Bombay High Court
Nehal S/O Narendrasingh Chavhan, Thr. ... vs District Caste Certi. Scrutiny ... on 13 March, 2025
Author: Avinash G. Gharote
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
2025:BHC-NAG:2600-DB
-- 1 -- WP 776.2024 (J).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 776 OF 2024
Nehal S/o Narendra Chavhan
age : about 16 years, Occ :
Education
through his natural guardian father
Narendra Ganeshsingh Chavhan .. Petitioner
age : 40 years, Occ : Labour,
R/o. Belpura,in front of Savarkar
Shop Amravati,
Tah. and District Amravati - 444606
Versus
1] District Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Amravati, through its
Research Officer & Member
Secretary, Camp Road,
Amravati - 444606 .. Respondents
2] Vidhya Bharti Mahavidhyalaya,
Amravati, through its Principal,
C.K.Naidu Road, Camp, Amravati,
District - Amravati - 444602
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ram Karode, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. J.Y. Ghurde, Assi. Govt. Pleader for respondent No.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATED : MARCH 13, 2025
JUDGMENT (Per : Abhay J. Mantri, J.)
Heard. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned
counsel appearing for the parties.
PAGE 1 OF 7
-- 2 -- WP 776.2024 (J).doc
(2) The petitioner challenges the order dated 30/05/2023
passed by the respondent No.1 District Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Amravati (for short-"the Committee'); thereby, the
petitioner's claim of belonging to the "Bhamti" Vimukta Jati (A)
category has been invalidated.
(3) The petitioner claims that he belongs to "Bhamti" Vimukt
Jati (A) category, and accordingly, the Sub Divisional Officer, Amravati,
issued a caste certificate in his favour. Through the Principal of
respondent No.2 College, the petitioner forwarded his caste certificate
along with relevant documents to the respondent No.1 Committee for
verification. The petitioner, to substantiate his claim, has produced in
all 09 documents before the Committee pertaining to his father and
grandfather. The Committee was dissatisfied with the documents and
forwarded them to the Vigilance Cell for a detailed enquiry. The
Vigilance Cell thoroughly conducted an enquiry and submitted its report
to the respondent No.1 Committee.
(4) During the inquiry, the Vigilance Cell found 02 adverse
entries of the years 1986 and 1947 pertaining to the father and
grandfather of the petitioner, wherein their caste was recorded as
"Rajput", and accordingly, the Vigilance Cell submitted its report to the
respondent No.1 Committee. Based on the said report, the Committee
issued a show-cause notice dated 17/05/2023 and called upon the
PAGE 2 OF 7
-- 3 -- WP 776.2024 (J).doc
petitioner to explain the said adverse entries found during the inquiry.
In response, the petitioner has submitted an explanation before the
Committee on 30/05/2023 along with a document from the year 1916
of his great-great grandfather Laxman, wherein his caste was recorded
as "Bhamti", and prayed to the respondent No.1 Committee to consider
the same. After affording an opportunity to the petitioner, considering
the Vigilance Cell report, explanation submitted by the petitioner and
documents on record, the Committee, vide its impugned order dated
30/05/2023, rejected the petitioner's claim that he belongs to "Bhamti"
V.J.(A) category, hence this petition.
(5) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended
that petitioner to substantiate his claim has produced 03 documents of
the years 1929, 1936 and 1916 pertaining to great-grandfather
Laxman and great-great-grandfather Ananda wherein their caste had
been recorded as "Bhamti", however, the Committee has not
considered the same in its proper perspective and erred in rejecting the
claim of the petitioner ignoring the pre-Constitutional era documents.
Notably, during the argument, he fairly conceded that the document of
1916 was submitted while filing an explanation before the Committee,
which was not verified by the Vigilance Cell. As against, he has relied
upon the other 02 documents and canvassed that the petitioner has
demonstrated that he belongs to the "Bhamti" V.J.(A) category and,
PAGE 3 OF 7
-- 4 -- WP 776.2024 (J).doc
thus, urged for allowing the petition.
(6) On the contrary, learned Assistant Government Pleader
has strenuously opposed the petition contending that in the
genealogical tree great-great grandfather's name is not mentioned and
therefore, the documents of the year 1936 and 1929 are not helpful to
the petitioner to substantiate his claim, so also petitioner failed to
produce the document of 1916 before the Committee to verify the
same through Vigilance Cell, hence, these documents are not helpful
for the petitioner in support of his claim. On the contrary, the
documents of 1947 and 1986 pertaining to his father and grandfather
categorically denote that they belong to the "Rajput" caste. Therefore,
the rejection of the claim of the petitioner is just and proper, and no
interference is required in it.
(7) We have appreciated the rival submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and record.
We have also gone through the original record and returned it.
(8) At the outset, it is evident that the petitioner, to
substantiate his claim, has produced 09 documents before the
Committee; out of them, 02 documents are of the pre-Constitutional
era of 1929 and 1936, wherein the caste of his great-grandfather
Laxman and great-great-grandfather Ananda were shown as "Bhamti".
PAGE 4 OF 7
-- 5 -- WP 776.2024 (J).doc
During the Vigilance Cell enquiry, the record of the document of 1929
was not available with the school. Therefore, it could not be verified.
Similarly, the document of 1936 pertains to Ananda Hiraman. However,
his name is not mentioned in the petitioner's genealogical tree, so the
same could not be considered. As such, those documents are not
helpful to the petitioner in substantiating his claim.
(9) Similarly, it appears that at the time of submitting the
explanation to the show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted a 1916
document pertaining to his great-great-grandfather, wherein his caste
was recorded as "Bhamti." However, at the time of inquiry, the same
was not available with the Vigilance Cell to verify it, so it was not
verified by the Vigilance Cell.
(10) On the contrary, the documents of 1986 and 1947
pertain to the petitioner's father and grandfather, whose caste was
recorded as "Rajput." However, the petitioner did not deny the said
entries while submitting an explanation; thus, these documents show a
discrepancy in the petitioner's caste claim.
(11) A bare perusal of the document of 1916, (at page 34)
prima facie it reveals that the petitioner is claiming that entry of 1916,
pertains to his great-great-grandfather wherein his caste had been
recorded as "Bhamti". It is pertinent to note that the document of 1916
PAGE 5 OF 7
-- 6 -- WP 776.2024 (J).doc
was not available with the Vigilance Cell to verify the same, therefore,
considering the same, in our view to determine the authenticity of the
said document, it would be appropriate to remit the matter back to the
respondent No.1 Committee for its verification and consideration.
(12) Consequently, to resolve the said controversy, we deem
it appropriate to remit back the matter to the respondent No.1
Committee for its reconsideration with a direction to conduct
verification of the newly discovered document of 1916. Therefore,
without going into the merits of the matter, it would be appropriate to
quash and set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the
respondent No.2 Committee for fresh consideration. As such, we pass
the following order:
(13) The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The
matter is remanded back to the respondent No.1 Committee for
reconsideration in accordance with the law.
(14) Needless to clarify, the petitioner is at liberty to produce
the document of 1916 before the respondent No.1 Committee and any
other document pertaining to his ancestors mentioned in the
genealogical tree, if available. The respondent No.1 Committee is
directed to verify the authenticity of the document afresh and pass an
appropriate order in accordance with law within three months from the
PAGE 6 OF 7
-- 7 -- WP 776.2024 (J).doc
date of appearance of the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to
appear before the Committee on 24.03.2025.
(15) Rule is made accordingly. No costs.
[ ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.] [ AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.]
KOLHE
Signed by: Mr. Ravikant Kolhe PAGE 7 OF 7
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 17/03/2025 10:50:17
