Back
2023 Supreme(SC) 1136
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HRISHIKESH ROY, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
Astha Gopal Khakra - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7524 of 2019
Decided On : 11-10-2023
For the Appellant : Mr. Kunal Cheema, AOR, Mr. Apoorv Shukla, Adv., Mr. Raghav Deshpande, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR, Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv., Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv., Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv., Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR, Mr. Manan Daga, Adv.
The Scrutiny Committee and the High Court erred in rejecting the appellant's claim as belonging to the Nomadic Tribe-Lohar. The Court criticized the Scrutiny Committee for ignoring the evidence provided by the appellant and for relying on a judgment that was not applicable to the 2012 Rules. The Court held that the appellant's claim should be accepted and declared her as belonging to the Nomadic Tribe-Lohar.
Headnote:
Caste Certificate - Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 - The determination of the Caste status for the people in appellant’s category is to be made under the 2012 Rules. The appellant is required to establish that by the deemed date i.e., 21.11.1961, the appellant’s fore-fathers from the paternal side, had set up residence in the State of Maharashtra. The claimant is required to furnish primary information and evidence, including School Leaving Certificate of a relative and proof of permanent residence in the State of Maharashtra prior to the deemed date i.e., 21.11.1961.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's challenge to the finding of the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Akola invalidating her Caste Certificate was dismissed. The appellant claims to belong to Nomadic Tribe-Ghisadi of Maharashtra. The appellant sought recognition as Nomadic Tribe-Lohar and a certificate to this effect was issued to her. The Caste certificate issued to the appellant became the subject matter of scrutiny and was declared invalid by the Scrutiny Committee. The appellant filed a Writ Petition which was dismissed but later restored. The determination of the Caste status for the people in appellant’s category is to be made under the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012. The appellant produced various documents to establish her caste claim, including School Leaving Certificates of her relatives. The Scrutiny Committee rejected her claim based on the omission of certain relatives in the family tree. The High Court also made an incorrect observation regarding the appellant's grand-father not being mentioned in the family tree. The appellant argued that the Scrutiny Committee misdirected itself by relying on a judgment that is inapplicable to the 2012 Rules. The appellant's claim was rejected despite the evidence provided. The Court held that the Scrutiny Committee and the High Court erred in rejecting the appellant's claim and declared her as belonging to the Nomadic Tribe-Lohar. The appeal was allowed and the appellant's results in her BDS course should be declared. All consequential reliefs will follow.
Finding of the Court:
The Court analyzed the evidence provided by the appellant, including the School Leaving Certificates of her relatives, and found that her claim as belonging to the Nomadic Tribe-Lohar should be accepted. The Court criticized the Scrutiny Committee for rejecting the claim based on the omission of certain relatives in the family tree and for ignoring the Enquiry Report and the School Leaving Certificates. The Court also distinguished a previous judgment that was relied upon by the Scrutiny Committee, stating that it was not applicable to the 2012 Rules. The High Court's incorrect observation regarding the appellant's grand-father not being mentioned in the family tree was also criticized. The Court held that the Scrutiny Committee and the High Court's decisions were unsustainable and allowed the appeal with the finding that the appellant belongs to the Nomadic Tribe-Lohar.
Ratio Decidendi: The Scrutiny Committee and the High Court erred in rejecting the appellant's claim as belonging to the Nomadic Tribe-Lohar. The Court criticized the Scrutiny Committee for ignoring the evidence provided by the appellant, including the Enquiry Report and the School Leaving Certificates. The Court also distinguished a previous judgment that was relied upon by the Scrutiny Committee, stating that it was not applicable to the 2012 Rules. The High Court's incorrect observation regarding the appellant's grand-father not being mentioned in the family tree was also criticized. The Court held that the appellant's claim should be accepted and declared her as belonging to the Nomadic Tribe-Lohar.
Result: The appeal is allowed with the finding that the appellant belongs to the Nomadic Tribe-Lohar. The appellant's results in her BDS course should now be declared. All consequential reliefs will follow.
JUDGMENT :
Hrishikesh Roy, J.
Heard Mr. Kunal Cheema, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, learned counsel appears for the State of Maharashtra and District Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Akola [respondent nos.1 and 2 respectively]. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, learned counsel appears for the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences (Respondent No. 4).
2. The challenge here is to the judgment dated 18.09.2018 of the Division Bench of the High Court whereby the appellant’s challenge to the finding of the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Akola (for short, “Scrutiny Committee”) invalidating her Caste Certificate was dismissed. The appellant claims to belong to Nomadic Tribe-Ghisadi of Maharashtra mentioned at Entry (8) of Schedule II in the Government Resolution dated 21.11.1961 i.e., Ghisadi-Lohar. By virtue of Circular dated 27.03.1965, the appellant claims to belong to the Ghisadi-Lohar community which is made equivalent to Entry No. (8) of the Schedule II of the Resolution.
3. The fore-fathers of the appellant migrated from the State of Rajasthan and the appellant’s grand-father settled in Akola, Maharashtra. The appellant sought recognition as Nomadic Tribe-Lohar and a certificate to this effect was issued to her on 10.08.2012 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Akola. The Caste certificate issued to the appellant became the subject matter of scrutiny and in the Enquiry Report of the Vigilance Squad dated 27.12.2014 (Annexure P-10), it was reflected that the appellant’s family originally belonged to Rajasthan but her grand-father-Mulchand had come to Akola in the year 1960 and was residing in the Mominpura Area in Akola as a tenant. Later, her grand-father purchased a plot of land in the year 1968 and constructed a house on the said plot and settled therein along with the other family members including the appellant’s father.
4. However, notwithstanding the above finding of the appellant’s grand-father having migrated to Akola in the year 1960, the Scrutiny Committee, Akola, on the basis of the material adduced opined that the appellant could not substantiate her caste claim and accordingly, the following decision was given against the appellant :
“1. The 'Lohar' (Nomadic Tribe-B) caste claim of the applicant- Astha Gopal Khakra is declared as Invalid.
2. The Sub Divisional Officer (S.D.O.), Akola is directed to impound the caste certificate No.MRC-81/Akola/F-238/2012-13 issued to Shri Astha Gopal Khakra immediately and take necessary action under section 10 (3) of the above Act.”
5. Following the above decision of the Scrutiny Committee, the aggrieved appellant filed Writ Petition No.4051/2017 which came to be dismissed in the first round on 11.09.2017. But the said Writ Petition was restored on 08.06.2018 by the Division Bench of the High Court and eventually the impugned order came to be passed on 18.09.2018.
6. The determination of the Caste status for the people in appellant’s category is to be made under the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 (for short, “the 2012 Rules”).
7. The 2012 Rules provide for constitution of the Scrutiny Committee to decide on the validity of a Caste Certificate. As the appellant’s family migrated from Rajasthan to Maharashtra, under the 2012 Rules, the appellant is required to establish that by the deemed date i.e., 21.11.1961, the appellant’s fore-fathers from the paternal side, had set up residence in the State of Maharashtra.
8. For verification of Caste status, the claimant is required to furnish the information mentioned in Rule 16 of the 2012 Rules which specifies the documents to be furnished as primary information and evidence. Amongst the mentioned documents, the claimant may furnish School Leaving Certificate of a relative. She must also indicate proof of permanent residenc
