S.R. Wakale, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 6/State.
Shri S.V. Natu, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 and 5.
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL
&
PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ.
DATE : 20th January, 2025
JUDGMENT (Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.) :
-
By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the
order dated 26.09.2003 passed by respondent No.2 Scrutiny
Committee invalidating his tribe claim for 'Mahadeo Koli',
Scheduled Tribe.
2. This petition was admitted by order dated
10.12.2003 and during the pendency of the petition, interim relief
was granted in favour of the petitioner.
3. The matter is now taken up for final hearing. Heard
Advocate Shri Golegaonkar for the petitioner, Advocate Shri
Wakale, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 6/State and
Advocate Shri Natu for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
*3* wp5301o03
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the impugned order is unsustainable in law and the petitioner's
claim ought to have been validated. He submitted that the
petitioner had submitted all the available documents before the
Scrutiny Committee and on the basis of those documents, the
tribe claim ought to have been validated. He also stated that
although the petitioner could not produce before the Scrutiny
Committee any document of pre-independence era, however, in
view of the documents submitted by him, the tribe claim ought to
have been validated. He also submitted that the Scrutiny
Committee ought to have validated the tribe claim on the basis of
the affinity established by the petitioner.
5. Per contra, the learned AGP submitted that the
impugned order does not need any interference since the
petitioner has failed to establish his tribe claim on the basis of
documentary evidence as well as affinity test. He submitted that
the petitioner has not filed any document of pre-independence
era in support of his tribe claim and the documents submitted by
him do not establish his claim for 'Mahadeo Koli', Scheduled
Tribe in view of inconsistent entries in the documents. He also
*4* wp5301o03
submitted that the petitioner has failed in proving his affinity
with 'Mahadeo Koli', Scheduled Tribe and thus, the Scrutiny
Committee has rightly invalidated his tribe claim.
6. Shri Natu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and
5, also supported the impugned order by adopting the arguments
of the learned AGP and prayed for dismissal of this petition.
7. We have considered the rival submissions of the
parties and perused the documents on record.
8. In support of his tribe claim, the petitioner had filed
four documents, apart from his own tribe certificate, before the
Scrutiny Committee, which are as follows :-
(a) Photocopy of school leaving certificate dated
18.6.1980 issued by the Headmaster, Z.P. School, Yellori, District
Osmanabad, showing the caste as 'Hindu Mahadev Koli' and the
date of admission as 03.07.1975.
(b) True copy of school leaving certificate and copy of
admission extract issued by the Headmaster, Z.P. School, Yellori,
District Osmanabad dated 16.05.2000 showing the caste as
'Hindu Koli'.
*5* wp5301o03
(c) Copy of admission extract issued by the
Headmaster, Zilla Parishad Primary School, Yeolori/
Yeoloriwadi, Taluka Ausa, District Latur dated 20.08.2003
wherein, in front of the name of the petitioner, the caste is shown
as 'Hindu Koli Mahadev' and the date of admission as
'01.06.1969'.
(d) Copy of admission extract issued by the
Headmaster, Zilla Parishad Primary School, Yeolori/
Yeoloriwadi, Taluka Ausa, District Latur, dated 20.08.2003 of the
petitioner's brother (Kumar Sarje Fulchand Motiram) showing
his caste as 'Hindu Koli' and the date of admission as
'22.06.1962'.
9. The petitioner had submitted these documents in
support of his tribe claim along with the tribe certificates issued
by the Tahasildar and the Sarpanch. It is pertinent to note that all
these documents are post presidential order with respect to
Scheduled Tribe. It is also to be noted that the name of tribe
mentioned in these documents is also not consistent. The
petitioner has not produced any document of his forefathers
*6* wp5301o03
either in the nature of revenue record or school record of pre-
independence era showing their caste/ tribe as 'Mahadev Koli'. It
is thus clear that the petitioner has failed to establish his claim on
the basis of documentary evidence.
10. Although in a given case, the tribe claim can be
decided on the basis of post independence era documents in
absence of any pre-independence era documents, however, in
that case, the candidate has to establish on the strength of
documents that the same caste/ tribe is reflected in all such
documents. In that situation, the candidate can establish his claim
on the basis of post independence era documents supported by
successfully proving affinity with the caste/ tribe claimed.
11. In the instant case, the petitioner has even failed in
affinity test as observed in the vigilance enquiry report. So also,
there is specific remark in the vigilance enquiry report that the
word 'Mahadev' is scratched in the caste column in the
admission extract issued by the Headmaster, Zilla Parishad
Primary School. In any case, in absence of any documentary
evidence of probative value, the petitioner has failed to establish
his tribe claim.
*7* wp5301o03
12. Even during the course of argument, the learned
counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any other
document of pre-independence era or any other validity
certificate in favour of any paternal side relative of the petitioner.
There is no other material on record to establish that the
petitioner's claim must be validated on account of affinity.
13. In the light of the above circumstances, we are of the
considered view that the petitioner has failed to establish his tribe
claim. The impugned order passed by the Scrutiny Committee is
based on material available before it. The impugned order,
therefore, does not deserve any indulgence under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. The instant Writ Petition is, therefore,
dismissed.
14. Rule is discharged.
kps ( PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) ( MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
