WP-881-2026 (C).doc v. The State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

Heard. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by Respondent No.2 – District Caste Scrutiny Committee, Kolhapur, whereby the caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to “Rajput Bhamta” has been rejected.

The petitioner has approached this Court with the submission that though his father and grandfather are recorded as belonging to “Hindu Rajput”, he has recently obtained certain documents of Ms. Sulochana Sahadevsingh Shiledar, who is stated to be the paternal aunt of the petitioner. In her school record, the caste entry is shown as 1 of 4 21-WP-881-2026 (C).doc “Rajput Bhamta”. On the basis of this document, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the matter requires reconsideration and therefore deserves to be remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee for fresh adjudication of the caste claim.

In the present case, we have gone through the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee. The Committee has rightly recorded in the impugned order that in the year 1985, at the instance of the present petitioner, the caste entry of the petitioner which was earlier recorded as “Hindu Rajput” was changed as “Rajput Bhamta” and get it conirmed from Deputy Director of Education. This fact demonstrate that the petitioner has intentionally changed his caste as “Rajput Bhamta” to get beneit of VJNT category. Furthermore petitioner has no explanation to substantiate as to how said change of caste is justiied in the matter.

It is further pertinent to note that the Committee has also recorded a inding that in all the documents produced by the petitioner before the Committee, the word “Bhamta” is not found aixed to the caste “Rajput”. On the contrary, in the school records of the petitioner’s grandfather for the years 1927 and 1934, the caste is recorded as “Hindu Rajput”.

The Committee has also taken note of one document relating to 2 of 4 21-WP-881-2026 (C).doc school leaving certiicate of primary school of the petitioner of the year 1934, wherein the caste is recorded as “Rajput”. Thus, the Committee by considering pre-independence documents which is having much probative value, decided the caste claim of petitioner.

The petitioner has for the irst time before this Court relied upon the school leaving record of his alleged paternal aunt, namely Ms. Sulochana Sahadevsingh Shiledar. A perusal of the said record shows that she had taken admission in the school on 31st March 1952 and her caste is recorded as “Rajput Bhamta”. In our opinion, this document cannot be treated as a substantial piece of evidence for the reason that the petitioner has failed to produce the family tree to establish her relationship with the petitioner. Moreover, there are no other documents placed on record to show that Ms. Sulochana Sahadevsingh Shiledar was recorded as belonging to “Rajput Bhamta” either in her entire school record or in any other revenue record. In view thereof, the said document cannot be treated as suicient material so as to warrant remand of the matter to the Scrutiny Committee.

It will be relevant to refer the authoritative Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr v/s. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241, wherein in paragraph 15 of the judgment observed as under : 3 of 4 21-WP-881-2026 (C).doc

15. The question then is whether the approach adopted by the High Court in not elaborately considering the case is vitiated by an error of law. High Court is not a court of appeal to appreciate the evidence. The Committee which is empowered to evaluate the evidence placed before it when records a inding of fact, it ought to prevail unless found vitiated by judicial review of any High Court subject to limitations of interference with indings of fact. The Committee when considers all the material facts and records a inding, though another view, as a court of appeal may be possible, it is not a ground to reverse the indings. The court has to see whether the Committee considered all the relevant material placed before it or has not applied its mind to relevant facts which have led the Committee ultimately record the inding. Each case must be considered in the backdrop of its own facts.