High Court
Facts
Writ Petition No.400/2024:: 1 ::IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.400 OF 2024Rushikesh Bibhishan BodhwadAge 26 years, Occ. Pre-serviceResiding C/o Vidyanagar (W),Near Mane Complex, Beed,Tal. Beed,Dist. Beed… PETITIONERVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, TribalDevelopment Department,Mantralaya,Mumbai – 400 0322.Scheduled Tribe CertificateScrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabadthrough its Member Secretary,having its office at CIDCO, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad3.Secretary, Agriculture, AnimalHusbandry, Dairy Developmentand Fisheries Department,Government of MaharashtraMantralaya, Mumbai – 400 0324.Commissioner (Agril.),Commissionerate of Agriculture,Maharashtra State, Pune5.Amit Fulchand Tumdam,Age adult, Occupation : Student,Residing at Fulzari, Post Hiwara Bazaar, Tal.Ramtek,Dist. Nagpur… RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
Writ Petition No.400/2024:: 4 ::4.The learned Advocate for the petitioner wouldsubmit that, the petitioner’s father, uncle, paternal aunt and twosisters have been granted validity certificates. According tohim, in one genetic family no two members can have twodifferent castes. He relied on the judgment of this Court incase of Abhishek Mahendra Umbarje Vs. State ofMaharashtra etc. etc. (2022 SCC OnLine Bom 2858) and ahost of authorities, including the judgment of the Apex Court incase of Maharashtra Adivasi Thakur Jamat SwarakshanSamiti Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. (2023 SCC OnLine326), to contend that when the blood relation namely the fatheris holding a validity certificate, the Scrutiny Committee ought tohave granted the petitioner validity of his certificate.5.He would further submit that, the respondent No.5did not have locus standi to intervene in the matter. Thelearned Advocate relied on the judgment in case ofAyaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors.92013) 4 SCC 465, wherein it has been observed : “The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarilybe the right of the writ petitioner himself, whocomplains of infraction of such right and approachesthe Court for relief as regards the same. Even as Writ Petition No.400/2024:: 5 ::regards the filing of a habeas corpus petition, theexpression “next friend” means a person who is not atotal stranger. Such a petition cannot be filed by onewho is a complete stranger to the person who is inalleged illegal custody.A “legal right” means an entitlement arising out oflegal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage,or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule oflaw. The expression, “person aggrieved” does notinclude a person who suffers from a psychological oran imaginary injury, a “person aggrieved” must,therefore, necessarily be one whose right or interesthas been adversely affected or jeopardised. Hence, aperson who raises a grievance, must show how he hassuffered legal injury. Generally, a stranger having noright whatsoever to any post or property, cannot bepermitted to intervene in the affairs of others.”6.He would further submit that, the judgment reliedon by the learned Senior Counsel in case of Chairman andManaging Director, Food Corporation of India & ors. Vs.Jagdish Balaram Bahira & ors. (2017) 8 SCC 670 would beof no help for them. He took us through paragraph No.69 ofthe judgment (conclusions) to submit as to how the same wasdistinguishable on facts. According to him, the judgment incase of Jyoti Sheshrao Mupde Vs. State of Maharashtra &ors. (Writ Petition No.1954/2009, decided on 22/8/2012) wouldalso be of little consequence. He adverted our attention toparagraph No.7 of the said judgment, wherein the brother ofthe petitioner therein had suppressed the invalidity of the Writ Petition No.400/2024:: 6 ::certificate of his brother. On facts, the learned Advocate didnot dispute the findings recorded in Jyoti Mupde’s case. According to him, the petitioner herein has placedeach and every document or material which was with him.Therefore, there was no question of any misrepresentation orpracticing fraud. He would further submit that, when the bloodrelations have been granted the validity and their cases are yetnot been reopened since no notices have been served on anyof them, those certificates stand the scrutiny held by theCommittee and, therefore, the petitioner’s tribe certificateought to have been validated. He would further submit that,one Prakash Kokate had made a complaint, alleging thecertificate of the petitioner’s paternal aunt Meera to have beenobtained by practicing fraud. The High Court remanded thematter to the Scrutiny Committee, which, after holding a dueenquiry, again reaffirmed its decision. According to the learnedAdvocate, it is nothing short of the principle of res judicata. Hethen would submit that, the Committee for the first time reliedon some factual matrix. This