Bombay High Court
Ravindra Ukhadu Savale vs Dean Shri Bhausaheb Hire Government ... on 11 March, 2025
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2025:BHC-AUG:8206-DB
WP3392-15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3392 OF 2015
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2872 OF 2016 &
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.655 OF 2025
Ravindra Ukhadu Savale,
Age: 51 years, Occu: Service,
as laboratory Technician,
R/o. Plot No.18, Samradhi
Apartment, Anand Nagar,
Deopur, Dhule, Tq. & Dist. Dhule. ....PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Dean,
Shri. Bhausaheb Hire,
Government Medical College,
Chakkarbardi, Dhule,
Tq. & Dist. Dhule.
2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar
Region, Nandurbar
Through its Member Secretary. ....RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. Amar V. Lavte, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE : 11.03.2025
1 of 10
(( 2 )) WP3392-15
JUDGMENT (Per:- Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned
Advocates for the parties, by consent.
2. By the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges order dated
04.03.2015 and corrigendum order dated 26.03.2015, passed by
Respondent No. 2, the Scrutiny Committee, thereby invalidated
petitioner's caste claim 'Tokre Koli', schedule Tribe.
3. According to the petitioner, he belongs to 'Tokre Koli'
Scheduled Tribe. On 04.06.1977, he received 'Tokre Koli' Scheduled
Tribe certificate from the Executive Magistrate, Shirpur, Dist. Dhule,
after following the due procedure. On 06.02.1996, he was appointed
to the post of 'Laboratory Technician' against the reserved seat for the
Scheduled Tribe category. His caste claim was referred to the
Scrutiny Committee, Nashik. However, on 28.06.2013, Respondent
No. 2, the Scrutiny Committee, invalidated his tribe claim.
Consequently, he filed Writ Petition No. 7160 of 2013 before this
Court. On 17.10.2013, this Court passed an order and set aside the
order dated 28.06.2013 passed by the SDO and permitted the
2 of 10
(( 3 )) WP3392-15
petitioner to submit an application before the SDO for the issuance of
fresh tribe certificate. The SDO was also directed to issue a fresh tribe
certificate in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, on 20.12.2013, the
SDO, Shirpur, issued 'Tokre Koli' Scheduled Tribe certificate in favour
of the petitioner. The petitioner's proposal for caste scrutiny was
submitted to Respondent No. 2 along with the birth register
pertaining to his second-degree paternal aunt, namely Sayza,
daughter of Dhaku (real cousin of the petitioner's father), whose date
of birth is recorded as 27.05.1936, and in the caste column, the entry
is recorded as 'Koli Tokre.' The petitioner also produced extract of
primary school register of his other parental aunt namely Tulja D/o
Dhaku Savale, whose date of birth is 30.01.1939. The extract of the
birth register pertaining to Shri Dhanlal Ratan Savale, the second-
degree parental cousin of the petitioner shows that his caste is
recorded as 'Tokre Koli'. The extract of birth register pertaining to
Navsi Mahipat Chaitram (cousin sister), shows that her date of birth
is recorded as 26.05.1936 and in caste column, entry is recorded as
'Tokre Koli'. Thus, all four documents pertaining to the petitioner's
parental aunt and parental cousin show their caste ' Tokre Koli,' Which
are of origin prior to the first Presidential Order of 1950
3 of 10
(( 4 )) WP3392-15
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on
case of Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Tribal Commissioner and
Others, AIR 1995 SC 94, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as
under;
12. "The Caste Scrutiny Committee is a quasi-judicial body. It has been
set up for a specific purpose. It serves a social and constitutional
purpose. It is constituted to prevent fraud on constitution. It may not be
bound by the provisions of Indian Evidence Act, but it would not be
correct for the superior courts to issue directions as to how it should
appreciate evidence. Evidence before a quasi-judicial body can not be
restricted to admission of documentary evidence only. It may of
necessity have to take oral evidence."
17. "We with respect do not agree with the conclusion of the High Court
that no inquiry was permissible at all, once it is found that the person
concerned in whose favour a certificate had been granted to be notified
as Scheduled Tribe."
