Mr. Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate for PetitionerMr. Amar v. Lavte, A.G.P. for
Legal Reasoning
WP3392-15.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.3392 OF 2015WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2872 OF 2016 & CIVIL APPLICATION NO.655 OF 2025Ravindra 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 VERSUS1.Dean,Shri. Bhausaheb Hire,Government Medical College,Chakkarbardi, Dhule,Tq. & Dist. Dhule.2.Scheduled Tribe CertificateScrutiny Committee, NandurbarRegion, NandurbarThrough its Member Secretary. ....RESPONDENTS…Mr. Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate for PetitionerMr. 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 ))WP3392-15JUDGMENT (Per:- Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.)1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learnedAdvocates for the parties, by consent.2.By the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of theConstitution of India, the petitioner challenges order dated04.03.2015 and corrigendum order dated 26.03.2015, passed byRespondent No. 2, the Scrutiny Committee, thereby invalidatedpetitioner’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’ ScheduledTribe certificate from the Executive Magistrate, Shirpur, Dist. Dhule,after following the due procedure. On 06.02.1996, he was appointedto the post of ‘Laboratory Technician’ against the reserved seat for theScheduled Tribe category. His caste claim was referred to theScrutiny Committee, Nashik. However, on 28.06.2013, RespondentNo. 2, the Scrutiny Committee, invalidated his tribe claim.Consequently, he filed Writ Petition No. 7160 of 2013 before thisCourt. On 17.10.2013, this Court passed an order and set aside theorder dated 28.06.2013 passed by the SDO and permitted the 2 of 10 (( 3 ))WP3392-15petitioner to submit an application before the SDO for the issuance offresh tribe certificate. The SDO was also directed to issue a fresh tribecertificate in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, on 20.12.2013, theSDO, Shirpur, issued ‘Tokre Koli’ Scheduled Tribe certificate in favourof the petitioner. The petitioner’s proposal for caste scrutiny wassubmitted to Respondent No. 2 along with the birth registerpertaining to his second-degree paternal aunt, namely Sayza,daughter of Dhaku (real cousin of the petitioner’s father), whose dateof birth is recorded as 27.05.1936, and in the caste column, the entryis recorded as ‘Koli Tokre.’ The petitioner also produced extract ofprimary school register of his other parental aunt namely Tulja D/oDhaku Savale, whose date of birth is 30.01.1939. The extract of thebirth register pertaining to Shri Dhanlal Ratan Savale, the second-degree parental cousin of the petitioner shows that his caste isrecorded as ‘Tokre Koli’. The extract of birth register pertaining toNavsi Mahipat Chaitram (cousin sister), shows that her date of birthis recorded as 26.05.1936 and in caste column, entry is recorded as‘Tokre Koli’. Thus, all four documents pertaining to the petitioner’sparental aunt and parental cousin show their caste ‘Tokre Koli,’ Whichare of origin prior to the first Presidential Order of 1950 3 of 10 (( 4 ))WP3392-154.The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance oncase of Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Tribal Commissioner andOthers, AIR 1995 SC 94, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed asunder;12. "The Caste Scrutiny Committee is a quasi-judicial body. It has beenset up for a specific purpose. It serves a social and constitutionalpurpose. It is constituted to prevent fraud on constitution. It may not bebound by the provisions of Indian Evidence Act, but it would not becorrect for the superior courts to issue directions as to how it shouldappreciate evidence. Evidence before a quasi-judicial body can not berestricted to admission of documentary evidence only. It may ofnecessity have to take oral evidence."17. "We with respect do not agree with the conclusion of the High Courtthat no inquiry was permissible at all, once it is found that the personconcerned in whose favour a certificate had been granted to be notifiedas Scheduled Tribe."23. "The makers of the Constitution laid emphasis on equality amongcitizens. Constitution of India provides for protective discrimination andreservation so as to enable the disadvantaged group to come on thesame platform as that of the forward community. If and when a persontakes undue advantage of the said beneficent provisions of theconstitution by obtaining the benefits of reservation and other benefitsprovided under the Presidential order, all though is not entitled thereto,he not only plays fraud on the society but in effect and substance playsa fraud on the constitution. When, therefore, a certificate is granted toa person who is not otherwise entitled thereto, it is entirely incorrect tocontent that the state shall be helpless spectator in the matter."24."We, with respect, failed to appreciate the approach of the HighCourt as it proceeded on the premise that once the surname ofRespondent tallied with the name of the tribe, which finds mention inone 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 tothe correctness of the said certificate can be gone into by anyCommittee. The observations and directions of the High Court, in ourconsidered opinion, were not only contrary to the judgments of theCourt but also fall short of the ground realities." 