Court does not sit in appealagainst the decision of the Scrutiny Committee. He brought toour notice the averments in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 (Page 224 Writ Petition No.400/2024:: 7 ::to 248-A) of the affidavit-in-reply. He would further submit that,some part of the Vigilance report has not been served uponthe petitioner. According to him, the Scrutiny Committee didnot apply its mind. He took us through certain paragraphs ofthe impugned order and compared the same with the ScrutinyCommittee’s judgment in case of one Lahu Mande, to point outthat the same was verbatim reproduction from Lahu Mande’scase. He would further submit that, the police official Mr.Hashmi gave Vigilance report, wherein he did not make anyreport as to interpolations. According to him, how come thesubsequent report indicating some interpolations. According tohim, when the validity certificate of his blood relation has beengranted after a fullfleged enquiry, the petitioner ought to havebeen granted the same.7.He would further submit that, considering thejudicial propriety and the principle of parity, the petitioner isentitled for the validity of his tribe certificate. He urged forvalidating the same conditionally i.e. the same be validateduntil the validity certificates granted to his blood relations werecancelled/ recalled.8.The learned A.G.P. and learned Advocate for the Writ Petition No.400/2024:: 8 ::intervener, on the other hand, countered the submissions,reiterating the reasons given by the Committee. Since theirstand would be our reasons in support of this order, we do notwish to reproduce/ reiterate the same hereat. 9.Considered the submissions advanced. Perusedthe order impugned herein and the documents relied on. Wehave also considered the host of authorities wherein thevalidity has been granted to the petitioners therein since theirblood relations were holding validity certificates. Each casehas to be decided on the facts and circumstances obtainabletherein. We wish to rely on paragraph Nos.22 and 23 of theHon’ble Three Judge Bench judgment of the Apex Court incase of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat SwarakshanSamiti (supra). For better appreciation, both the paragraphsare reproduced below :“22. We can also contemplate one more scenariowhich is found in many cases. These are the caseswhere the applicant relies upon caste validitycertificates issued to his blood relatives. Obviously,such a validity certificate has to be issued either by theScrutiny Committee constituted in terms of thedirections issued in Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case1 orconstituted under the Rules framed under the 2000 Act.In such a case, firstly, the Scrutiny Committee mustascertain whether the certificate is genuine. Secondly,the Scrutiny Committee will have to decide whether Writ Petition No.400/2024:: 9 ::the applicant has established that the person to whomthe validity certificate relied upon by him has beenissued is his blood relative. For that purpose, theapplicant must establish his precise and exactrelationship with the person to whom the validitycertificate has been granted. Moreover, an enquiry willhave to be made by the Scrutiny Committee whetherthe validity certificate has been granted to the bloodrelative of the applicant by the concerned ScrutinyCommittee after holding due enquiry and followingdue procedure. Therefore, if the Scrutiny Committeehas issued a validity certificate contemplated in termsof the decision in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil1,the examination will be whether the enquirycontemplated by the said decision has been held. If thecertificate relied upon is issued after coming into forceof the 2000 Act, the Scrutiny Committee will have toascertain whether the concerned Scrutiny Committeehad followed the procedure laid down therein as wellas in the ST Rules or the SC Rules, as the case may be.For this verification, the Scrutiny Committee canexercise powers conferred on it by Section 9(d) byrequisitioning the record of the concerned CasteScrutiny Committee, which has issued the validitycertificate to the blood relative of the applicant. If therecord has been destroyed, the Scrutiny Committee canascertain whether a due enquiry has been held on thebasis of the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committeeby which caste validity has been granted to the bloodrelative of the applicant. If it is established that thevalidity certificate has been granted without holding aproper inquiry or without recording reasons, obviously,the caste scrutiny committee cannot validate the castecertificate only on the basis of such validity certificateof the blood relative. 