High Court · 2024
Legal Reasoning
(5) wp-11417-2010.odtas the Pre-Constitutional documents relied upon by the petitioneris concerned, there is no dispute about relations of the petitionerwith Suryasing Natthu Thakur whose school admission extract andschool leaving documents records his caste as ‘Thakur’. TheCommittee has merely observed that the entry does not establishthe caste as ‘Thakur’, Scheduled Tribe. At this juncture, we mayrefer to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case ofMadhuri Nitin Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.1,wherein it is observed thus:“14.From the above, it is clear that no authority can after 20September, 1976, inquire and/or ask for an evidence that the"Thakur" Scheduled Tribe falls within the restricted oroutside area in the State of Maharashtra. There is no reasonto insist for the inquiry and/or information and/or evidencefrom the Claimant/Applicant to bring on record thedocuments and/or material of the particular area/regionwithin the State. 15.It is also clear that all people of Thakurcommunity/tribes belong to State of Bombay were part of firstPresidential Order since 6 September, 1950 upto 28 October,1956. The Bombay State at that time was inclusive of somepart of Gujarat and/or Madhya Pradesh. From 2 September,1976, till this date, most of the areas are part of Maharashtra,after the States' reconstitution/bifurcation. The district-region-wise reservation was made after modified order, 1956.Therefore, claimants/persons belong toThakur/tribes/community just cannot be denied their statusfor want of documents only of restricted districts as permodified order, 1956. The documents/materials of BombayState and documents and material of whole State ofMaharashtra after 1977 are also important to claim theThakur tribes benefits. It is also relevant to note that thechange and/or recognition from Thakur tribes for the State ofBombay was restricted for the respective districts aftermodified order, 1956. The said restriction was continuedabout 20 years as recorded above, but once the Region/districtrestrictions are removed, the insistence of the documents onlyfrom the restricted area by overlooking first PresidentialOrder, just cannot be permitted. By the Act of 1976, theThakur tribe, if recognized for whole State of Maharashtra,12014 (3) Mh.L.J. 900. (6) wp-11417-2010.odtthe documents from the restricted area/districts cannot be theonly source for deciding the Thakur/scheduled tribesclaims/benefits. The endeavour must be to check and verifythe supporting documents of the Thakur tribes of any part ofMaharashtra/Bombay State and as per the first PresidentialOrder.16.There is no question of further inquiry by any Authorityto challenge and/or test the benefits required to be given to the"Thakur" ST Community, if they reside and/or hail from anypart of the State of Maharashtra. The status of "Thakur" STcommunity in whole State of Maharashtra is equal for all andso also the benefits and reservation.17.As migrants belong to Scheduled Tribes/resident ofthe year 1950 in the area, that excludes and/or constitutesthe State of Maharashtra and would be entitled to benefits ofreservation as ST in the State of Maharashtra. Their legalrepresentation/prayers cannot be denied the same status andbenefits. The status/privilege conferred by the Constitutionfirst time in the year 1950, not only because of the birth offather or forefather, but because of socio-economic conditionsof the tribe/caste.”10.The aforesaid observations of this Court makes itabundantly clear that the Pre-Constitutional documents cannot bediscarded on the basis of area restriction or giving reasons that theforefathers of the claimants have not migrated from the area oforiginal residence of the ‘Thakur’, Scheduled Tribe. Pertinently,there is no contra material on record to indicate that the petitionerbelongs to the ‘Thakur’ community different than ‘Thakur’ Tribe.Therefore, it is difficult to countenance with the contraryobservations of the Committee.11.Apart from the Pre-Constitutional documents, thepetitioner has placed reliance upon the validity granted in favour ofthe real uncle and cousin sister. The Division Bench of this Courtin case of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste (7) wp-11417-2010.odtCertificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others2, has observedin paragraph no.7 as under:“7.We thus come to the conclusion that when duringthe course 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 tainted byfraud or is granted without jurisdiction, the Committee mayrefuse to follow and may refuse to grant certificate to theapplicant before it.”12.Applying the aforesaid observations of the DivisionBench to the fact of this case, it is evident that the real uncle andcousin sister of the petitioner is already conferred with the castevalidity certificates. The reasoning recorded by the Committeedoes not depict that the validity certificates relied upon by thepetitioner are product of fraud or misrepresentation. Both thevalidity certificates relied upon by the petitioner are intact andundisturbed till this date. In that view of the matter, we do notfind that any deeper enquiry as regards to the petitioner’s claim isrequired. Now it is settled that when the claim of the petitioner isbased on documentary evidence, particularly caste validity of thepaternal relatives and Pre-Constitutional documents havinggreater probative value, the claim of the petitioner can be acceptedinspite of failure in affinity test. Therefore, the observations of theCommittee while declining to grant validity to the petitionercannot be countenanced. We have no hesitation to hold that thepetitioner has established her caste claim as belonging to ‘Thakur’,Scheduled Tribe. Consequently, we proceed to pass the followingorder:ORDERa.Writ Petition is allowed.22010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401. (8) wp-11417-2010.odtb.The impugned order dated 22.06.2010 passed byrespondent no.2-Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee,Nandurbar is hereby quashed and set aside.c.The respondent no.2-Committee is directed to issuevalidity certificate in favour of the petitioner as belonging to‘Thakur’, Scheduled Tribe.d.Writ Petition is disposed of.e.Rule is made absolute in above terms.(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI) JUDGE JUDGEDevendra/March-2024
