High Court
Legal Reasoning
{1} wp 3952,08 R.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 3952 OF 2008Yashwant s/o. Motiram Suryawanshi,Age 42 years. Occ. Service,R/o. Kunte Road, Opp. School No. 12,Amalner, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon... Petitioner.VERSUS1.The State of Maharashtrathrough the SecretaryTribal Development Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.2.The Scheduled Tribe CasteCertificate Verification Committee,through its Chairman/Director,Nasik Division, Nasik.3.The Education Officer (Secondary)Zilla Parishad, Nasik.4.The President / Secretary,Nasik Shikshan Prasarak MandalEducation Society,J.S. Rungta High School, Near Ashok Stambh,Nasik.5.The Head Master,P.E. School and Aarambh Mahavidyalaya,Near Bytco, Nashik Road, Nasik.6.The Deputy Director of Education,Nashik Region, Nasik.(amended as per order dated 8.5.2013).. Respondents.
Legal Reasoning
{2} wp 3952,08 R.odtMr. A.S. Golegaonkar, Advocate for the petitioner,Mr. N.S. Tekale, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 6 CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ. RESERVED ON : 22ND MARCH, 2024.PRONOUNCED ON : 5TH APRIL, 2024. JUDGMENT [ PER S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J] :-1.The petitioner approached this court under Article 226 of theConstitution of India impugning the order dated 14.5.2007 passed bythe Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee –Respondent No.2, thereby invalidating the Tribe Claim of the petitionerfor “Thakur Scheduled Tribe”.2.Mr. A.S. Golegaonkar, learned counsel for the petitionersubmits that the petitioner belongs to “Thakur Scheduled Tribe”. Thecompetent authority has issued the tribe certificate to that effect. Whilethe petitioner was prosecuting his studies, his caste certificate wasreferred to the Committee which was supported by the School admissionRecord of the petitioner and his father. The real paternal cousin ofpetitioner, namely, Vinod Vasantrao Suryawanshi has been conferred withthe validity certificate. He filed affidavit in support of the genealogy. Asmany as 19 documents were placed before the Committee that justifythe caste claim of the petitioner. However, the Committee invalidated the {3} wp 3952,08 R.odtpetitioner’s claim for erroneous reasons.3.Mr. N.S. Tekale, learned AGP appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 6 supports the impugned order. He would submit that schoolrecord relied by the petitioner depicts caste entry as “Hindu Thakur” inthe name of petitioner’s father. Although, Vinod Vasantrao Suryawanshii.e petitioner’s cousin is granted validity, Committee found it sanssupporting evidence. The petitioner was required to establish his claimon the basis of documentary evidence and affinity test, which he failed.Therefore, the Committee is justified in invalidating the claim.4.We have considered the submissions advanced by thelearned advocates for the respective parties. We have perused thedocuments annexed to the writ petition and original file received fromthe committee. The record shows that the petitioner had submitted asmany as 19 documents in support of his claim. The document at Sr. No.17 as referred in Committee’s order depicts caste validity certificate hasbeen in favour of Vinod Vasantrao Suryawanshi, on 24.3.2000. Hetendered an affidavit dated 6.12.2003, containing the genealogy.Petitioner’s father has also tendered an affidavit dated 2.10.2002containing genealogy. The original file received from the Committeeshows that School Leaving Certificate of petitioners father MotiramSahadu Suryawanshi is filed. Said entry appears have been taken on6.6.1947, as “Hindu Thakur”. The Committee referred the aforesaiddocuments in the order, however, declined to rely observing that caste isrecorded as “Hindu Thakur” and not as “Thakur -Scheduled Tribe”. TheCommittee declined to rely upon the validity certificate granted infavour of Vinod Vasantrao Suryawanshi, observing that it has been issued {4} wp 3952,08 R.odton the basis of observations of the High Court, However lateron suchobservations are discarded by the Apex Court. The Committee has furtherobserved that the applicant failed in the affinity test. The report of theVigilance Officer do not support the petitioner’s claim for “ThakurScheduled Tribe”.5.Pertinently, there is no dispute as regards to the schooladmission entry of the petitioner’s father which records his caste as“Hindu Thakur”. The said entry is recorded in year 1947. The recordplaced before the Committee, either on behalf of the petitioner or by theVigilance Officer do not show any contra entry that hurdles petitioner’stribe claim. The Supreme Court in the matter of “Ku. Madhuri Patil Vs.Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others” reported in(1994) 6 SCC 241 observed in para. 10 as under :-“Entries in school register preceding Constitution do furnishgreat probative value to the declaration of the status of acaste. Hierarchical caste stratification of Hindu social orderhas its reflection in all entries in public record. Whatwould, therefore, depict the caste status of the peopleinclusive of the school or college records, as the then censusrules insisted upon”6.In the light of the aforesaid observations, the schooladmission entry of petitioner’s father recorded in the year 1947 fetchgreat probative value. It depicts the caste status as “Hindu Thakur”therefore, such a document assumes significance in deciding the castestatus of the petitioner. The Committee discarded such a significantevidence observing that the caste entry as “Hindu Thakur” is notanalogous to “Thakur Scheduled Tribe.”, appearing at Sr. No.44 in thePresidential Order. It is difficult to countenance with the observations of {5} wp 3952,08 R.odtthe committee. “Hindu Thakur” is not a caste. “Hindu” would refer toreligion. Therefore, only because the word “Hindu” is sufixed to the entryof Thakur Tribe, in the school record of the petitioner’s father, such entrywould not loose significance.7.Mr. Tekale learned AGP appearing for the respondentwould submit that entry as “Hindu Thakur” in the school record of thepetitioner’s father cannot be equated with the entry of “ThakurScheduled Tribe” appering in the Presidential order. However, he fairlyconcedes that “Hindu Thakur” is not a caste recognized any where andword “Hindu” may be reflection of the religion.8.We are, therefore, of the considered view that the pre-constitutional entry in the school record of the petitioner’s father couldhave been accepted as material piece of evidence in support of thepetitioner’s claim for “Thakur Scheduled Tribe”. Apart from the aforesaidpre-constitutional document, the petitioner has placed reliance on thecaste validity granted in favour of Vinod Vasantrao Suryawanshi, hispaternal cousin. The genealogy placed on record of the committee, inthe form of affidavit submitted by Vinod Suryawanshi depicts thepaternal blood relation of the petitioner. The genealogy or therelationship of the petitioner with Vinod Suryawanshi is not disputed.The Vigilance Report is not adverse on this point. Therefore, fact remainsthat the petitioners paternal blood relative has already been conferredwith the status of “Thakur Scheduled Tribe”. The reasons incorporated bythe Committee for declining to rely on the said validity are absolutelyperverse. The Division Bench of this Court in the matter of ApoorvaVinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee {6} wp 3952,08 R.odtreported in 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401.observed as under :-“We thus come to the conclusion that when during thecourse of enquiry the candidate submits a caste validitycertificate granted earlier certifying that a blood relation ofthe candidate belongs to the same caste as that claimed bythe applicant, the committee may grant such certificatewithout calling for Vigilance Cell Report. However, if thecommittee finds that the earlier caste certificate is taintedby fraud or is granted without jurisdiction, the Committeemay refuse to follow and may refuse to grant certificate tothe applicant before it.”9.Considering the aforesaid observations of the Division Benchof this Court, when the petitioner relies upon the caste validity certificateconferred upon the blood relative, the committee could not have notdeclined to rely upon the same unless it is shown that such certificate isthe product of fraud or issued without following the due procedure oflaw. However, from reasoning recorded is committees order, no suchfinding is discernable.10.In the present case, the nothing is brought before us todemonstrate that the validity certificate granted in favour of VinodVasantrao Suryawanshi is unreliable or liable to be discarded for any ofthe aforesaid reasons. Admittedly, the Validity certificate issued in favourof Vinod is still intact and no steps have been taken by the Committee forrevocation of such certificate. In that view of the matter, the orderpassed by the committee is unsustainable in law. The petitioner isentitled for issuance of validity certificate. Hence, we proceed to pass thefollowing order :-
Decision
{7} wp 3952,08 R.odtO R D E R[i]The Writ petition is allowed;[ii]The impugned order dated 14.5.2007 issued by theScheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Nasik Division,Nasik ( Respondent No.2) is hereby quashed and set aside;[iii]The respondent No.2- Committee is directed to issueValidity Certificate in favour of petitioner as belonging to “ThakurScheduled Tribe” within a period of four weeks from the date of thisorder.[iv]Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.[S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J] grt/-