High Court
Legal Reasoning
1 WP / 9037 / 2024 + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 9037 OF 2024Iram Fatema Saeed AhmadAge : 19, Occu : Student,R/o. 73, S. No. 14, Salar Nagar,Mehrun, Jalgaon.. Petitioner VersusThe State of Maharashtra Social Justice and Special Assistance Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032 and another.. RespondentsANDWRIT PETITION NO. 9041 OF 2024Raza Firoz Shah FakirAge : 20 years, Occu : Student,R/o. Momin Mohalla, Shendurni,Jamner, Jalgaon.. Petitioner VersusThe State of Maharashtra Social Justice and Special Assistance Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032 and another.. RespondentsANDWRIT PETITION NO. 9057 OF 2024Shah Adnan Arif ShahAge : 20 years, Occu : Student,R/o. S. No. 21/1a, Plot No. 42, Block No. 2, Ram Nagar,Mehrun, Jalgaon.. Petitioner VersusThe State of Maharashtra Social Justice and Special Assistance Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032 and another.. Respondents...Advocate for petitioner in all WPs : Mr. A.N. SabnisAGP for the respondent – State : Mrs. P.J. Bharad (9037/2024, 9057/2024)and Mr. R.S. Wani (9041/2024)... 2 WP / 9037 / 2024 + CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.DATE : 23 OCTOBER 2024ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :Though the petitioners are not related to one another byblood, they are all challenging similar orders of the respondent no. 2 –scrutiny committee, thereby refusing to validate their Chhaparband (14)V.J. (A) certificates, exactly for the same reasons and on the samegrounds. In order to avoid repetition, we are disposing of thesepetitions by this common order.2.Learned advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sabnis wouldsubmit that all these petitioners have been relying upon the certificatesof validity of their near blood relatives, father / son / uncle. He wouldsubmit that the only reason, the committee has resorted to fordiscarding these validities, is that they were granted the certificates ofvalidity by resorting to the government circular dated 26-06-2006,whereby all the individuals having the record as ‘Musalman, ‘Fakir’,‘Islam; etc. were directed to be considered for grant of tribe certificatesand validity certificates of ‘Chhaparband’. He would submit that by theorder of the High Court, that circular was quashed and set aside, andeven subsequent similar circular dated 23-03-2011 was also quashedand set aside by the High Court. The committee has refused tovalidate petitioners’ ‘Chhaparband’ V.J. (A) certificates even when all 3 WP / 9037 / 2024 + the earlier validities are still holding the field and even the committee isnot seeking to observe that those were obtained by fraud. He wouldsubmit that it is a matter of social status. Till the time these other bloodrelatives possess certificates of validity, the petitioners cannot bediscriminated against. He would also seek to rely upon decision of thedivision bench in the matter of Zaid S/o. Sadique Shah Vs. The Stateof Maharashtra and another (writ petition no. 4575 of 2023 decidedon 19-06-2024; Nagpur Bench).3.Per contra, learned AGPs would submit that all the validityholders were granted certificates of validity only because of thecirculars issued by the government which were subsequently quashedand set aside by the order of this Court and the petitioners are notentitled to derive the benefit of these validities. They had failed toproduce favourable record of the period prior to the notified date i.e.21-11-1961 and no fault can be found with the observations and theconclusion of the committee refusing to validate the tribe certificates.4.We have carefully considered the rival submissions andperused the papers.5.The committee in the impugned orders itself has referredto the validities of the blood relatives in each of these matters. Theonly ground on which the committee has refused to extend its benefit isthat those were issued pursuant to the circulars issued by the state 4 WP / 9037 / 2024 + government which were subsequently quashed and set aside by theorders of this Court. Conspicuously, none of these impugned ordersexpressly demonstrates about the committee having even gonethrough the original orders passed by the then committees in thematters of all these validity holders. It is evident that even withoutactually examining the reasons assigned by the then committees, theimpugned orders were passed on the premise that all the validitieswere granted only on the ground of those circulars of 2006 and 2011and there was no other document or evidence before the thencommittees.6.Admittedly, all these validities were issued by following dueprocess of law. No reason has been assigned or observation is madein the impugned orders about due process of law having not beenfollowed while granting the certificates.7.Besides, in all the three matters, the committee hasillegally treated ‘Musalman’ or ‘Muslim’ entries in the school records ascontrary entries to the claim of ‘Chhaparband’. ‘Muslim’ or ‘Musalman’is not a caste or tribe but a religion and could not have been treated ascontrary to the claim of ‘Chhaparband’. Excluding these ‘Musalman’ or‘Muslim’ entries, there is not a single contrary entry in the matter ofpetitioners in writ petitions no. 9041 of 2024 and 9057 of 2024,however, there are favourable entries, may be of recent time.
Decision
5 WP / 9037 / 2024 + 8.In writ petition no. 9037 of 2024, there appears only onecontrary entry of grandfather of petitioner – Babu Mehboobsha Fakir,wherein he was described in the school record as ‘Fakir’ which is aother backward category and would be contrary to the claim of‘Chhaparband’ whic is also V.J. (A). However, in that matter also, thereare favourable entries as well and such isolated contrary entry couldnot have been resorted to, to discard the claim.9.In the result, the observations and the conclusions of thecommittee in all these three matters, refusing to extend the benefit ofvalidities possessed by the near blood relatives are not sustainable inlaw and are rather, perverse and arbitrary. Even its stand of treating‘Musalman’ or ‘Muslim’ as contrary entries to the claim of‘Chhaparband’ is not legally sustainable. Its approach to discardfavourable ‘Chhaparband’ entries without assigning any reason, onlyon the ground that those are of recent time and expecting thepetitioners to produce some record of the period prior to 21-11-1961, isnot legally sustainable. Having such a record of the prior time wouldcertainly be having greater probative value and decisive, however,conversely, not being able to produce such record, cannot be a groundfor discarding the caste or tribe claim. 6 WP / 9037 / 2024 + 10.Incidentally, in the matter Zaid S/o. Sadique Shah Vs.The State of Maharashtra and another (supra) in similar set of factsand circumstances, wherein for a similar reason, the committee hadrefused to extend the benefit of earlier validities, the petitioner thereinwas held entitled to have the benefit of such validities. The petitionersare entitled to derive the benefit of this decision.11.In the result, all these petitions deserve to be allowed andare accordingly allowed.12.The impugned orders are quashed and set aside.13.Respondent no. 2 – committee shall issue certificates ofvalidity to the petitioners of ‘Chhaparband’ (14) V.J.(A) forthwith. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGEarp/