Bombay High Court
Mangesh Girish Sarjerao vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its ... on 23 January, 2025
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
Mangesh Girish Sargerao dt 23.01.2025 903-WP12331-2022-2 (1).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.12331 OF 2022
Mangesh Girish Sarjerao
Major of age, Occ. Service
R/o Maharashtra Housing Board
L-27/105 Yerwada Pune ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny
Committee Pune Division Pune.
3. The Jt. Director
Technical Education
412-E, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-16
4. The Principal
Govt. College of Engineering
and Research At Post Avsari (Kh)
Tq. Ambegaon Dist. Pune ... Respondents
...
Adv. Anandsingh Bayas for the Petitioner.
Adv. Pooja Joshi Deshpande for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
...
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE &
ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.
DATE : 23rd JANUARY, 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER ASHWIN D. BHOBE J.)
1. Heard.
Harish 1 of 11
Mangesh Girish Sargerao dt 23.01.2025 903-WP12331-2022-2 (1).odt
2. The Respondent No. 2 by its decision dated 22.08.2022, has
invalidated the claim of the Petitioner of belonging to the "Thakar"
Scheduled Tribe Category ("impugned order").
3. Factual Matrix :-
(a) On 29.10.2021, the Petitioner was granted Caste Certificate in
Form 'C', by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Mhada.
(b) Petitioner secured employment as a Machinist in the
Government College of Engineering and Research. Petitioner
was issued Appointment order on 11.06.2012.
(c) The Respondent No. 5, by its letter dated 13.09.2012, referred
the Tribe claim of the Petitioner to the Respondent No.2
Scrutiny Committee.
(d) The Respondent No. 2, after a lapse of more than 10 years, by
the impugned order, invalidated the Tribe claim of the
Petitioner. Grounds on which the Respondent No. 2 has
invalidated the Tribe claim of the Petitioner are as follows :
(i) Documents and the other material produced on record,
do not establish the claim of the Petitioner as belonging
to the "Thakar" Scheduled Tribe category.
(ii) Petitioner has failed to prove his affinity with "Thakar"
Scheduled Tribe Category.
(iii) Petitioner has failed to establish his ethnic linkage by way
of affinity test with "Thakar" Scheduled Tribe.
(iv) Validity Certificates relied by the Petitioner from his
paternal side relatives cannot be considered.
Harish 2 of 11
Mangesh Girish Sargerao dt 23.01.2025 903-WP12331-2022-2 (1).odt
4. Mr. Anandsingh Bayas, learned Advocate for the Petitioner
submits that documents from the paternal side relatives of the Petitioner
showing his Caste as 'Thakar' Scheduled Tribe, were placed before
Respondent No.2. He further submits that Caste Validity Certificates of
Jagruti Nandkumar Sarjerao (cousin sister) and Tanaji Dattatraya
Sarjerao (cousin cousin cousin uncle), who are the paternal side blood
relatives of the Petitioner were relied before Respondent No.2.
According to Mr. Bayas, Respondent No. 2 has ignored the material
placed before it and therefore, erred in invalidating the claim of the
Petitioner. Mr. Bayas relies on the following decisions.
a) Bharat vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.[2004(1) Mh.L.J.
647; and
b) Tanaji Dattatray Sarjerao vs. The State of Maharashtra And
Ors.[WP No. 12369 of 2019 dt.14.12.2024].
5. Ms. Pooja Joshi Deshpande, learned AGP, has defended the
impugned order of Respondent No. 2 by relying upon the reasons set out
therein and it is her contention that the petition deserves to be
dismissed.
6. With the assistance of the parties, we have perused the
record. From the rival contentions of the parties, the question for
determination is whether the Petitioner on the basis of documentary
evidence/material has been able to establish that he belongs to 'Thakar'
Scheduled Tribe ?
Harish 3 of 11
Mangesh Girish Sargerao dt 23.01.2025 903-WP12331-2022-2 (1).odt
Analysis :
7. Genealogy tree, relied by the Petitioner is transcribed herein
in verbatim :
8. Jagruti Nandkumar Sarjerao ("Jagruti"), cousin sister of the
Petitioner, has been issued Caste Validity Certificate by the Respondent
No.2 Scrutiny Committee. Show Cause Notice, was issues to Jagruti, by
Respondent No. 2, calling upon her to show cause as to why her Caste
Validity Certificate should not be recalled. Jagruti questioned the said
show cause notice in Writ Petition No. 8513 of 2022. This Court, vide
order dated 01.11.2023, allowed the said WP No. 8513 of 2022. Thus,
the Caste Validity of Jagruti being "Thakar" Scheduled Tribe is intact.
