High Court

Legal Reasoning

{1} wp 13909.23 R.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 13909 OF 2023Gunwant Kishor ShirsathAge 19 years, Occ. Education,R/o. Kanchanpur Village,Tq. Sindkheda,Dist. Dhule... PetitionerVersus1. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai -32.2. Joint Commissioner, Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Dhule Add. :- Sindhu Manik, Survey No.53 Near Eakvir Devi High School, Sharda Nagar, Devpur, Dhule 424 005... Respondents.Mr. M.V. Thorat, Advocate for petitioner.Mr. N.S. Tekale, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ. RESERVED ON : 25th JANUARY, 2024. PRONOUNCED ON : 1st FEBRUARY, 2024.JUDGMENT [ PER S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J] :-1.Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finallyby consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2.The petitioner approaches this court under Article 226 of the {2} wp 13909.23 R.odtConstitution of India impugning the order dated 4th September 2023passed by the Scheduled Tribes Caste Scrutiny Committee, Dhule therebyinvalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner for “Tokre Koli” ScheduledTribe.3.Mr. M.V. Thorat learned advocate appearing for thepetitioner would submit that the petitioner belongs to ‘‘Tokre Koli’’Scheduled Tribe. The competent authority certified aforesaid fact byissuing caste certificate. The petitioner was aspiring for medicaladmission and appeared for NEET-UG of the year 2023. Therefore, hisproposal for caste validity was forwarded to the Scrutiny Committee. Thepetitioner supported his caste claim by documentary evidence. Theschool admission entry of Sudam Goma Koli, the cousin greatgrandfather of the petitioner dated 10th August 1944 records his caste asKoli Tokre at the time of his school admission. Mr. Thorat wouldtherefore urge that it being a pre-constitutional document, it possesseshigher probative value. He would further submit that ‘Tokre Koli’ or ‘DhorKoli’ are included in the Schedule of Tribes under Presidential Order.However, during pre-constitutional era, persons belonging to ScheduledTribes were reluctant to enter prefix of sub-caste like ‘Tokre’ or ‘Dhor’.Instead, they entered their caste as “Koli” which is a larger group, havingbetter social status. He would, therefore, urge that entry as “Koli” inrespect of blood relations of the petitioner cannot be termed as adverseor contra entry, while appreciating the caste status of the petitioner. He,therefore, submits that the Committee wrongly invalidated the tribeclaim of the petitioner giving reason of contra entries in respect of bloodrelations. Mr. Thorat would submit that procuring pre-constitutionalevidence in respect of tribes is difficult on account of social conditions {3} wp 13909.23 R.odtprevalent during pre-constitutional era.4.Mr. N.S. Tekale, learned AGP appearing for the respondentswould submit that school admission entries in respect of many bloodrelations of the petitioner have noted to be “Koli” or “Hindu Koli” even upto recent past. None of the blood relations of the petitioner is grantedcaste validity. He would point out that entry of 1938 in respect ofMahipat Suka Koli i.e. cousin great grandfather of the petitioner depictscaste as “Koli”. School admission entry in respect of grandfather of thepetitioner recorded in the year 1959 depicts his caste as “Hindu Koli”.Same is the case in respect of cousin grandfather of the petitioner. Hewould point out that first time in the year 1994, the entry of caste inrespect of uncle of the petitioner, namely, Dnyaneshwar Ganpat Shirsathhas been recorded as “Tokre Koli” and all evidences prior to 1994, depictsthe entry of caste as “Hindu Koli” in respect of blood relations of thepetitioner. He would point out that the Committee, on consideration ofthe school entry register of 1944 in respect of Sudam Goma Koli, notedthat the original entry “Koli” has been subsequently corrected to “KoliTokre”. The difference in ink is certified by the Head Master. He would,therefore, submit that the Committee has rightly invalidated caste claimof the petitioner.5.We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf ofthe petitioner as well as respondent State. We have perused the originalfile pertaining to the petitioner’s caste claim. The thrust of thecontention on behalf of the petitioner is that, he should have beengranted validity based on the pre-constitutional evidence in the nature ofschool admission entry of Sudam Goma Koli dated 10.8.1944, wherein, {4} wp 13909.23 R.odtthe caste is recorded as “Koli Tokre”. We have perused the originalrecord. The Head Master of the School, while supplying the informationregarding aforesaid entry has specifically remarked that there is additionof word “Tokre” after “Koli” in the school register. Similar opinion isexpressed by the Vigilance Officer in his report. During the course ofhearing, a photo copy of the school admission register regarding SudamGoma Koli is brought to our notice. Although, some deflection can benoted in the first entry, by naked eyes, we could not draw a definiteconclusion as regards the manipulation. However, we do not find anyreason to discard the remark of the Head Master of the School, who isthe custodian of said register and gave remark on perusal of the originalregister. The Committee has also relied upon the remark of the HeadMaster and also recorded its own observations regarding addition of theword “Tokre” in the school register.6.In that view of the matter, we proceed to consider furthermaterial available in the original file. Pertinently, we could note that thereal brother of Sudam Goma Koli i.e. Kashinath Goma Koli was admittedin school on 1.12.1938. However, in admission register his caste entryappears as “Koli”. Another cousin grandfather – Mahipat Suma Koli wasadmitted in school in the year 1938, which records his caste as “Koli”.Many other entries from 1945 onwards, in school record of thepetitioner’s blood relations including the real aunt recorded in the year1981, refers caste as “Hindu Koli”. Had any of blood relations of thepetitioner belongs to “Tokre Koli or Koli Tokre Scheduled Tribe”, at leastsome entries in pre-constitutional era would have been recorded caste as“Tokre Koli”. Except bare entry in the name of Sudam Goma Koli in theyear 1944, no other entry is relied upon by the petitioner to support his {5} wp 13909.23 R.odtclaim.7.We are not oblivious of the difficulties in procuring the pre-constitutional record in respect of tribes for the reason that there are veryfew families, where, school admissions or entry in revenue record wasmade. However, in the case of the petitioner, right from 1938, there areschool admissions specifying caste as “Koli Hindu Maratha” or “HinduKoli”. In Maharashtra ‘Koli’ is recognized as “Other Backward Class”.Therefore, taking overall review of the matter, it is difficult to believe thatthe petitioner belongs to “Tokre Koli Scheduled Tribe”. The Committeeappears to have taken probable view of the matter. After considering theentire material pressed into service on behalf of the petitioner, alongwithfact that the petitioner could not find favour in the affinity test, we donot find fault in order passed by committee. 8.For aforementioned reasons, we do not find any case tointerfere in the decision of the Committee in exercise of our jurisdictionunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, the petitionfails and stands dismissed.Rule is discharged. No costs.[S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J] grt/-