JUDGMENT (PER F.I. REBELLO, J.)

1. Rule. Heard forthwith.

2. By its order dated 8th April, 2008 the petitioner’s claim as belonging to Rajput Bhamta was rejected by the Scrutiny Committee No.1, Aurangabad based on the following conclusions:-

A) The caste Rajput Bhamta (Vikmukta Jati) claimed by the candidate is declared vide Government Resolution dated 21-11-1961. Therefore, the candidate ought to have produced the pre-21/11/1961 documents. However, the candidate did not produce any school or revenue record of pre-21/11/1961 in spite of sufficient opportunities.

(B) The documents which have been produced by the candidate are of recent period and are of the period after declaration of Rajput Bhamta caste by the government. There is no proper entries about the caste in the school record of father and uncle of the candidate though they are literate.

(C) In spite of proper opportunities given to the candidate, the candidate did not produce any school or revenue record, of the period of prior to the declaration of caste Rajput Bhamta (Vimukta Jati) by government, in which the caste is recorded."

3. The petitioner herein by his application dated 10th March, 2008 had placed before the Committee the case of Kum. Yogita Sopan Kachave, who had been issued caste validity certificate. The petitioner pointed out that in the case of Kum. Yogita Sopan Kachave the Committee had accepted the caste validity certificate of son of his aunt. The petitioner in the instant case had produced the caste validity certificate dated 8th August, 1997 of the petitioner’s brother which is shown as Entry No.7. This was produced in the context of Government Resolution dated 22nd August, 2007, which are guide-lines for caste certificate/verification of caste claims of Scheduled Caste, Vimukta Jati, Nomadic Tribe, Other Backward Class and Special Backward Class candidates. The relevant portion of Government Resolution reads as under:-

"At the time of scrutiny of caste certificate/verification of caste claim of the person belonging to Scheduled Caste, Vimukta Jati, Nomadic Tribe, Other Backward Class and Special Backward Class, if they possess the validity certificate (Validity certificate issued by appropriate authority) in favour of family relatives in blood relation e.g. father, real brother/sister in their family (father’s genealogy with blood relation) and if other family members (family members in blood relations e.g. father, son, daughter, brother, sister) submitted caste claim placing reliance on said certificate, then at the time of issuance of validity certificate no other documents be asked to produce and after receipt of such claim, the committee should take decision within one month on the same." . The Committee inspite of the documentary evidence which was produced and the report of the Vigilance enquiry in the form of home and school enquiry, as also enquiry into the traits, characteristics and customs as to whether the petitioner belongs to Rajput Bhamta Vimukta Jati, rejected the claim of the petitioner.

4. In this context the following questions require consideration:- (i) Whether the impugned order invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner did not produce pre-1961 document can be sustained in law or is it illegal, arbitrary and/or suffers from total non-application of mind and violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court and statutory provisions? (ii) Whether the Government Resolution dated 22nd August, 2007 is binding on the committee and if binding to what extent would the committee be bound?

5. In Kum. Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, A.I.R. 1995 S.C.94 the Supreme Court was considering the probative value of entries in the school register preceding the Constitution the Court noted that in terms of the th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document