23. "The makers of the Constitution laid emphasis on equality among
citizens. Constitution of India provides for protective discrimination and
reservation so as to enable the disadvantaged group to come on the
same platform as that of the forward community. If and when a person
takes undue advantage of the said beneficent provisions of the
constitution by obtaining the benefits of reservation and other benefits
provided under the Presidential order, all though is not entitled thereto,
he not only plays fraud on the society but in effect and substance plays
a fraud on the constitution. When, therefore, a certificate is granted to
a person who is not otherwise entitled thereto, it is entirely incorrect to
content that the state shall be helpless spectator in the matter."
24. "We, with respect, failed to appreciate the approach of the High
Court as it proceeded on the premise that once the surname of
Respondent tallied with the name of the tribe, which finds mention in
one or the other entries of the schedule appended to the 1976 Order,
the same must be treated to be sacrosanct and no enquiry in relation to
the correctness of the said certificate can be gone into by any
Committee. The observations and directions of the High Court, in our
considered opinion, were not only contrary to the judgments of the
Court but also fall short of the ground realities."
4 of 10
(( 5 )) WP3392-15
5. He further relied on case of Anand vs Committee for
Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and Others (2012) 1 SCC
113, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in paragraph No.22
as under,
"22. It is manifest from the afore extracted paragraph that the
genuineness of a caste claim has to be considered not only on a
thorough examination of the documents submitted in support of the
claim but also on the affinity test, which would include the
anthropological and ethnological traits, etc., of the applicant. However,
it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down an absolute rule, which
could be applied mechanically to examine a caste claim. Nevertheless,
we feel that the following broad parameters could be kept n view while
dealing with a caste claim:
(i) While dealing with documentary evidence, greater reliance may be
placed on pre-independence documents because they furnish a higher
degree of probative value to the declaration of status of a caste as
compared to post-independence documents. In case the applicant is the
first generation ever to attend School, the availability of any
documentary evidence becomes difficult, but that ispso facto does not
call for the rejection of his claim. In fact, the mere fact that he is the
first generation ever to attend School, some benefit of doubt in favour
of the applicant may be given. Needless to add that in the event of
doubt on the credibility of a document, its veracity has to be tested on
the basis of oral evidence, for which an opportunity has to be afforded
to the applicant."
6. As per the ratio laid down in both the cases, the petitioner
has produced extracts of the birth registers of his parental aunt and
second-degree cousins, which have the highest probative value as pre-
constitutional documents to determine the social status claim of the
petitioner. The petitioner has also produced the copy of judgment
5 of 10
(( 6 )) WP3392-15
rendered by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik, the then Appellate
Authority, on 28.01.1992, validating tribe claim of Shri Mahendra
Savale, as 'Tokre Koli', Scheduled Tribe. Shri Mahendra Savale is a
real parental cousin of the petitioner. However, Respondent No. 2
passed the impugned order and invalidated caste claim of the
petitioner by overlooking said documents, which is illegal, bad in law,
hence, the petitioner prays to quash and set aside the impugned
order.
