Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
S.V. GANGAPURWALA, A.M. DHAVALE, JJ.
Kum. Pallavi D/o Dattatraya Kaletwad – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 10715 of 2012, Civil Application No. 6041 of 2013, 10027 of 2016
Decided On : 06-06-2018
Constitution Of India,1950 - Petitioners claim - candidates claim - Assistant Government Pleader for State submitted that Committee has rightly given importance to interpolation in school record of petitioners father- He placed reliance on judgment of this Court in case of Nilesh Sapkale vs Schedule Tribe Scrutiny Committee Nandurbar State of Maharashtra and others reported - It is these cases that when original school record is altered without following procedure as laid down in Code no evidentiary value can be attached to such entries which are taken in violation of procedure prescribed in that behalf- He submitted that claim of petitioner is based on validity certificates of her paternal relatives who had obtained their validity certificates on basis of validity of Madhav Ramji who is not related to them- Madhav Ramji had also obtained validity on basis of certificate of a person who is not related to him –Held order we find that there is huge growth in persons belonging to scheduled tribe or caste showing that persons from general caste or OBC are trying to secure false certificates of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for better opportunities in employment- Scrutiny Committee should be very diligent and follow proper procedure- Court notice that claimants are bound to disclose in their applications entire genealogical tree known to them but as found in present cases it is commonly found that only partial genealogy trees are shown or no genealogy tree is filed by claimant at time of application- genealogy of some branches is left open for subsequent manipulation- In cases referred no genealogy of Chander was shown in some proceedings and subsequently genealogy was conveniently developed- Court hold that Scrutiny Committee should insist for a complete genealogical tree with a declaration that no further relatives of same genealogy are known to petitioner- Once such complete genealogical tree is filed it subject to verification by Vigilance Officer and it shall not be permissible for claimant to subsequently come with a new plea that certain persons not shown in genealogical tree are their paternal relatives and they have obtained validity certificates claimants can claim benefits of validity certificates issued in name of only those persons as their paternal relatives in genealogical tree which has been subjected to verification by Vigilance Committee and is found to be correct by Vigilance Officer With observations as above court set aside order of Scrutiny Committee and direct Committee to again consider tribe claim of petitioner after verifying validity of her paternal relatives and giving due importance to such validity if found to be correct directed to issue notices to paternal relatives of petitioner descendants of Budhaji referred to herein above as to why validation proceedings in their cases shall not be reopened and after giving them due opportunity to explain anomalies herein above shall take decision whether their cases should be reopened or not- He shall take decision in respect of petitioner herein on basis of decision regarding validity of certificates issued to paternal relatives of petitioner - Petition disposed
A. M. DHAVALE, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties and taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.
2. The petitioner assails the order of respondent No. 2 the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee Aurangabad, whereby the petitioner's claim for Scheduled Tribe (Mannerwarlu) was invalidated by Judgment dt. 30.11.2012.
3. The petitioner was a minor girl, who had obtained admission to M.B.B.S. course in respondent No.3 College at Amravati governed by respondent No. 4 Health University, Nashik, on the basis of her tribe claim as Mannervarlu in 2012. Her claim for Scheduled Tribe was duly forwarded for verification to respondent No. 2-Committee. Meanwhile, she was protected, however, later on, her claim came to be invalidated.
4. Shri. S. M. Vibhute, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner's claim was supported by following facts.
(i) There is validity certificate in favour of the petitioner's father's cousin Balaji dt. 24.06.2011 and in favour of Madhav Ramji petitioner's father's paternal cousin dt. 23.03.2006.
(ii) The caste of the petitioner, her brother and her father has been recorded as Mannerwarlu in school record and caste certificates were issued in favour of her brother and father.
(iii) Her father's caste is recorded as Mannerwarlu in his service book.
(iv) Her father's cousin Sangam Tukaram Kaletwad has obtained caste validity certificate on 06.01.2011. It was on the basis of his father's record of 1954.
(v) The report of Vigilance Cell supported the claim of the petitioner.
5. Shri. Vibhute submitted that, the learned members of Scrutiny Committee ignored the validity certificates issued in favour of close paternal relatives of the petitioner on wrong notion stating that each claim has to be considered on its own. It is settled law that, when validity certificates are issued in favour of close relatives of the petitioner from paternal side, those cannot be ignored unless there are strong grounds to take divergent view for the simple reason that the caste or tribe of a person is inherited by him from his/her parents.
6. Shri. Vibhute further submitted that, the Committee gave undue importance to the alteration in the school record of the petitioner's father. The said alteration was signed by the then Headmaster immediately and the petitioner had no role to play in the same. There is consistent record of several relatives showing that the petitioner is a member of Scheduled Tribe (Mannervarlu). Hence, the petition should be allowed and the order of Scrutiny Committee be set aside.
7. Shri. Vibhute placed reliance on Sayanna Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2010(1) ALL MR 957. In this case, addition of 'Lu' after Mannervar was not treated as interpolation at the instance of the appellant therein as the Scrutiny Committee had not taken opinion of Handwriting Expert nor compared the disputed letters with admitted one. The said alteration was not proved to be at the instance of the appellant. Mr Vibhute also argued that, in view of the urbanization and development of the persons of Scheduled Tribe, the members of Scheduled Tribe are forgetting their traits, anthropological linkages, old customs and traditions. The affinity test cannot be a litmus test.
8. Per contra, Shri. P. S. Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State, submitted that the Committee has rightly given importance to the interpolation in the school record of the petitioner's father. He placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Nilesh Sapkale vs Schedule Tribe Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar (WP No. 8354 of 2013) decided on 10.07.2017 and Vinayak s/o Narhari Kolshikwar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2008(2) MhLJ 179. It is held in these cases that, when original school record is altered with
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
