High Court

Legal Reasoning

907 ra (civil) 241-2024.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD907 REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 241 OF 2024 IN WP/9175/2019Shivanna Narsing GoskulwarVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And OthersWITHREVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 239 OF 2024 IN WP/9173/2019WITHREVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 240 OF 2024 IN WP/9174/2019WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12214 OF 2024 IN RA/241/2024Shri S. M. Vibhute, Advocate for the ApplicantSmt. P. J. Bharad, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2Shri S. B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4CORAM: MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.DATE: 06.02.2025ORDER ( MANGESH S. PATIL, J.): .We have heard both the sides.2.The original petitioners are seeking the power of review tobe invoked in respect of our judgment and order dated 01.10.2024,whereby we dismissed the writ petitions and sustained the order ofthe respondent/Scrutiny Committee, whereby it had invalidated their1 of 8 907 ra (civil) 241-2024.odt‘Mannervarlu’, Scheduled Tribe Certificates.3.The learned advocate Mr. Vibhute, for the original petitionersand review applicants submits that while analyzing the evidence, thecommittee had proceeded on the premise that the school recordrelied upon by the first validity holder Prachi Bhagwan Goskulwar inrespect of one Nana Shivayya and Bankanna Shivayya stated to be ofthe years 1927, 1935 A.D., was forged and since she was successful inobtaining validity based on such forged school record and since thesubsequent validity holders had simply derived the benefit of hervalidity, the petitioners applicants were not entitled to derive benefitof Prachi’s validity.4.While passing the order under review, this Court has alsosustained the inference drawn by the Committee in that regard. Hesubmits that, in fact, it was an error on the part of the concernedHeadmaster who was called upon by the Committee and hadinformed it that the school was established in the year 1939 A.D. Theerror had crept in because of the difference in the English Calendarand the Mohammedan Calendar. He submits that subsequently thepetitioners could approach the Headmaster concerned and have evenbeen successful in getting a fresh communication mentioning that theschool concerned was in fact established in 1339 Fasli (1929 A.D.).2 of 8 907 ra (civil) 241-2024.odtBased on this, the learned advocate submits that an opportunity maybe given to the petitioners to go back to the Committee and point outthis aspect.5.The learned advocate for the petitioners would also submitthat in fact, this disputed school record of Nana and Bankanna wasnot relied upon by the petitioners and was not revealed during thecourse of vigilance inquiry conducted in their matters. He wouldsubmit that it is only while conducting hearing since the petitionerswere relying upon Prachi’s validity, the committee could go throughher file and could trace out this record. It is thereafter, the committeechose to call for the Headmaster and based on his statement, thecopies of the school record were discarded branding to be forgedones. There was no opportunity to the petitioners, to respond to suchrecord revealed by the committee during the course of hearing. Thecommittee could have resorted to a vigilance inquiry to verifygenuineness of that school record, which would have extended anopportunity to the petitioners to take appropriate stand dependingupon the result of the vigilance inquiry. He would thus submit thatthe allegations of the record being forged was pitted against thepetitioner without extending any opportunity to meet the allegations.The learned advocate would submit that the error has perpetuated in3 of 8 907 ra (civil) 241-2024.odtthe form of passing of the order under review wherein for the reasonsassigned, this Court has accepted the stand of the committeebranding the school record of Nana and Bankanna, to be forged one.This being a matter of social status, doors may not be shut to thepetitioners. The matter can be remanded to the committee, enablingthe petitioners to substantiate their claims.6.The learned AGP submits that this being a matter of review, thescope for this Court to invoke the power is limited and circumscribedby the law. There is no error apparent on the face of the record or anyother sufficient cause. The writ petitions cannot be decided afresh onall counts. The plausible view taken by the committee wassubstantiated by this Court in non-suiting the petitioners. That beinga plausible view based on correct and reasonable appreciation of theevidence, the petitioners are not entitled to seek indulgence of thisCourt for approaching the committee again.7.Learned AGP would further submit that it is not that thematters have been decided by this Court simply on the basis of theaforementioned two school entries. Few other reasons have also beenassigned by this Court to substantiate its inference about failure onthe part of the