23. In a given case, the Scrutiny Committee may besatisfied that the caste validity certificate relied uponby the applicant has been issued after making a lawfulenquiry. But if the Scrutiny Committee is of the viewthat the applicant has not clearly established that theperson to whom caste validity certificate produced on Writ Petition No.400/2024:: 10 ::record has been granted is his blood relative, in termsof sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 of the ST Rules, the CasteScrutiny Committee will have to refer the case forconducting an enquiry through Vigilance Cell. In sucha case, the Vigilance Cell can be directed by theScrutiny Committee to conduct an enquiry limited tothe relationship claimed by the applicant with theperson in whose favour the caste validity certificate hasbeen issued. If, on the basis of the report of theVigilance Cell, the Scrutiny Committee is satisfied thatthe person in whose favour caste validity certificate hasbeen issued is a blood relative of the applicant andlawful enquiry has been conducted before issuing thevalidity certificate, the Scrutiny Committee will haveto issue validity certificate even if the applicant doesnot satisfy the affinity test. For example, if it isestablished that the father or grandfather of theapplicant has been given a caste validity certificateafter holding a lawful enquiry in accordance with law,the Caste Scrutiny Committee cannot hold that thegrandfather or father of the applicant, as the case maybe, belongs to Scheduled Tribe but the applicant doesnot belong to Scheduled Tribe. Only if the relationshipas pleaded by the applicant is not established, the otherevidence produced by the applicant and the result ofthe affinity test can be taken into consideration by theScrutiny Committee.” 10.The gist of the observations indicate that if theScrutiny Committee had not granted validity certificate afterconducting lawful and proper enquiry, then the ScrutinyCommittee would be at liberty to invalidate the certificate of theconcerned person who proposes to rely on the certificateissued to his blood relation. According to learned Advocate forthe petitioner, the tribe certificate granted to his aunt Meera Writ Petition No.400/2024:: 11 ::was issued after fullfleged enquiry. The matter was againremanded back to the Scrutiny Committee and the sameVigilance report reaffirms the same. He meant to say that,there was compliance of what has been observed by the ApexCourt in paragraph No.22 of the judgment. 11.Now let us turn to the factual matrix. It was thecontention of the petitioner that, the copy of Vigilance Cellreport was not supplied to him in its entirety. The fact is,however, other way round. In the reply submitted by thepetitioner to the Vigilance Cell report in paragraph No.3thereof, he conceded in so many words that in Column 3-B atPage 5 of the school record of his father, the entry “HinduKasari” was made due to illiteracy of his father. Admittedly,“Kasari” falls in O.B.C. category. The Scrutiny Committee,while passing the impugned order, has considered the entirematerial threadbare. It has specifically relied on the VigilanceCell report. The entries from school record of the petitioner’sfather and his family members indicate that the word "महहददवककळळ", "मह. ककळळ" was found to have been inserted later on.Our attention has been drawn to Item No.8 of the orderimpugned herein. Moreover, sub-clause (2) thereof also Writ Petition No.400/2024:: 12 ::records that entries in the school record of the persons of thesimilar surname from the very village were found to have beenfabricated by inserting the word “Koli Mahadev”. It is true that,we may not rely on the material in relation to the other personsof similar surname. The fact, however, remains that in theschool record the caste of the petitioner’s father was recordedas Hindu (Kasari) way back in June 1979. Same was case ofhis real uncle Abhiman. The entry in relation to him was madeon 22/6/1984. The Committee has specifically observed thatthis material evidence was not before the Scrutiny Committeewhich granted validity to the petitioner’s father, uncle and aunt.The learned Advocate for the petitioner disputed the same. Inthe impugned order, the Committee has observed that thepetitioner has relied on the validity certificates of his father andtwo sisters namely Sheetal and Jyoti. He did not rely on thevalidity certificate of his parental aunt Meera, although we findsome reference thereto in the reasoning given by the ScrutinyCommittee.12.Since the Scrutiny Committee has opened thecases of the persons whose validity certificates have beenrelied on by the petitioner, we do not propose to place reliance Writ Petition No.400/2024:: 13 ::on those validity certificates. More so when the father’s schoolrecord at the beginning i.e. while he was admitted to the schoolindicate that he claimed to have belonged to Hindu Kasariwhich falls in OBC category.13.True, it may sound unreasonable that in the village,and particularly in the school record, person belonging to casteor community other than Kasari was not found. The Vigilanceenquiry report in so many words spells out that the schoolrecord of the father, cousin grandfather, uncle and other bloodrelations as well was found to have been fabricated byinterpolating therein the words " महहददवककळळ", "मह. ककळळ" duringthe period from 1970 to even 1981–1984 as well. It isreiterated that, the petitioner, in response to the Vigilancereport in relation to his father’s school record, came with astand that, due to illiteracy, the caste was shown as, “Kasari”.This explanation is not acceptable in view of there beingvoluminous record, which speaks otherwise. 14.So far as regards allegations as regards copy-paste are concerned, though we may agreed to some extent, itneeds to be mentioned that the members of ScrutinyCommittee were not experts in law. Reproduction of some