7. Per contra, the learned A.G.P. canvassed that the
petitioner produced certain documents pertaining to his school
records of his blood relatives, wherein caste entries were recorded as
Hindu Backward Tokre Koli, Hindu Mang Tokre Koli, and Hindu Koli,
none of the documents show the social status of the petitioner as
'Tokre Koli' Scheduled Tribe. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to
prove his affinity test. Therefore, considering the documentary
evidence produced on record, respondent No. 2, the Scrutiny
Committee has been rightly invalidated caste claim of the petitioner,
hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6 of 10
(( 7 )) WP3392-15
8. Having regard to the rival submissions canvassed on
behalf of both sides, we have gone through the record. The petitioner
has produced a school leaving certificate pertaining to Tulja D/o
Dhaku Savale, born on 30.01.1939, with entry in her caste column
described as 'Tokre Koli'. The birth register pertaining to petitioner's
second-degree parental aunt namely Sayza D/o Dhaku, who born on
27.05.1936 and in caste column of said birth register caste 'Tokre
Koli' is recorded. The petitioner produced extract of birth register
pertaining to his cousin sister Smt. Navsi Mahipat Chaitram, who
born on 26.05.1936 and in caste column of said birth register caste
'Tokre Koli' is recorded. The entry made in caste column in birth
register of Dhanlal Ratan Savale, the second-degree petitioner's
parental cousin shows 'Tokre Koli'. All these documents are pre-
independence and predating to the Presidential Order of 1950. As
per law laid down in cases of Madhuri Patil and Anand cited (supra)
pre-constitutional documents hold the highest probative value in
determining the social status of the petitioner. Not only this, but on
28.01.1992, the Additional Commissioner, Nashik, the then Appellate
Authority passed an order in caste scrutiny appeal No. 38 of 1991
(Mahendra Digambar savale Vs. Director Scrutiny committee) , and
7 of 10
(( 8 )) WP3392-15
considered birth extracts of Kishor, Arvind, and Mangala (the brothers
and sister of Mahendra) as well as various documents cited therein
and validated the caste claim of Shri Mahendra Digambar savale, who
is distant cousin of the petitioner.
9. In the case of Apoorva Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, 2011(2) Bom. C.R.824, it is held that,
when during the course of enquiry the candidate submits a caste
validity certificate granted earlier certifying that a blood relation of
the candidate belongs to the same caste as that is being claimed by
the applicant, the committee may grant such certificate without
calling for vigilance cell report. However, if the committee finds that
the earlier caste certificate is tainted by fraud or is granted without
jurisdiction, the committee may refuse to follow and may refuse to
grant certificate to the applicant before it. The order of appellate
authority in case of Mahendra Savale is not yet reversed or modified.
10. In case of Nilesh S/o. Gulab Sonawane and another Vs.
The State of Maharashtra, in wp no.9654 of 2019, this court (Coram:
Mangesh S. Patil and Shailesh Brahme, JJ.) concluded that, Koli Dhor,
Tokre Koli, Kolcha, Kolgha are covered by entry No.28 of the
8 of 10
(( 9 )) WP3392-15
Scheduled Tribe Order, 1950. As such, all persons belonging to any of
these four categories would belong to the scheduled tribe category.
11. Needless to say that the appellate authority in appeal No.
38 of 1991 (Mahendra Digambar Savale vs. Director, Scrutiny
Committee) granted a validity certificate to Shri Mahendra Digambar
Savale, the paternal cousin of the petitioner, the said order has not yet
been set aside by the competent court, hence, said order is still in
existence. Therefore, the ratios laid down in cases of Maharashtra
Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti , AIR 2023 S. C. 1657,
Anand, 2012) 1 SCC 113, Apoorva Vinay Nichale, 2011(2) Bom.
C.R.824, would be applicable to the present case. However,
Respondent No. 2, the Caste Scrutiny Committee, failed to consider
all these exigencies and passed the impugned order, which is illegal,
bad in law and needs to be quashed and set aside.
12. In view of the above discussion, we are inclined to grant
this petition and proceed to pass the following order:
:: O R D E R ::
(i) The impugned orders dated 04.03.2015 and 26.03.2015 passed
by respondent No.2, the caste scrutiny committee are hereby
quashed and set aside.
9 of 10
(( 10 )) WP3392-15
(ii) Respondent No.2, the caste scrutiny committee, shall issue tribe
validity certificate to the petitioner as belonging to ' Tokre Koli',
scheduled tribe within a period of six weeks from the receipt of
certified copy of the judgment.
(iii) After furnishing the caste validity certificate by the petitioner,
respondent No.1 shall further proceed to submit the pensionary
proposal of the petitioner, if he is entitled.
(iv) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (A) and (DD).
(v) Pending civil application Nos.2872 of 2016 and 655 of 2025 are
disposed off.
[Y. G. KHOBRAGADE J. ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ]
HRJadhav
10 of 10