petitioners to substantiate their claim by leadingcogent and convincing evidence. Contrary record was also pointed4 of 8 907 ra (civil) 241-2024.odtout apart from the dubious school record, which remainedunexplained. Therefore, nothing is to turn on simply on the basis offinding about dubious school record being overturned. She wouldfurther point out that in fact, even on the improvised stand of thepetitioners, no explanation can be found to take exception to theinference about the school record of Nana of 1927 A.D., when theschool was non-existent.8.The learned AGP would additionally bring to our notice fromPrachi’s original file, a statement of her father Bhagwan, whohappens to be Nana’s son was also recorded on 18.06.2007. It isBankanna’s school record of 1935 alone which at the most can bescrutinized. In his statement, Bhagwan had expressly stated that hehad only one paternal uncle Bankanna Shivayya Goskulwar and hewas illiterate. She would, therefore, submit that if Bhagwan’s thisstatement has to be accepted, that would bely the petitioners even inrespect of Bankanna’s school record of 1935 A.D. She therefore,submits that the petitioners are merely taking chances and are unableto substantiate their claims. Review jurisdiction cannot be exercisedin disguise, as if an appeal is being preferred.9.We have considered the rival submissions and perused thepapers.5 of 8 907 ra (civil) 241-2024.odt10.In the normal course, the issue involved being of social status,which is not an adversarial litigation, a prayer for remand could havebeen considered positively, but for the peculiar facts andcircumstances, as have been presented before us.11.Apart from the fact that the order under review was passed notmerely by referring to the dubious nature of the two school entries ofNana and Bankanna, additional grounds in the form of contraryrecord revealed, was also a basis for us to dismiss the petitions.12.Consequently, in our considered view, nothing would turn onby reappreciating Bankanna’s school record of 1935 A.D., if it is amatter of appreciation of evidence to cull out effect of the entireevidence, to reach a conclusion.13.Independently, accepting the stand of the petitioners that therewas some error on the part of the Headmaster in informing thecommittee about the date of establishment of the school and takingthat the school was established on 1339 Fasli, corresponding to 1929A.D., still, since school record of Nana that was relied upon by Prachiwas of the year 1927, no exception can be taken to the inferencedrawn by committee as also by us about that record being bogus.6 of 8 907 ra (civil) 241-2024.odt14.So far as the school record of Bankanna of 1935, is concerned,that apparently stands belied in the form of statement of Prachi’sfather Bhagwan, wherein he had expressly stated that his paternaluncle Bankanna was illiterate. Nothing is before us beyond thestatement of Bhagwan, which has never been taken exception to,rather the committee at the time of considering Prachi’s claim, hadalso for the reasons best known to the committee, overlooked thisstatement, as it does not find place in the order passed by the thencommittee in her matter.15.Be that as it may, in the wake of the fact that Bankanna wasstated to be illiterate, this would be an additional ground to discardthe school entry of 1935 A.D.16.True it is that the school record of both Nana and Bankannawas not a part of the inquiry at the initial stage and obviously, therewas no reference to it even in the vigilance report submitted inpetitioners’ matters. It is evident that the committee could lay handson this while examining the petitioners’ claims who have beenseeking to derive benefit of Prachi’s validity. Assuming that there wassome element of prejudice in using such school record from Prachi’sfile and pitting it against the petitioners, this was not a specific andprecise ground having adequate pleadings while preferring the7 of 8 907 ra (civil) 241-2024.odtpetitions. There is absolutely no reference in the petition memos todemonstrate as to how some prejudice was caused to the petitionersbecause of a reference to the Prachi’s file. Needless to state that sincethe petitioners were relying upon Prachi’s validity which was first inpoint of time in the entire family, it cannot be said that the petitionerswere oblivious of the circumstances under which she was able toprocure the certificate of validity. This is over and above, to repeatabsence of any concrete pleadings in the petition memos.17.As we have stated at the inception, these being social statusmatters, we extended an opportunity of being heard and could evengo through Prachi’s original file, wherein even statement of her fatherBhagwan referred to hereinabove could be traced.18.Bearing in mind the limited scope of review jurisdiction,aforementioned circumstances, in our considered view, are more thanenough to dismiss the applications.19.Hence, the applications are dismissed. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J)(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)Komal/8 of 8