RAVINDRA v. GHUGEAND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ
Legal Reasoning
3740.24wp(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3740 OF 2024Sunil Narayan Wallamwad,Age: 35 years, Occ: Selectee (Pre Service),R/o. At Post Nandkheda, Tq. and Dist. Parbhani, ….PETITIONERVERSUS1.State of Maharashtra,through its Principal Secretary,Home Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai-322.Directorate of Forensic Science,Maharashtra State, Hans Bhugra Marg,Vidya Nagari Kalina, Mumbai-431606through its Director3.Schedule Tribe CertificateScrutiny Committee, Aurangabad,through its Member Secretary ….RESPONDENTS ….Mr Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioner;Mr S. K. Tambe, A.G.P. for Respondents/State CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGEAND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE : 11th June, 2024 3740.24wp(2) ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.)1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heardfinally by consent of the respective sides. 2.On 10/04/2024, we had passed the following order :-“1. The Petitioner's claim of belonging to theMannervarlu Scheduled Tribe Category has been rejectedby the order dated 05.04.2024. He has been selected to thepost of "Scientific Officer, Cyber Crime, TapeAuthentication and Speaker Identification, Grade B(Gazetted)". He apprehends cancellation of his selection. 2. Our attention is drawn to the family tree, which wasplaced before the Committee. The Petitioner's biologicalbrother Balaji son of Narayan, has been granted validitycertificate of Mannervarlu Scheduled tribe category. Thefather of the Petitioner and Balaji, namely, Narayan, is thebiological brother of Shrirang Vishwanath, BaburaoVishwanath, Pandurang Vishwanath, PandharinathVishwanath, Ramkishan Vishwanath and sister ParvatiVishwanath. Two sons of Baburao, namely, Vishwanath andVaijanath, are first biological cousins of the Petitioner whohave been granted validity certificates of the same S. T.category. One son Shrikant and his two sisters Daivshalaand Sonali, are the children of Shrirang. They are also firstbiological cousins of the Petitioner and have been grantedvalidity certificates of the same S. T. Category.
Legal Reasoning
3740.24wp(3) 3. The learned AGP submits that this Court shouldrefrain from granting interim relief until the record isproduced before Court and the AGP is ready with thematter. He further submits that show cause notices havebeen issued to the other validity holders.4. Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 30thApril, 2024. The learned AGP waives service of notice onbehalf of Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. By consent of theparties, this matter would be called out after the freshadmissions board.5. To balance equities, we direct that the selection ofthe Petitioner shall not be cancelled, in view of the sixvalidity holders in the family tree, until further orders in thisPetition, in relation to the invalidation of his claim.6. All office objections to be removed on or before 25thApril, 2024, failing which, this Petition would standdismissed without further reference to the Court on 26thApril, 2024.”3.The learned A.G.P. has vehemently opposed this WritPetition on the following grounds :-(a)The first validity that was granted by the ScrutinyCommittee was in favour of Daivshala Shrirang Wallamwad,based on entries of the maternal relatives. Her father Shrirang is 3740.24wp(4) the grandson of Tulshiram Kondiba Wallamwad and son ofVishwanath Tulshiram Wallamwad. (b)Daivshala was granted validity certificate asbelonging to the ‘Mannervarlu’ Scheduled Tribe category on thebasis of a maternal entry. (c)In paragraph 22 of the Judgment in MaharashtraAdiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State ofMaharashtra and others, AIR 2023 Supreme Court 1657, theHon’ble Supreme Court will not permit granting of validitycertificate to the present Petitioner.(d)With regard to the validity certificates issued toShrikant Shrirang Wallamwad and Sonali Shrirang Wallamwad(siblings of Daivshala), no Vigilance Cell inquiry was conducted.(e)Vigilance Cell inquiry was conducted in the case ofBalaji Narayan Wallamwad. Narayan Vishwanath Wallamwad isthe biological brother of Shrirang Vishwanath Wallamwad and 3740.24wp(5) Baburao Vishwanath Wallamwad. Vishwanath TulshiramWallamwad had 7 children.