The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to consider all relevant evidence, including newly obtained documents, in caste determination proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

S. S. SHINDE, J

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. By way of this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 04/04/2016 passed by Respondent No.2 herein i.e. the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.3, Mumbai by which order Respondent No.2-Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee has invalidated and cancelled the caste certificate of the Petitioner as belonging to Vankar Scheduled Caste, issued to the Petitioner by Respondent No.4 dated 29/08/1986, with further direction to Respondent No.2 to consider the caste claim of the Petitioner de-novo. The Petitioner also seeks to challenge the order dated 18/08/2017 passed by Respondent No.3 terminating the services of Petitioner.

3. The factual matrix involved in this Petition, can in brief be stated thus:-

The Petitioner claims to be belonging to Vankar Caste which is recognized as Scheduled Caste in the State of Maharashtra. Her caste certificate was invalidated and cancelled by Respondent No.2 Committee on the ground that the Petitioner failed to prove her residence in the State of Maharashtra prior to 10/08/1950. It is the case of the Petitioner that she came to be appointed on the post of Trained Teacher at the hands of Respondent No.3 Corporation on 22/01/1990. Respondent No.4 has granted caste certificate to the Petitioner as belonging to Vankar, Scheduled Caste. It is further the case of the Petitioner that she originally hails from Taredi village which comes in Bhavanagar District in Gujarat State, however, the ancestrals of the Petitioner has been residing in the State of Maharashtra prior to 1950. Her father was born at village Taredi in Bhavanagar District of Gujarat State on 09/10/1944 and he left the school on 01/05/1967. Thereafter her father shifted to the State of Maharashtra for residing permanently in the State of Maharashtra. In the school leaving certificate of her father, religion of her father is mentioned as Hindu Harijan. The Petitioner was also born at village Taredi on 15/02/1965 and her school leaving certificate her caste is recorded as Harijan Vankar. The cousin grandfather namely Desa Arjun Bariya was the resident of State of Maharashtra prior to 10/08/1950 and he was working with Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation since 01/08/1949. According to the Petitioner she obtained caste certificate from Respondent No.4 by producing all the necessary documents on 29/08/1986. Thereafter she came to be appointed as Trained Teacher on the establishment of Respondent No.3 Corporation on 22/01/1990. The Respondent No.3 Corporation forwarded the caste certificate of the Petitioner along with necessary documents filed by the Petitioner in support of her claim to Respondent No.2 for verification. Respondent No.2 forwarded the case of the Petitioner to vigilance cell for enquiry. According to the Petitioner, the vigilance cell officer without visiting the place of residence of the Petitioner and recording statements of persons from the locality simply recorded the statement of the Petitioner by calling the petitioner in his office. The vigilance cell submitted its report to Respondent No.2. Thereafter Respondent No.2 issued show cause notice to the Petitioner with direction to file reply on enquiry report. On 01/12/2015, the Petitioner filed her reply along with genealogy tree and documents. However, Respondent No.2 without considering the documentary evidence in support of the Petitioner’s caste claim invalidated and cancelled the caste certificate of the Petitioner by the impugned order dated 04/04/2016. In view of the impugned order, Respondent No.3 issued show cause notice to the Petitioner on 24/05/2016 as to why her services should not be terminated. On 26/05/2016 the Petitioner filed a short reply to the said show cause notice and requested Respondent No.3 not to take any adverse action as she is going