DATE : 27th JANUARY2025
PER COURT :
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. Considering exigency in the matter heard both sides finally .
3. Petitioner is assailing judgment and order dated 21.08.2018
passed by respondent no.2/scrutiny committee invaliding the tribe
certificate of the petitioner for Vimkut Jati Rajput Bhamta.
4. Petitioner has relied on the validity certificate of Arti
Amarsingh Thakur, school record of real brothers and sisters, service
record of his father and his own school record. He tenders on record
the vigilance report.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Naseem Shaikh submits
that impugned judgment and order is perverse because it did not
consider the vigilance report which is against Rule 17(7) of The
Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes
(Vimukta Jatis),Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special
Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of)
Caste Certificate Rules, 2012.
6. He would also submit that the vigilance certificate of Arti and
other documentary evidence corroborates his claim which is wrongly
discarded. It is further submitted that the findings recorded in
paragraph no. 7 of the impugned judgment are unsustainable.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of
this court in the matters of Kum.Minal vs. The State of Maharashtra
and ors. in Writ Petition No. 8039 of 2009, Siddheswar Ramkisan
More vs. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee in Writ Petition No.
326,466 and 468 of 2015 and Shobhana Kanhyasing Tehra and Ors.
vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. in Writ Petition No. 925 of
2014.
8. Per contra, learned AGP Mr. Korade opposes the submissions of
the petitioner on the basis of original papers tendered on record. He
submits that the school record of the petitioner is found to be
tampered. Validity holder is not a paternal side relative. The scrutiny
committee had given an opportunity to the petitioner to deal with
vigilance report and thereafter considering the vigilance report, the
findings were recorded. It is further submitted that service book of
petitioner's father is also found to be tampered. In the absence of
convincing evidence, petitioner's claim is rightly rejected by the
committee.
9. We have considered rival submissions of the parties and gone
through the original papers placed on record.
10. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties what it
emerges that the petitioners' claim was based on the validity issued
to Arti Amarsingh Thakur, school record of his siblings and service
record of his father. The vigilance inquiry was conducted and copy of
report was served upon the petitioner. He was given opportunity to
deal with the report.
11. The genealogy is not disputed. It is apparent that Arti happens
to be his fathers aunt's granddaughter. She is granddaughter of
Narbada. Obviously, the lineal descendants of Narbda would take up
caste or tribe of Narbada's husband. The validity pressed into service
can not enure to the benefit of the petitioner.
12. Petitioner's school record was verified during vigilance. The
admission register was found tampered with the caste column. We
have noticed the remarks of vigilance officer and coloured photocopy
of the school record. The vigilance report and the findings recorded
by the committee discarding the entry is legal and proper. Similarly,
extract of the service book of the father is also seen to be tampered.
The word 'Pardeshi Bhamta' was interpolated. That is also not reliable
piece of evidence and rightly discarded by the committee.
13. We have gone through the vigilance report dated 07.08.2013.
Petitioner was given opportunity to deal with the report. The
documentary evidence for which vigilance was conducted was dealt
with in the impugned judgment. The report was specifically
considered in the impugned order. We are unable to agree with the
submissions of the petitioner that vigilance report was not
considered by the committee.
14. In the absence of any validity and affinity test to corroborate
the claim, what remains are the school entries of petitioner and his
siblings. Admittedly, those are of recent period. We find that the
committee dealt with those entries and arrived at a plausible
conclusion. We find that impugned judgment and order is
sustainable and based on vigilance report. No case is made out to
cause interference with the impugned judgment.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on judgment of
Kum.Minal (supra). Our attention is adverted to paragraph nos. 8, 14
and 15. In that case, petitioner's father and cousin brothers were
holding validity certificates. There was school record of his
grandfather of 25.07.1927, pre-constitutional period. In that context,
the findings were recorded and the petition was allowed. The facts
are distinguishable. In the case at hand, neither any validity of
paternal side relatives nor pre-constitutional record is placed on
record to support the claim. The ratio of that judgment cannot be
applied.
16. Further reliance is placed on judgment of Siddheshwar
(supra). In that case also validities were granted to close relatives of
the petitioners. In that case, committee did not record any findings
on report of vigilance cell. However, in the present case findings are
based on vigilance report. This judgment is also of no assistance to
the petitioner.
17. Learned counsel for petitioner also relied on judgment of
Shobhna (supra). In that case, validity certificate of real paternal
cousin of the petitioner was ignored. Besides that pre-constitutional
record of petitioners father was also pressed into service. The facts
are distinguishable. We do not find that the observations made in
that judgments would apply to the present case.
18. We find no merit in the petition. Hence, Writ petition is
dismissed. Rule is discharged.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.] [ S.G.MEHARE, J.]
VSJ
