JUDGMENT - Smt. RANJANA DESAI, J.:---Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for hearing forthwith.

This petition takes exception to the order dated 20-8-2002, passed by the Committee for Scrutiny Verification of Tribe Claims, Konkan Division, Thane ("the Scrutiny Committee" for short) invalidating the caste certificate dated 31-1-1997, issued to the petitioner, by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhiwandi, certifying that she belongs to Warli, Scheduled Tribe.

3. The petitioner's case is that she is "Agri" by birth. In the year 1987, she got married to one Tukaram Balu Sayre who belongs to Warli Community. Warli Community is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribe) Order, 1950 ("the said order" for short). Agri community is not declared a Scheduled Tribe thereunder. On the basis of her marriage, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhiwandi, issued the aforementioned certificate stating that the petitioner, her husband and their progeny is eligible for the concessions admissible to Scheduled Tribes.

4. The petitioner got elected as a member of respondent 3, the Thane Zilla Parishad in the elections held in 2002 against a seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe. The Collector, Thane, referred the petitioner's case to respondent 2, Scrutiny Committee for verification of caste claim. The petitioner produced documents in support of her claim. By order dated 21-5-2002, the Scrutiny Committee held that the petitioner did not belong to Scheduled Tribe Community. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred the present writ petition taking up various contentions.

5. At the time of admission, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that no notice of hearing was given to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner could not satisfy the Scrutiny Committee about the validity of her caste claim. This ground was not specifically taken in the petition. It was orally urged. The learned A.G.P. could not controvert it. This being an admitted position, on 1-8-2002, we allowed the petitioner to amend the petition and take up this ground, which he did by adding ground 4(aa). The learned A.G.P. made a statement that personal hearing will be given to the petitioner and fresh order will be passed within a week thereafter. This Court recorded the said statement and adjourned the petition.

6. Accordingly the petitioner was given a hearing. The petitioner filed affidavits in support of her claim and submitted documents. The Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 20-8-2002 invalidated the petitioner's caste claim; inter alia, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in (Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University others)1, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1011, and hence the petitioner has amended the petition and challenged the said order.

7. A very short point is involved in this case. By birth the petitioner is Agri. Agri Community is not declared a Scheduled Tribe under the said Order. She married Tukaram Balu Sayre on 23-5-1987. Tukaram Sayre belongs to Warli Community which is a Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner contested election to the Zilla Parishad and got elected on a reserved seat. The question is can the petitioner, who does not belong to a Scheduled Tribe by birth, claim the benefit of reservation meant for Scheduled Tribes? What is the status of such a woman? Does she by marriage acquire the caste of her husband for the purpose of securing advantages which may be due to that caste, it being covered under the said Order?

8. Mr. Oka, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner urged that the Scrutiny Committee has misread and misconstrued the judgement of the Supreme Court in Valsamma's case (supra). He relied on paragraph 35 of the said judgment where the Supreme Court has referred to the procedure for issuance of social status certificates and observed that as a part of it, the officer concerned should also verify, whether a convert has totally abjured his old faith and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document