Arguments
(1) wp-11417-2010.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.11417 OF 2010SMT. TILOTTAMA D/O RAMESH THAKURAge-28 years, Occ. Student, R/o Wani Apartment, Bhadgaon Road, Pachora, Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon...PetitionerVersus1.The State of Maharashtra,Department of Tribal Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai- 32. Through its Secretary.2.The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee,Nandurbar Division, Nandurbar, Through its Member Secretary.3.The Sub Divisional Officer,Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon.4.Khandesh College Education Society'sCollege of Education, NAAC Accredited B++ & C.Τ.Ε. M.J. College Campus, JALGAON-425 002 Through its Principal.5.North Maharashtra University,Jalgaon-425001. Through its Registrar & Chief Examination Controller...Respondents …Mr. M. A. Golegaonkar h/f Mr. A. S. Golegaonkar, Advocate for thePetitioner.Mr. S. K. Shirse, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3.Mr. S. S. Tope, Advocate for Respondent No.2.Mr. B. R. Warma, Advocate for Respondent No.4 (Through V.C.). … CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ. (2) wp-11417-2010.odtJUDGMENT RESERVED ON :- 21st MARCH 2024.JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :- 28th MARCH 2024.JUDGMENT (Per: S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J.):- 1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With theconsent of the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at thestage of admission.2.The petitioner approaches this Court under Article 226of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 22.06.2010passed by respondent no.2-Scheduled Tribe Certificate ScrutinyCommittee, Nandurbar rejecting the tribe claim of the petitionerfor ‘Thakur’, Scheduled Tribe.3.The petitioner contends that she belongs to the‘Thakur’, Scheduled Tribe. The Competent Authority has issuedcaste certificate dated 01.03.1999 that she belongs to ‘Thakur’,Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner was admitted to B.Ed. Courseagainst the seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe with respondentno.4-College. Accordingly, her caste certificate was referred to theCommittee at Nashik for verification, which was later ontransferred to respondent no.2-Committee. The proposal of thepetitioner was accompanied by the voluminous evidence includingschool record of herself and the paternal relatives. She had alsosubmitted the caste validity certificates of her real paternal uncleand real cousin sister. The Committee vide impugned order dated22.06.2010 invalidated the petitioner’s tribe claim on erroneousground.4.Mr. Golegaonkar, learned Advocate appearing for thepetitioner vehemently submits that the Committee has discardedthe petitioner’s claim mainly referring to the affinity test. The Pre- (3) wp-11417-2010.odtConstitutional documents in respect of blood relatives are ignored.Even the validity of blood relations are ignored without assigningjustifiable reasons. He would, therefore, submit that the decisionof the Committee be quashed and set aside and direction be givenfor issuance of caste validity certificate to the petitioner.5.Mr. Shirse, learned A.G.P. appearing for therespondents supports the impugned order. He would inviteattention of this Court to the observations of the Committee tocontend that each claim has to be decided on its own count. Merelybecause the petitioner’s husband and cousin have been conferredvalidity, the petitioner does not get right to receive the same. TheCommittee has doubted the correctness of the validity issued infavour of the paternal relatives of the petitioner. He would,therefore, urge that the writ petition sans merit and liable to bedismissed.6.We have considered the submissions advanced onbehalf of the learned Advocate for the respective parties. Thepetitioner has placed on record the genealogy depicting hisrelationship with the validity holders. The petitioner has reliedupon the school admission extract of Suryasing Natthu Thakur,who was admitted in the school on 07.06.1930 and his caste isrecorded as ‘Thakur’. The petitioner has also relied upon the schoolleaving certificate of Suryasing Natthu Thakur depicting his casteas ‘Thakur’. An affidavit of Ramesh Suresh Thakur is filed tosupport the contention that his father Suryasing is also referred asSuresh. The school leaving certificate of one Jagannath SureshThakur dated 03.08.1960 depicting his caste as ‘Thakur’ is alsoplaced into service. The petitioner has further relied upon thevalidity granted in favour of the Jagannath Suresh Thakur and (4) wp-11417-2010.odtSuvarna Jagannath Thakur. An affidavit of Jagannath SureshThakur containing genealogy is also placed on record, whichsupports the contentions of the petitioner regarding herrelationship with the validity holders. The Jagannath SureshThakur is real uncle of the petitioner, whereas Suvarna is hercousin. 7.The survey of the aforesaid documentary evidence wouldshow that the petitioner is relying upon the documents of Pre-Constitutional era in respect of her grandfather Suryasing NatthuThakur. There is nothing on record to discard the said document ofthe year 1930. The real uncle of the petitioner Jagannath SureshThakur is granted validity by order of Additional Commissioner,Nashik on 28.09.1993. His daughter Suvarna is granted validityby Nashik Committee on 16.10.2003. Both these validitycertificates are intact till this date. The Committee referred to thePre-Constitutional documents, however, declined to rely the sameobserving that the entry as ‘Thakur’ is not sufficient to hold that itrelates to the ‘Thakur’, Scheduled Tribe. 8.So far as the validity granted in favour of thepetitioner’s uncle and cousin is concerned, the Committee observedthat those have been granted on the basis of the decision of thisCourt in the matters of the persons who were not direct bloodrelatives of the validity holders. Hence, such validity cannotbecome a precedent for the petitioner. The Committee has alsoobserved that the petitioner could not prove affinity with the‘Thakur’, Scheduled Tribe.9.In our opinion, the Committee has misdirected itselfwhile appreciating the evidence tendered by the petitioner. So far