High Court · 2025
Legal Reasoning
1 WP / 275 / 2025+Group IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 275 OF 2025RUDRA VIJAY GUDMEWAD UNDER GUARDIAN OF REAL UNCLEGAJANAN GANGADHAR GUDMEWADVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERSWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 308 OF 2025PARTH SANJAY GUDMEWAD UNDER GUARDIAN OF FATHERSANJAY GANGADHAR GUDMEWAD AND ANOTHERVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERSWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 285 OF 2025BHUMIKA RAJESH GUDMEWAD UNDER GUARDIAN OF FATHERRAJESH GANGADHAR GUDMEWAD AND OTHERSVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERSWITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1974 OF 2025 IN WP / 275 / 2025SAUMYA SHARMA CHANDAKVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERSWITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1973 OF 2025 IN WP / 285 / 2025SAUMYA SHARMA CHANDAKVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERSWITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1975 OF 2025 IN WP / 308 / 2025SAUMYA SHARMA CHANDAKVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS...Advocate for the petitioners : Mr. Pratap V. JadhavarAGP for the respondent – State : Mr. M.K. GoyankaAdvocate for applicant in all CAs : Mr. Devendra Chauhan, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. S.V. Dixit, Advocate ... 2 WP / 275 / 2025+Group CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ.RESERVED ON : 18 FEBRUARY 2025PRONOUNCED ON : 27 FEBRUARY 2025ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :We have heard the learned advocate for the petitioners inthis group of petitions, the learned AGP and even the learned senioradvocate Mr. Chauhan i/by Mr. Dixit for the applicants who has filedcivil application no. 1974 of 2025. One Saumya Sharma Chandak,who as a competent authority, under the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of2001 had passed the orders which were impugned in these petitions,whereby she had refused to issue tribe certificates to these petitioners. 2.We have also perused the affidavit in reply filed by theextant competent authority - Mr. Anup Shashikant Patil.3.While allowing the writ petitions which were takingexceptions to the similar orders of the competent authority refusing toissue caste or tribe certificates, on 09.01.2025, we had made thefollowing observations : 4.In spite of there being validity certificates in the family ofSanjay Gangadhar Gudmewad and Gajanan GangadharGudmewad, not only the children of Vijay and Rajesh are beingrefused the tribe certificates, even the son of Sanjay, a validityholder, Parth has been denied tribe certificate. In spite of theCommittee being alive to the validities in the family, surprisingly,it has simply overlooked such validities even at the stage of aninquiry for issuance of a tribe certificate. It is highly unbecomingof not only the competent authority who is a Sub-DivisionalOfficer and the Members of the Committee, to take exception tothe certificates of validity, even in the proceedings underSections 4 and 8 of the Maharashtra Act Nos.XXIII of 2001, at 3 WP / 275 / 2025+Group which stage, only genuineness of the documents has to beascertained and conspicuously, no vigilance inquiry underSection 12 at that stage, is contemplated.5.This Court has several times expressly indicated that atthe stage of issuance of caste or tribe certificate, only a primafacie material has to be looked into still, neither the competentauthorities nor the committees are following the decisions andtaking a course not expected under the Maharashtra ActNo.XXIII of 2001, and have sought to take exception to thecertificates of validity issued to the blood relatives.9.A note of this order shall be taken in the service booksof the competent authorities and the members of the ScrutinyCommittee. Copy be sent to the Chief Secretary, Governmentof Maharashtra, Mumbai forthwith.10.The Divisional Commissioner concerned shall reportcompliance of these directions within four weeks.4.As can be noticed, in spite of there being certificates ofvalidity issued to the near blood relatives which even find place in theimpugned orders, innocuous request of these petitioners for issuanceof caste / tribe certificates were rejected. If it was merely a matter ofissuance of caste or tribe certificates under section 4 of theMaharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001, the certificates of validity of theblood relatives from the paternal side should have been enough forissuance of caste / tribe certificates. There could not have been anyother justification or explanation for simply ignoring the certificates ofvalidity. It is in the wake of such peculiar facts and circumstances thatwe had directed a note of the order to be taken in the service books ofthe competent authority as well as the members of the scrutinycommittee and compliance was solicited from the DivisionalCommissioner. 4 WP / 275 / 2025+Group 5.By moving applications no. 1974 of 2025, 1973 of 2025and 1975 of 2025, the person who was at the relevant time working ascompetent authority, is now seeking the remarks to be expunged.6.The learned advocate for the applicants, at the outset,submits that she profoundly repents and tenders unconditional apology.He submits that she is a young IAS officer having flawless track record.Adverse remarks in the service book would have drastic consequenceson the prospects in the service career. It would also discourage honestpublic officers while discharging their duties fearlessly. She had nomalice or mala fides. She was not afforded any opportunity to explainthe circumstances. The orders were passed in due discharge of herduties. The error had occurred unintentionally and the direction forentry to be taken in the service record, be recalled. 7.It does appear that the applicant was appointed in theIndian Administrative Services by notification dated 25-02-2022. Theorder of appointment was issued on 11.03.2022. She was posted asAssistant Collector, Degloor Sub Division, District Nanded by the orderdated 20.04.2022 and the impugned orders though bear outwardnumbers, do not bear any date and even this fact is noted in thejudgment of the scrutiny committee to which the petitioners had 5 WP / 275 / 2025+Group preferred an appeal under section 5 of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of2001.8.Accepting the stand of the applicant being a new entrant inthe civil service, she had no experience and knowledge, one cannotlose sight of the fact that being from the Indian Administrative ServiceCadre, she could have logically considered the aspect as to whenmerely the caste or tribe certificate was being applied for, when thenear blood relatives, namely, first degree paternal uncles werepossessing certificates of validity of ‘Koli Mahadev’ scheduled tribe,how a blood relative would belong to some other caste or tribe. Overand above, even in spite of enlisting these certificates of validity in theorders, the observation that those being of recent origin, could not havebeen refused as a proof, and more so by making an observation thatno pre-constitutional document was produced. This clearlydemonstrates utter non application of mind, leave aside lack ofknowledge. In our considered view, no amount of justification can beassigned for such a glaring mistake. 9.However, considering the fact that applicant is tenderingunconditional apology, thereby admitting the mistake, coupled with thefact that she was a new entrant to the civil service, when there isnothing to demonstrate that the impugned orders were prompted byany mala fide or were passed for any extraneous reasons, the
Decision
6 WP / 275 / 2025+Group direction in the order passed by us for taking entry in her service book,is recalled.10.Applications are disposed of.11.Stand over to 11-03-2025, for consideration of the affidavitfiled by extant competent authority. [ PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGEAfter Pronouncement of the Order12.The learned AGP informs that pursuant to the directions of thisCourt, the entries have been taken in the service book of the respectivemembers of the scrutiny committee and compliance report has also beenplaced on record.13.Matters are disposed of. [ PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGEarp/-