SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Bom) 1249

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Ravindra V. Ghuge, S.G. Mehare, JJ.
Momin Mohammad Ilyas - Appellant
Versus
Divisional Caste Certificate Verification - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3534 of 2012
Decided On : 12-08-2021

Advocates appeared:
C.K. Shinde, Advocate, U.B. Bondar, Advocate, S.B. Yawalkar, Advocate

The Court emphasized the importance of considering close relatives' validity certificates and the provisions of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste) Certificate Act, 2000 in determining caste validity.

Headnote:

Caste Validity Certificate - OBC Reservation - Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste) Certificate Act, 2000 - Rule 16(h), Explanation III - Ku.Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner Adivasi Vikas, (1995) AIR SC 94 - Mahesh Prahladrao Lad Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2009) 3 AllMR 301 - Apoorva Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others, (2010) 6 MhLJ 401

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, appointed as an 'Attendant' in the OBC category, sought a caste validity certificate. The Committee rejected his claim, leading to litigation.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the petitioner's close relatives had been granted validity certificates for the same caste. The Committee's rejection was based on flawed reasoning and ignored relevant evidence.

Issues: Validity of caste claim, interpretation of Rule 16(h) and Explanation III, reliance on close relatives' validity certificates, and the Committee's failure to consider relevant evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Committee's rejection was unjustified, considering the validity certificates of the petitioner's close relatives and the provisions of Rule 16(h) and Explanation III.

Final Decision: The impugned order was quashed, and the Committee was directed to issue the caste validity certificate for the petitioner's OBC claim, reinstating the petitioner with continuity of service benefits.

JUDGMENT

Ravindra V.Ghuge, J. - By this petition, the petitioner has put forth prayer clause B, C, BB and DD as under :-

"B. By issue of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, the impugned order dated 23.02.2012, passed by the respondent No.1- the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad may kindly be quashed and set aside and it be declared that, the petitioner belongs to Momin-OBC and accordingly, the Committee be directed to issue caste validity certificate of being Momin-OBC to the petitioner.

C. Pending hearing and final disposal of the petition, the operation and effect of the impugned order dated 8.2.2012, passed by respondent No.1- Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny and Verification Committee No.1, Aurangabad and issued on 23.2.2012, may kindly be stayed.

BB. The impugned order dated 18.4.2012 issued by the respondent No.2, thereby directing removal from services of the petitioner from Zilla Parishad as Attendant may kindly be quashed and set aside. DD. Pending hearing and final disposal of the writ petition, the impugned order dated 18.4.2012, issued by the respondent No.2, thereby removing the petitioner from Zilla Parishad services as Attendant may kindly be stayed."

2. The petitioner was appointed as an "Attendant" in the class IV category on a post reserved for the OBC candidates, on 26/02/2009. On 14/08/2009, his caste claim was referred by his employer to the competent scrutiny committee. The petitioner had tendered his caste certificate dated 27/05/1996 showing that he belongs to the Momin caste, which is recognized as OBC. During the course of the proceedings before the Committee, the petitioner appeared and produced the documents relating to the school records of his grand father, father, and uncle. The caste validity certificate issued on 28/06/1994 to the real brother of the petitioner namely Mohd.Riyaz, was also produced. Documents prior to 1967 were also placed on record to establish that the Momin Caste falls in the OBC category.

3. The petitioner submits that he had then produced the school admission extract of his real cousin grand father Amiroddin Balesab Momin which shows the caste entry as Momin-OBC. The school admission extract of his real cousin grand father Karimoddin Balesab Momin, also indicates his caste entry as Momin OBC.

4. As the petitioner's caste validity claim was turned down by the competent committee vide the impugned order dated 22/02/2012, he approached this Court by filing this petition setting out the above reproduced prayer clauses. By the first order dated 24/04/2012 passed by this Court, the employment of the petitioner was protected. Vide order dated 09/05/2012, this Court noted that after this Court had passed the ad-interim order earlier, the petitioner had been terminated and thereafter the ad-interim order was served on the respondent. By further interim protection, this Court directed that no adverse action should be taken against the petitioner and by granting ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause DD, the petitioner was reinstated in service. By an order dated 13/08/2012, the petition was admitted and interim relief was continued.

5. The petitioner relies upon Rule 16(h) to contend that amongst the various documents that the petitioner has to supply to the competent Committee for inviting a decision on his claim, he is bound to produce the attested copy of the decision of the scrutiny committee and of the validity certificate of his father or blood relations or real uncle or any other relative of the applicant in blood relation from the paternal side.

6. The petitioner then relies upon explanation III below Rule 16 which reads as under :-

"(3) If an applicant submits the application alongwith the caste validity certificate of his father in blood relation or real uncle or any other blood relative from paternal side and if he has applied for the same caste of which above mentioned validity certificate is issued, in s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top