1986 Supreme(Bom) 171

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(AURANGABAD BENCH)
M.S. Jamdar M.S. Ratnaparkhi, JJ.
Subhash Ganpatrao Kabade .... Petitioner.
Versus
State of Maharashtra others.... Respondents.
Writ petition No. 438 of 1985, decided on 19/20-6-1986.
Advocates appeared :
S.B. Talekar, for petitioner.
S.S. Choundhari, Govt. Pleader, for respondents Nos. 1 2.

Headnote:SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBES ORDERS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1976

       Section 4-Constitntion (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, Paragraph 3 - Evidence Act, 1872, Section 114-Appreciation of evidence-Schedule Tribe Mabadev Koli-Evidence regarding.

       It is an admitted position that in support of his claim the petitioner filed in all eighteen documents as mentioned in para 8 of the petition and these documents included School Leaving Certificate of his brothers and sisters, an extract of the service-book of his father and a duplicate School Leaving Certificate as amended on the application of the petitioner. The Scrutiny Committee did not attach any significance to the School Leaving Certificates of petitioners brothers and sisters solely on the ground that these brothers and sisters are younger to the petitioner. They conveniently ignored the position that in relevant school registers the caste of these brothers and sisters was shown as Mahadev Koli and that these entries were obviously made on the basis of the information supplied at the time when these students were admitted in the school which was long before the petitioner sought amendment of the school register for the purpose of incorporating an entry in respect of his caste.

       The Scrutiny Committee rejected this clinching piece of evidence on the ground that petitioners father was shown in his service record as backward and not as belonging to Schedule Tribe. This incorrect classification, according to the Scrutiny Committee rendered the service record of petitioners father unrealiable. This reasoning is obviously incorrect because Schedule Tribe is one of the recognised species of the genus "backward class". Hence simply because it was not specifically mentioned that petitioners father belonged to one of the categories of the backward classes viz., Scheduled Tribe, the entry in the service record, the genuineness of which is, and cannot challenged, cannot be ignored. The Director of Tribal Development gave different though equally absurd reason for rejecting this entry in the service record of petitioners father in respect of his caste. The learned appellate authority found material difference between the certificate produced by the petitioner and the certificate produced by the office in which petitioners father is working. There is absolutely no distinction, much less material, between the two entries. It is nobodys case that the word "Mahadev" was subsequently.

       Both, the Scrutiny Committee as well as the Director of Tribal Development, ignored the amended transfer certificate dated June 23, 1983, which was issued as duplicate of the transfer certificate issued on June 29, 1977, by the Head Master of the Lalbahadur Shastri Vidyalaya, Udgir, tbrough which institution the petitioner appeared for the S. S. C. Examination. Both these authorities ignored the amended certificate on the ground that in the earlier school leaving certificate the caste of the petitioner was not mentioned and it was only mentioned that he is Hindu. The Director rejected this certificate also on the grounds that it cannot be the duplicate of the certificate issued in 1977 which did not contain the relevant entry relating to the caste of the petitioner and that this amended certificate was not duly proved. Both these grounds are not valid and cannot be sustained.

       Admittedly before the entries in the school register were amended in 1983 the petitioners caste and sub-caste were not mentioned in the school register. What was mentioned was that the petitioner was a Hindu. This entry cannot be said to be inconsistent with the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe, Mahadev Koli. According to Hindu Social structure all Hindus are divided in various castes and sub-castes and, therefore, the petitioner must belong to some caste. This caste was not mentioned in the relevant column of the school register but this omission cannot lead to an inference that the petitioner must not be Mahadev Koli as claimed by him.

       It is pertinent to note that persons belonging to Mahadev Koli caste and residing in Marathwada region were not recognised as backward falling in the category of Scheduled Tribes till the year 1976. They were recognised as Scheduled Tribes only from 1st of May 1976 by virtue of Section 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 read with paragraph 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 and the Schedule, as amended by the aforesaid Act. Therefore, as per the rule governing the entries in the School register as prevailing on the date on which the petitioner was admitted to the school it was not necessary to mention that the petitioner belonged to Mahadev Koli Caste. As per the form of School leaving certificates caste and sub-caste were required to be mentioned only in the case of pupils belonging to the backward classes and categories among backward classes, for example, s.c./s.t. etc. As at the time when the petitioner was admitted to the school, Mahadev Kolis in Marathwada region were not recognised as backward falling in the category of Scheduled Tribe, the petitioner was not expected to mention in his application for admission, nor the school authorities were expected to mention in the relevant school register, the caste to which the petitioner belonged.