(f)The validity certificates granted to VishwanathBaburao Wallamwad and Vaijanath Baburao Wallamwad were onthe basis of Vigilance Cell inquiry conducted in the case of BalajiNarayan Wallamwad and by relying upon the validity granted toBalaji Narayan and Daivshala Shrirang.4.The learned AGP submits that the Committee intendsto issue a notice for re-opening of the cases for DaivshalaShrirang, Shrikant Shrirang, Sonali Shrirang, Balaji Narayan,Vishwanath Baburao and Vaijnath Baburao.5.This Court at the Principal Seat has delivered ajudgment in Shweta Balaji Isankar vs. The State ofMaharashtra and others, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 10363 (WritPetition No.5611/2018), decided on 27/07/2018, wherein it hasbeen concluded in paragraph Nos.3 and 4 as under :-“3.On such a finding being rendered by the Committee,we called upon the learned AGP on the earlier two 3740.24wp(6) occasions to produce the record. We also indicated to thelearned AGP as to how the certificate of validity is deniedto the petitioner though she has established her relationshipwith the said Govind and only on the ground that a showcause notice has been issued, but no proceedings infurtherance thereof came to be initiated till date. Thelearned AGP sought time to file an affidavit. Now, the JointCommissioner, Schedule Tribe Scrutiny Committee,Aurangabad has filed an affidavit in reply. That is taken onrecord. The said affidavit admits that the certificate ofvalidity has been issued to her real uncle and cousin uncleof the petitioner. The affidavit admits that the petitionerrelies heavily on these two documents, but clarifies thatthere is a suppression detected from the original record ofthe certificate holder and that is how a show cause noticehas been issued to Govind. The show cause notice could notbe taken to its logical end on account of the huge pendencyof cases before this Committee. In all, 7,000 matters werepending on the date when this Joint Commissioner tookcharge and he has reduced the pendency by 2500 casesbeing decided. In the circumstances, he says thatappropriate orders and directions be issued by this Court.4.We are not impressed by this explanation and thejustification not to proceed against a person who hasperpetrated a fraud on the public. If it is a seriousallegation and which is termed as fraud, then, it shouldhave been taken to its logical end. Mere issuance of a showcause notice in the present case would not suffice for Thereare two certificates of validity relied upon. The only reasonassigned in the impugned order to discard them, cannot besustained. The justification in the above affidavit is also notenough to straightaway discard the certificates of validityissued in the family. It is conceded that other reasons 3740.24wp(7) assigned in the impugned order cannot be supported inlaw.”6.In Apoorva Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional CasteCertificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others; 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401, this Court has concluded that, if several biologicalrelatives from the paternal side have been granted validitycertificates, the Committee cannot come to a conclusion in a givencase that the said candidate does not belong to the same caste ortribe, with reference to which series of biological relatives havebeen granted validity certificates. 7.The learned A.G.P. strenuously submits that, if thecases on which the present Petitioner places reliance upon, arere-opened, the material available would indicate that validitycertificates granted to all such cases, should be set aside. 8.We would consider the submissions of the learnedA.G.P. as a submission in speculation. We cannot pre-supposethat the Committee would come to a particular conclusion. Wewould not wish to make any comment on the contention of the
Decision
3740.24wp(8) learned A.G.P. that all the cases in which validity certificates havebeen granted, would be reopened. 9.It is a matter of circumspection, as to how manymonths or years would be taken to decide such cases and whetherin this backdrop, the Petitioner can be kept in suspendedanimation, waiting for an appointment to the post of ‘ScientificOfficer, Cyber Crime, Tape Authentication and SpeakerIdentification, Grade-B (Gazetted)’, pending decision in the casesof the his relatives. The pragmatic approach in thiscircumstances, pitted against a pedantic approach, would be togrant a conditional certificate to the Petitioner in the light ofShweta Balaji Isankar (supra), and by recording that thePetitioner would face a reopened case as regards his validitycertificate, if his cousins, who have been granted validitycertificates, suffer invalidation on account of reopening of theircases.10.In view of the above, this Writ Petition is partlyallowed. The Competent Committee shall issue a validitycertificate to the Petitioner as belonging to the ‘Mannervarlu’ 3740.24wp(9) Scheduled Tribe category, by 20/06/2024. After such validitycertificate is granted, the concerned Authorities, who haveselected the Petitioner, are at liberty to issue an appointment orderto the Petitioner. Needless to state, if any of the biologicalcousins, on whom the Petitioner has relied upon for receiving thevalidity certificate under this order, suffer invalidation on accountof the reopening of their cases, the present Petitioner would beliable to suffer the same consequences. 11.Rule is partly made partly absolute in the above terms.(Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)sjk