Back
2002 Supreme(Bom) 211
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(AURANGABAD BENCH)
N.V. Dabholkar, J.
Snehal Vijaysingh Thoke .... Petitioner.
Versus
State of Maharashtra others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 4449 of 2001, decided on 27-2/16-3-2002.
Advocates appeared :
P.R. Patil, for petitioner.
A.B. Bajpai, A.G.P., for respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 341 and 342 - Caste claim - Scrutiny committee - Caste certificate invalidated - On report of vigilance committee - Petitioners were recorded as Hindu Rajpur Bhamta - Petitioner s father born in 1950 - Father s caste certificated obtained in 1993 - Petitioners relying upon same - Caste "Rajpur Bhamta" a reserved category recognised in 1961 - Primary School certificate showing caste as Hindu (Non BC) - Correction sought by father in 1993 - Evidentary value of father s certificate - Held - Parents of father might have recorded caste as Hindu of Hindu Rajpur not tenable due to addition of words "Non BC" in Primary School records - Certificate issued by Executive Magistrate, amendment in School records and service record have no evidentary value. - The documents at Sr. Nos. 1, 2, 18 and 26 which are pertaining to the entries regarding the caste of the father of the petitioner are the entries which make a very strong adverse impact upon the caste claim of the petitioner. Although Rajput Bhamta was recognised as Vimukta Jati under the Government Resolution dated 21.10.1961, these four documents read together clearly indicate that till 1993, there was no attempt on the part of the father to get the entries regarding his caste corrected. This time gap is required to be pointed out in reply to the argument by the learned counsel Shri Patil that the entries in the school record of the father must have been effected in 1957, because he born in 1950 and as there was no recognition of Rajpur Bhamta as Vimukta Jati in the year 1957, the caste might have been casually entered. If that be so, atleast from 1961 onwards, there was recognition as reserved category Vimukta Jatti, by constitutional and statutory provisions. Yet for as many as 32 years, since recognition, father made no attempt to get his caste recorded as Rajpur Bhamta. In fact he entered the second school in June 1969 and that time also he has registered his caste as Hindu . The addition of Non BC in the primary school record is of significant importance. The argument advanced by Shri Patil that out of ignorance and since there were no benefits available the parents of father might have recorded his caste as Hindu or Hindu Rajput is not sustainable in view of this addition Non BC in the primary school record. On the face of documents at Sr. Nos. 1 and 2, the certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate amendments in the school record and the service record, loose their evidentiary value if any.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 341 and 342 - Caste claim - Scrutiny committee - Caste certificate invalidated - Held - Notice issued by committee - Asking why caste claim may not be invalidated - No explanation by petitioner - Petitioner not sought opportunity of being heard orally or in writing - Plea of petitioner regarding denial of opportunity of hearing by committee not tenable - Decision of committee cannot be challenged merely on this ground. - Amongst the grounds challenging the impugned order, it is contended by the petitioner that the petitioner was never given hearing by all the three members of the committee. Only the Divisional Social Welfare Officer accepted the documents submitted by the petitioner. Pleadings in the petition to some extent are ambiguous. In fact the grievance is that no hearing was given at all. At the same time, pleadings are so worded as if hearing was not given by all three members together. Considering that the plea is of no hearing at all, the observations in case of Mahesh Thakur (supra) which are tried to be relied upon, are of no assistance to the petitioner.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 341 and 342 - Caste claim - Scrutiny committee - Caste certificate - Validity of - Standard of proof - Held - For establishing caste claim standard of proof must be stringent - But may not be as stringent as in criminal trial - Cannot be as light as preponderance of probability. - In view of these circumstances, it may not be out of place to say that the standard of proof for establishment of caste claim ought to be stringent. Although it may not be as stringent as in the criminal trial i.e. proof beyond all reasonable doubts, it also cannot be as light as preponderance of probability "or" better possibility.
2. By this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 20-10-2000 passed by the respondent No. 2 Scrutiny Committee for verification of the caste certificates issued in favour of the persons belonging to the Vimukta Jati. By the impugned order, the committee has declared invalid, the certificate No. 95/MISC/W/1213 dated 22-4-1993 issued by the Executive Magistrate, Georai, in favour of the petitioner, certifying that she belongs to V.J. (Rajput Bhamta).
2. The petitioner is a first year student of Medical College. According to her she belongs to Rajput Bhamta Caste. At the time of her admission in Yogeshwari Nutan Vidayalaya, Ambajogai, District Beed, her caste was recorded as Rajput Bhamta in the school record. While she was studying in XI standard her caste claim was sent for verification to the Scrutiny Committee. Earlier the Scrutiny Committee, after obtaining a report from Social Welfare Officer, had invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner. The petitioner approached this Court by Writ Petition No. 428 of 2000 because that decision was without calling for a report from the Vigilance Committee. By the judgment dated 26-11-1999, this Court set aside the judgment of the Scrutiny Committee and further directions were issued to redetermine the caste claim of the petitioner, only after obtaining the report from a Vigilance Committee.
As per directions of the High Court, the Scrutiny Committee obtained a report from the Vigilance Committee and thereafter, issued notice dated 2-9-2000 to the petitioner. The caste claim was thereafter, invalidated by the impugned order.
3. The committee, by the impugned order has taken into consideration as many as 26 documents, in support of the caste claim, either submitted by the petitioner or received by the committee, along with report of the Vigilance Cell. It took a note that in the school record of the father of the petitioner, his caste is recorded as Hindu. The same was recorded as Hindu (Rajput Bhamta) in his higher medium school record. The enquiry revealed that the portion “Rajput Bhamta” was added by Secretary Shri Shankar Hanumant Chilka, on the basis of the application of the father dated 30-8-1999 accompanied by the affidavit. The service record of the petitioner's father showed his caste as Hindu (Rajput) (Rajput Bhamta). However, this entry was taken on the basis of caste certificate obtained by the father on 24-3-1993.
It has also taken a note that the school record of the petitioner as well as her cousin records their cast as Rajput Bhamta and caste claims of second degree cousins of petitioner, namely Shital Bhausingh Thoke and Yogita Bhausingh Thoke of belonging to Rajput Bhamta caste are held valid by the Scrutiny Committee in the years 1996-97 and 1998-99 respectively.
The committee in its order, relied upon the observations of Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil to the effect that the entries in the school record of father of the petitioner are an important piece of evidence and arrived at a conclusion that father, in order to obtain benefits available to the scheduled tribe has manipulated his school record by the application dated 30-8-1999. According to the committee, this was evident from the fact that prior to this application, father's caste in the school record was recorded as Hindu (Non Backward Class). According to the committee, favourable entry in the service record of the father taken on the basis of the certificate in his favour issued by the Executive Magistrate, Gevrai on 24-3-1993 stood on no better footing, in view of the facet that Rajput Bhamta was declared to be Vimukt Jati by the Government decision dated 21-11-1961 and there was not a single piece of evidence, registering the caste of the petitioner or her ancestors to be Rajput Bhamta prior to this date.
According to th