Arguments
Writ Petition No.400/2024:: 2 ::.......Mr. R.K. Mendodkar, Advocate holding for Mr. A.S. Bayas, Advocate for petitioner Mr. A.S. Shinde, A.G.P. for R.No.1 to 4Mr. S.B. Deshpande, Senior Counsel i/byMr. Shrinivas Salunke, Advocate for R.No.5....… CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT ANDSANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.DATE : 26th MARCH, 2025ORAL JUDGMENT (PER R.G. AVACHAT, J.) : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With theconsent of learned counsel for the parties, heard finally.2.The petitioner has filed the present petition for thefollowing main reliefs :-“(a)This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of certiorari and/or any the writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorarithereby quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated13/12/2023 passed by the respondent No.2 Committee withfurther direction to respondent No.2 Committee to issuecertificate of validity in relation to caste certificate dated30/4/2015 issued by the competent authority of jurisdiction.(b)That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to hold and declare thatthe caste certificate dated 30/4/2015 issued to the petitionerby the competent authority of jurisdiction is valid, legal andsubsisting.”3.The petitioner claims to have belonged to KoliMahadev Tribe (Scheduled Tribe). On the strength of tribe Writ Petition No.400/2024:: 3 ::certificate granted in his favour by the competent authority on30/4/2015, he secured a job as a Deputy Director ofAgriculture, Grade-A through competitive examination held byMaharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC). That time,he was only holding the tribe certificate, which was not thenvalidated. His certificate was pending before the ScheduledTribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee (for short, ScrutinyCommittee) for validation since 2005. It appears that, therespondent No.5 herein, who was recruited to the post ofTaluka Agricultural Officer through the same competitiveexamination, had made a complaint to the Scrutiny Committeeand other authorities as well, alleging the petitioner to haveobtained the tribe certificate fraudulently. The ScrutinyCommittee, after having followed the due process/ procedureprescribed under the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes,Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), NomadicTribes, Other Backward Classes and Special BackwardCategory (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) CasteCertificate Act, 2000 (for short the Act of 2000) and the Rules,came to the conclusion not to grant validity to the tribecertificate of the petitioner. The petitioner has, therefore,preferred the present petition.
Decision
Writ Petition No.400/2024:: 14 ::material from other order would be of little consequence. Moreso, the material relief on, or placed on record during theVigilance enquiry speaks in volumes that the blood relationswho obtained validity certificates did not place on record beforethe Scrutiny Committee the school record indicating thepetitioner’s father to have belonged to “Kasari” caste. Locus standi of Respondent No.5 :-15. We do not propose to dwell at length on this pointsince the petitioner himself had made the respondent No.5 asparty respondent. Moreover, on the issue of locus-standi only,the petition was not to be disposed of. The petition is requiredto be decided on its own merits. The submissions made bylearned counsel for respondent No.5 would, therefore, be inthe nature of assistance to the Court. 16.After going through reasons given by the ScrutinyCommittee, we find the same is consistent with the material onrecord. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned herein.In the result, the Writ Petition fails. It is dismissed. Ruledischarged. Writ Petition No.400/2024:: 15 ::17.At this stage, learned Advocate for the petitionersubmits that, the ad-interim relief is operating in this matter.The same be continued for a period of eight weeks. In view ofthe same, the interim relief to continue for a period of nexteight weeks. (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) (R.G. AVACHAT, J.) fmp/-