Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
R.D. DHANUKA, S.G. MEHARE, JJ.
Rajanna Ganganna Rashalawar - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Social Welfare Department & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 9595 of 2016
Decided On : 16-03-2022
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Service Matter - Post of Assistant Teacher - Petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in respondent no.3 department - Appointment was not reserved against seat reserved for scheduled caste category - Caste claim of petitioner was however forwarded to the scrutiny committee for verification in year 2013 - Before scrutiny committee, petitioner submitted all available documents in support of his claim - It is case of petitioner that as forefathers of petitioner were illiterate and the petitioner and his brother are the only two members who entered into school, old school record of forefathers of petitioner was not available - Petitioner submitted his primary school record which pertains - Caste certificate issued by Sub-Divisional Officer indicates that petitioner belongs to Madgi Caste – Held, It is specific case of the petitioner that petitioner and his brother were first to enter the school for education - Forefathers of petitioner were illiterate and never visited school and thus there was no possibility of producing any document prior to independence. Though the claim of the petitioner was referred to vigilance committee, vigilance committee did not produce any material contrary to or adverse to the interest of petitioner - Petitioner allowed.
JUDGMENT :
R.D. Dhanuka, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives service for the respondent nos.1 and 2. Learned counsel waives for respondent nos.3 and 4.
2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 12.05.2016 passed on 06.08.2016 by the respondent no.2 - Scrutiny Committee invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner. The petitioner also seeks declaration that the petitioner belongs to “Madgi” Scheduled Caste.
3. The petitioner is the resident of Village Bellori in Taluka Kinwat District Nanded. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner belongs to Madgi Scheduled Caste which is notified at serial no.35 in the list of Presidential Notification.
4. On 15.05.1987 and 09.09.2004, the Tahsildar Kinwat issued a caste certificate certifying that the petitioner belongs to Madgi Scheduled Caste. The petitioner however was required to obtain caste certificate in proper format. The Sub-Divisional Officer issued a caste certificate to the petitioner on 09.09.2004 accordingly.
5. On 29.06.1998, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in respondent no.3 department. The said appointment was not reserved against the seat reserved for the scheduled caste category. The caste claim of the petitioner was however forwarded to the scrutiny committee for verification in the year 2013. Before the scrutiny committee, the petitioner submitted all the available documents in support of his claim. It is the case of the petitioner that as the forefathers of the petitioner were illiterate and the petitioner and his brother are the only two members who entered into school, the old school record of the forefathers of the petitioner was not available. The petitioner submitted his primary school record which pertains to the year 1980. The caste certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer indicates that the petitioner belongs to Madgi Caste.
6. The scrutiny committee referred the claim of the petitioner for vigilance enquiry. The vigilance officer after verifying the school record of the petitioner, his brother and son found the school record of the petitioner as correct. The vigilance officer also recorded the statement of villagers and recorded the trade tradition and customs followed by the petitioner. Pursuant to the report submitted by the vigilance committee, the scrutiny committee issued a show cause notice upon the petitioner. The petitioner responded to the said show cause notice and clearly stated that the record for the period prior to 1950 were not available due to the illiteracy of the forefather of the petitioner.
7. The scrutiny committee by the impugned order dated 12.05.2016 issued on 06.08.2016 invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner on two grounds i.e. (i) the petitioner has not produced any documents proving the caste claim of the petitioner prior to 10.08.1950 and (ii) the documents produced by the petitioner were pertaining to the period post 10.08.1950.
8. Mr. Bayas, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Mahesh Pralhadrao Lad Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2009 (2) Mh.L.J. 90 and in particular paragraph nos.2, 4, 8 and 9. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and others, (2012) 1 SCC 113 and in particular paragraph no.22, in support of his submission that even if the applicant is unable to produce any documents prior to pre-constitution, the claim for caste claim cannot be rejected on that ground.
9. It is submitted by the learned counsel that there is no adverse record available to deny the caste claim of the petitioner.
10. The learned AGP for the State on the other hand submits that the petitioner did not produce any document prior to 10.08.1950. The scrutiny committee was thus
The probative value of pre-Constitutional documents and the priority of documentary evidence over the affinity test in determining caste claims.
Scrutiny Committees must accurately interpret documents without multiplying entries or ignoring replies to vigilance reports; perverse invalidations based on fabricated contra indications quashed wit....
The invalidation of a caste claim based on irrelevant documents violates principles concerning the consideration of pre-independence evidence in caste verification cases.
The presence of pre-constitutional documents is critical in validating caste claims, and assumptions based on circumstantial evidence, such as religious symbols, cannot override established documenta....
Post-constitutional documents showing consistent Scheduled Tribe caste cannot be discarded solely for lack of pre-constitutional evidence or date of birth variance; Scrutiny Committee must objectivel....
The importance of older documents in establishing caste claim and the need to consider the broad perspective of caste claim genuineness.
Pre-constitutional documents cannot be discarded by scrutiny committees solely for dilapidated condition or phonetic spelling variations like 'Haalbi' for 'Halbi'; phonetic similarity and family tree....
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
