High Court
Legal Reasoning
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD938 WRIT PETITION NO.9843 OF 2023Chakradhar Baburao Pitlewad,Age 20 yrs., Occ. Education,R/o Ramkhadak, Post – Bitnal,Tq. Umri, Dist. Nanded. … Petitioner… Versus …1Scheduled Tribe CertificateScrutiny Committee, KinwatHeadquarter, Aurangabad.Near Saraswat Bank, CIDCO Bus Stand,Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad,Dist. AurangabadThrough its Member Secretary. 2State Common Entrance Test Cell,Maharashtra, Mumbai,8th Floor, New Excelsior,A.K. Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai.Through its Commissioner &Competent Authority. … Respondents...Mr. M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitionerMr. P.S. Patil, AGP for respondent No.1Mr. N.S. Tekale, Advocate for respondent No.2... 2WP_9843_2023_JdCORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.DATE:17th JANUARY, 2024JUDGMENT :(PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)1Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Advocatesfor the parties finally, by consent. 2The petitioner challenges the invalidity of his caste claim byrespondent No.1 by Judgment and order dated 02.08.2023. 3The petitioner contends that he belongs to “Koli Mahadev”Scheduled Tribe. He had received the Tribe Certificate from competentauthority on 07.01.2016. He was prosecuting study and, therefore, thePrincipal of his college submitted proposal with respondent No.1 on20.06.2023 for verifying and issuing validity in respect of the same. Thepetitioner appeared and submitted documents before respondent No.1 –Committee. Vigilance Cell inquiry was conducted. Report was forwarded tothe petitioner on 24.07.2023. He has filed say explaining the circumstancesand the documents relied by him as well as the alleged contra entries. Inspite of production of documents and explanation, that has been given, hiscaste validity has been negatived. It is also submitted that the Judgment of
Legal Reasoning
3WP_9843_2023_Jdrespondent No.1 suffers from legality. The well settled principles of law laiddown by this Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court have not beenconsidered. The petitioner, therefore, prays for issuance of appropriate writfor setting aside the Judgment and order passed by respondent No.1 and todeclare him as belonging to ‘Koli Mahadev’ Scheduled Tribe and direction torespondent No.1 to issue the validity certificate. 4Heard learned Advocate Mr. M.S. Deshmukh for the petitioner,learned AGP Mr. P.S. Patil for respondent No.1 and learned Advocate Mr. N.S.Tekale for respondent No.2. 5Learned Advocate for the petitioner has taken us through thedocuments which the petitioner had produced before the Scrutiny Committeeand made submissions. It has been contended that the oldest documentshave also not been considered by respondent No.1. The school record of theuncle is of 11.07.1977 and then it is held that there are erasers and insertion.The school record of other uncle was perused by respondent No.1 and it issaid that word ‘Mahadev’ has been inserted later on. In fact, the said wordwas in existence since inception, but it appears that it has been re-written justto have consistency in the name of the caste as per the Constitution of India.It was not brought before the Committee that the petitioner had ever played
Decision
4WP_9843_2023_Jdany role in the insertions. The documents were coming from a propercustody and, therefore, those ought to have been accepted. It is furthersubmitted that respondent No.1 has unnecessarily made observations aboutcensus. The reliance of the Committee on census of 1971 was misconceivedin respect of Section 15 of Census Act, 1948. He relied on the Writ PetitionNo.13550 of 2023 decided by this Court on 30.10.2023, wherein it has beenobserved that in view of Section 15 of the Census Act, 1948 the entry in thecensus register was not admissible in evidence. The report of the VigilanceCell inquiry does not show that the Research Officer has made any adverseremark. Therefore, it ought to have been held that the petitioner has provedhis claim even by applying test of affinity. The documents in the naturepertaining to the real uncle Lalaji @ Mukund i.e. his school admission form,general administration register, documents pertaining to uncle, seconddegree uncle Pundlik Narayan ought to have been considered by theCommittee. 6Per contra, the learned AGP submits that there was no validitycertificate in the family issued earlier and, therefore, respondent No.2 wasjustified in considering the matter in detail. The documents ought to havebeen relied and the oldest one of Lalaji @ Mukund would show that word ‘M’has been written in different handwriting as it differs from word ‘Koli’. 5WP_9843_2023_JdSimilarly, the entries in respect of uncle Pundlik and Pandurang show thatword ‘Mahadev’ has been written later on. Even if we ignore theobservations in respect of area restriction and the affinity; yet, the documentsproduced by the petitioner were not sufficient to support his claim and,therefore, the Judgment passed by respondent No.1 - Committee is legal. 7The first and the foremost fact to be considered is that thepetitioner should establish his claim on the basis of certain documents, on itsown. Thereafter the question would be – Whether he supports his claim withthe fact that some of his near relatives or the person in the family hasreceived the validity certificate ? Thereafter, the further things would comeas regards the area restriction and affinity test. Here, the petitioner appearsto have come with a case that there is no validity certificate in favour ofmember of his family. In such circumstance, respondent No.1 was justified incalling upon the Vigilance Cell report. 8The petitioner is relying on the admission form of his real uncleLalaji @ Mukund Maroti Pitlewad. Coloured photo copy has been producedalong with the petition and in the File of respondent No.2 also we could findthe document. However, we are unable to get as to how this documentAnnexure ‘D’ was obtained by the petitioner. It does not have any stamp of 6WP_9843_2023_Jdthe school. It is said to be the admission form, but the alleged signature is inthe same handwriting and in fact, whether it can be said to be a signatureitself, is a question. Word ‘Mukund’ has been scored and above it word‘Lalaji’ has been written. Though it is said that the student who was seekingadmission i.e. Lalaji Maroti Pitlewad is ‘Hindu Koli Mahadev’; yet, theauthenticity of this document cannot be cross checked. The petitioner hasnot come with a case that he had obtained the said document under theRight to Information Act. If that document would have been collected by theVigilance Cell Officer, then, how a copy of the same could have been receivedby the petitioner, is also another question. On the said document theauthority has not stated or endorsed that the student was admitted to schoolon the basis of the said application. At the cost of repetition, it can be saidthat the document does not bear any endorsement on behalf of the school. 9The next document is in respect of second degree unclePandurang and in the File of the petitioner there is similar document ofPandurang’s real brother Pundlik. However, it can be seen that there areerasers and corrections. Though there are initials or signature, in respect ofcorrection, yet the question would be – When the said correction was madeand why it was made ? The corrections and insertion of word ‘Mahadev’below the word ‘Koli’ is in different handwriting. Therefore, these documents 7WP_9843_2023_Jdhave been rightly not accepted by respondent No.1. In absence of a cleardocument coming on record to support the contention of the petitioner, wedo not find any illegality or error committed by respondent No.1. 10There cannot be a dispute as regards the interpretation ofSection 15 of the Census Act, 1948. The observation to that effect ofrespondent No.2 might be wrong, but it was not the only ground on whichthe caste claim of the petitioner has been discarded. There are contra entries,which came on record through the Vigilance Cell inquiry. Those are inrespect of the school record of Lalaji and Pundlik with Zilla Parishad School,Ramkhadak, Tq. Umri, Dist. Nanded as ‘Koli’. The other documents producedby the petitioner are of recent years and, therefore, we are of the opinion thatthe Judgment and order passed by respondent No.1 cannot be said to beillegal. The petition is devoid of merits. Hence, the following order. ORDER1The Writ Petition stands dismissed. 2Rule is discharged. (S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )agd