9. Tanaji Dattatray Sarjerao (Tanaji), though not referred to in
the genealogy tree relied by the Petitioner, however reference to Tanaji
is found in paragraph 41 of the memo of petition, being referred to as
Harish 4 of 11
Mangesh Girish Sargerao dt 23.01.2025 903-WP12331-2022-2 (1).odt
the cousin cousin cousin uncle of the Petitioner. Respondent No.2 in the
impugned order has made a reference to the Caste Validity case of
Tanaji.
Caste Validity of Tanaji came for consideration before this
Court in Writ Petition No. 12369 of 2019. This Court by its order dated
14.12.2024, by placing reliance on the decision in the case of Jagruti,
has allowed the Writ Petition No. 12369 of 2019, granting "Thakar"
Scheduled Tribe Certificate to Tanaji.
10. Respondent No. 2 did not find the Petitioner's relationship
with Tanaji and Jagruti disputable.
11. During the course of argument, Mr. Bayas, learned Advocate
for the Petitioner has placed reliance on another judgment dated
14.09.2023 of this Court in the case of Jui Shivaji Sarjerao (Jui) versus
the State of Maharashtra and Anr., passed in WP No. 10484/2023. Mr.
Bayas contends Jui to be the daughter of the cousin brother of the
Petitioner thus, cousin niece of the Petitioner. Jui is granted Caste
Validity Certificate as belonging to "Thakar" Scheduled Tribe by this
Court.
12. Section 8 of The Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, Scheduled
Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other
Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of
Harish 5 of 11
Mangesh Girish Sargerao dt 23.01.2025 903-WP12331-2022-2 (1).odt
Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 ("Said Act"),
mandates the burden of proving that a person belongs to a Caste, Tribe
or Class, is upon such claimant who claims to belong to such a particular
Caste or Tribe. Section 8 for the sake of convenience is transcribed
herein below.
Section 8 Burden of Proof.
Where an application is made to the Competent Authority under
section 3 for the issue of a Caste Certificate in respect of Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic
Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special Backward Category and in
any enquiry conducted by the Competent Authority and Scrutiny
Committee or the Appellate Authority under this Act or any trial of
offense under this Act, the burden of proving that the person belonged
to such Caste, Tribe or Class shall be on such claimant applicant.
13. Keeping the afore referred mandate in mind, the issue is
whether the Petitioner has discharged the burden of proving that he
belongs to the "Thakar" Scheduled Tribe.
Petitioner has relied on the Caste Validity Certificates of his
paternal side relatives viz. cousin sister Jagruti and his cousin cousin
cousin uncle Tanaji.
As indicated above, the Caste Validity of Jagruti as well as
Tanaji of belonging to the "Thakar" Scheduled Tribe has been granted by
this Court.
14. Government of Maharashtra in exercise of powers conferred
by sub Section (1) of Section 18 of The Maharashtra Scheduled Caste,
Harish 6 of 11
Mangesh Girish Sargerao dt 23.01.2025 903-WP12331-2022-2 (1).odt
Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes,
Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of
Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000, has framed the
Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification
of) Certificate Rules, 2003 (Said Rules), for regulating the issuance and
verification of Scheduled Tribe Certificates to the persons belonging to
the Scheduled Tribes.
"Relative" as defined under Said Rules is as follows:-
Rule 2(1)(f) "Relative" means a blood relative
from paternal side of the applicant;
15. Petitioner is on oath to state that Jagruti is his cousin sister
and Tanaji is his cousin cousin cousin uncle. Respondents have not
rebutted the said statement. Respondent No. 2 did not find the
Petitioner's relationship with Tanaji and Jagruti disputable.
16. Rule 11(2)(d) of the Said Rules, refer to document which
can be submitted with the application for verification of Schedule Tribe
Certificate. Rule 11(2)(d) of the Said Rules, read as follows :
11. Verification of Schedule Tribe Certificate by Scrutiny Committee.
(1)...........
(2) The applicant shall submit the following documents with his
application for verification of his Scheduled Tribe Certificate :-
(a).......
(b).......
(c).......
(d) Other documents :
(i) Revenue record like, birth register, extract of
Harish 7 of 11
Mangesh Girish Sargerao dt 23.01.2025 903-WP12331-2022-2 (1).odt
7/12, Sale Deed etc.
(ii) Any other relevant documents in support of his
Scheduled Tribe claim.
(iii) Affidavits of the near relatives whose Validity
Certificates are submitted in support of the
Scheduled Tribe claim of the applicant.
17. Petitioner has relied on the affidavit dated 23.08.2012 of
Jagruti Nandkumar Sarjerao. Jagruti in the said affidavit has stated that
the Petitioner is her cousin brother and his caste is Thakar. She has
relied on her Caste Validity Certificate along with the said affidavit.
In terms of the said Rules, affidavit/s by near relatives
having Validity Certificates is one of the document which an applicant
can rely under Rule 11(2)(d) of the Said Rules.
18. The impugned order refers to a per-independence
document 1905 relied by the Petitioner, however, the Respondent No.2
has discarded the said document. This Court while deciding the case of
Jui has considered the said document and has in paragraph 5 and 6
observed as under :
"5. The above referred discussion gives rise to a question
whether only those entries which show ancestors of the Petitioner as
of 'Thakar Tribe' should be selected or those entries which show
ancestors of the Petitioner as having social status as 'Maratha' or
'Hindu Thakar' should be selected?. We are of the view that the
conflict between these two sets of entries can be resolved by taking
into consideration the oldest amongst them for the reason that the
oldest entries have been seen by Courts, as a tool of appreciation of
evidence, to be inspiring more confidence, as these entries are
recorded in the distant past and having been removed from the more
manipulative modern times have a greater possibility of retaining
purity and presenting truth. Oldest entry as stated earlier, is of 5 th
June, 1905 and it shows Shambhurao Sarjerao, to be a person
belonging to 'Thakar' Scheduled Tribe.
Harish 8 of 11
Mangesh Girish Sargerao dt 23.01.2025 903-WP12331-2022-2 (1).odt
6. We find that there is neither any dispute nor any doubt
about the above referred oldest entry. There is, however, one more
entry of the same date, the date of 5 th June, 1905, standing in the
name of same person, Shambhurao Sarjerao, showing him to be a
person of 'Maratha' caste. But, if, we consider the Registration Book
Number, we find that the second entry of conflicting nature is an entry
subsequently taken. This can be seen from the Registration Books
mentioned in these entries and, therefore, the first entry which we
have referred to above leaves no doubt that the said person belonged
to 'Thakar' Scheduled tribe. The entry subsequently taken in another
book of the same date, appears to be taken by mistake and similar
appears to be the nature of the other entries showing the same person
and other relatives as 'Maratha' or 'Hindu Thakar' caste."
19. To maintain consistency and adhere to the feature of
administration of justice that is " like cases should be decided alike" we
follow the reasoning in the case of Jagruti, Tanaji and Jui.
20. Petitioner has discharged the burden of establishing Jagruti
and Tanaji being his relative from paternal side. Impugned order does
not find any fault in the affidavit dated 23.08.2012 filed by Jagruti,
produced and relied by the Petitioner.
21. As observed herein above, the relation of the Petitioner with
Tanaji and Jagruti, is not in dispute. When the Respondent No. 2 did not
find the Petitioner's relation with Tanaji and Jagruti disputable, the law
laid down by this Court in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional
Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 Nagpur, [2010(6)
Mh.L.J.401] ought to have been followed by the Respondent No.2 and it
could not have ignored the Validity Certificates granted to the Paternal
side relatives of the Petitioner.
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra
Harish 9 of 11
Mangesh Girish Sargerao dt 23.01.2025 903-WP12331-2022-2 (1).odt
Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti vs. The State of Maharashtra
and others, [AIR 2023 SC 1657] has considered the sanctity and
significance of the prescribed procedure in The Maharashtra Scheduled
Caste, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic
Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category
(Regulation of Issuance And Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000,
where the importance and significance of the vigilance cell inquiry and
establishing the relationship by the claimant with those having a Caste
or Tribe Certificates is specifically focused.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has made reference to the
judgment of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale (supra) in paragraph 6 of the
aforesaid judgment.
23. The record placed before us do not indicate invalidation of
the Caste Validity Certificate issued to either Tanaji or Jagruti. No
material in that regard is placed before us.
24. In light of the above, position of law emerging before us, as
well as considering the above said documents, we are of the opinion
that the reasons assigned by the Respondent No. 2 in the impugned
order in invalidating the claim of the Petitioner is erroneous and
unsustainable.
25. In view of the above, the impugned order of Respondent
No. 2 is hereby quash and set aside. The Respondent No. 2 is directed to
Harish 10 of 11
Mangesh Girish Sargerao dt 23.01.2025 903-WP12331-2022-2 (1).odt
issue Thakar Scheduled Tribe Validity Certificate to the Petitioner within
a period of four weeks from today.
26. Petition stands allowed in the above terms. There shall be
no order as to costs.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
Signed by: Harish V. Chaudhari
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 05/02/2025 19:35:09
Harish 11 of 11