4 of 10 (( 5 ))WP3392-155.He further relied on case of Anand vs Committee forScrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and Others (2012) 1 SCC113, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in paragraph No.22as under,"22. It is manifest from the afore extracted paragraph that thegenuineness of a caste claim has to be considered not only on athorough examination of the documents submitted in support of theclaim but also on the affinity test, which would include theanthropological and ethnological traits, etc., of the applicant. However,it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down an absolute rule, whichcould be applied mechanically to examine a caste claim. Nevertheless,we feel that the following broad parameters could be kept n view whiledealing with a caste claim:(i) While dealing with documentary evidence, greater reliance may beplaced on pre-independence documents because they furnish a higherdegree of probative value to the declaration of status of a caste ascompared to post-independence documents. In case the applicant is thefirst generation ever to attend School, the availability of anydocumentary evidence becomes difficult, but that ispso facto does notcall for the rejection of his claim. In fact, the mere fact that he is thefirst generation ever to attend School, some benefit of doubt in favourof the applicant may be given. Needless to add that in the event ofdoubt on the credibility of a document, its veracity has to be tested onthe basis of oral evidence, for which an opportunity has to be affordedto the applicant."6.As per the ratio laid down in both the cases, the petitionerhas produced extracts of the birth registers of his parental aunt andsecond-degree cousins, which have the highest probative value as pre-constitutional documents to determine the social status claim of thepetitioner. The petitioner has also produced the copy of judgment 5 of 10 (( 6 ))WP3392-15rendered by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik, the then AppellateAuthority, on 28.01.1992, validating tribe claim of Shri MahendraSavale, as ‘Tokre Koli’, Scheduled Tribe. Shri Mahendra Savale is areal parental cousin of the petitioner. However, Respondent No. 2passed the impugned order and invalidated caste claim of thepetitioner by overlooking said documents, which is illegal, bad in law,hence, the petitioner prays to quash and set aside the impugnedorder.7.Per contra, the learned A.G.P. canvassed that thepetitioner produced certain documents pertaining to his schoolrecords of his blood relatives, wherein caste entries were recorded asHindu 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 toprove his affinity test. Therefore, considering the documentaryevidence produced on record, respondent No. 2, the ScrutinyCommittee has been rightly invalidated caste claim of the petitioner,hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6 of 10 (( 7 ))WP3392-158.Having regard to the rival submissions canvassed onbehalf of both sides, we have gone through the record. The petitionerhas produced a school leaving certificate pertaining to Tulja D/oDhaku Savale, born on 30.01.1939, with entry in her caste columndescribed as 'Tokre Koli'. The birth register pertaining to petitioner’ssecond-degree parental aunt namely Sayza D/o Dhaku, who born on27.05.1936 and in caste column of said birth register caste 'TokreKoli' is recorded. The petitioner produced extract of birth registerpertaining to his cousin sister Smt. Navsi Mahipat Chaitram, whoborn on 26.05.1936 and in caste column of said birth register caste'Tokre Koli' is recorded. The entry made in caste column in birthregister of Dhanlal Ratan Savale, the second-degree petitioner’sparental cousin shows 'Tokre Koli'. All these documents are pre-independence and predating to the Presidential Order of 1950. Asper law laid down in cases of Madhuri Patil and Anand cited (supra)pre-constitutional documents hold the highest probative value indetermining the social status of the petitioner. Not only this, but on28.01.1992, the Additional Commissioner, Nashik, the then AppellateAuthority passed an order in caste scrutiny appeal No. 38 of 1991(Mahendra Digambar savale Vs. Director Scrutiny committee), and 7 of 10 (( 8 ))WP3392-15considered birth extracts of Kishor, Arvind, and Mangala (the brothersand sister of Mahendra) as well as various documents cited thereinand validated the caste claim of Shri Mahendra Digambar savale, whois distant cousin of the petitioner.9.In the case of Apoorva Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional CasteCertificate Scrutiny Committee, 2011(2) Bom. C.R.824, it is held that,when during the course of enquiry the candidate submits a castevalidity certificate granted earlier certifying that a blood relation ofthe candidate belongs to the same caste as that is being claimed bythe applicant, the committee may grant such certificate withoutcalling for vigilance cell report. However, if the committee finds thatthe earlier caste certificate is tainted by fraud or is granted withoutjurisdiction, the committee may refuse to follow and may refuse togrant certificate to the applicant before it. The order of appellateauthority 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 ))WP3392-15Scheduled Tribe Order, 1950. As such, all persons belonging to any ofthese 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, ScrutinyCommittee) granted a validity certificate to Shri Mahendra DigambarSavale, the paternal cousin of the petitioner, the said order has not yetbeen set aside by the competent court, hence, said order is still inexistence. Therefore, the ratios laid down in cases of MaharashtraAdiwasi 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 considerall 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 grantthis 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 passedby respondent No.2, the caste scrutiny committee are herebyquashed and set aside. 9 of 10
Decision
(( 10 ))WP3392-15(ii)Respondent No.2, the caste scrutiny committee, shall issue tribevalidity certificate to the petitioner as belonging to ‘Tokre Koli’,scheduled tribe within a period of six weeks from the receipt ofcertified copy of the judgment. (iii)After furnishing the caste validity certificate by the petitioner,respondent No.1 shall further proceed to submit the pensionaryproposal 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 aredisposed off. [Y. G. KHOBRAGADE J. ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ] HRJadhav 10 of 10