The Committee must adhere to the procedure under the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, De-Notified Tribes, Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 and cannot disregard a Validity Certificate granted to a blood relation without strong reasons or evidence.

JUDGMENT :

NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The challenge in the petition is to the order dated January 31, 2022 passed by respondent No. 1-District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati. The petitioner claims to be belonging to Telangi NT-C category and has obtained the Caste Certificate dated May 27, 2011. Since the petitioner has secured employment from the said reserved category, her claim was forwarded by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 vide communication dated 02-2-2021.

3. The Telangi to which the petitioner claims to be belonging is included in the NT-C category as per the Notification issued by the State Government on November 21, 1961 is not a fact in dispute.

4. The Committee rejected the claim of the petitioner for issuance of validity though her brother namely Bharat Mohan Shivpure holds a validity. As such the petitioner preferred this petition.

5. The contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. P.A. Kadu are that once the brother of the petitioner was granted a validity, that too after following due process as prescribed under Rule 17 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 Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) it is not open for respondent No. 1-Committee to seat in an appeal over the decision of the other Committee who has granted validity in favour of her brother and reject the claim.

6. Apart from above, he has drawn support from the judgment of this Court in the case of Apoorva D/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 1 and Others, 2010 (6) Mh. L.J. 401 wherein the law is laid down that in case if a blood relation is granted the validity, same will have direct bearing over the claim for issuance of validity in relation to other blood relations.

7. As against above, the learned Assistant Government Pleader would urge that the Committee was sensitive about the validity being granted in favour of the bother of the petitioner namely Bharat S/o Mohan Shivpure. According to her, the Committee has perused the file containing the documents in relation to grant of validity in favour of the brother of the petitioner namely Bharat S/o Mohan Shivpure and has noticed that the Vigilance Cell has not conducted a proper enquiry in the matter, still the validity was granted.

8. As such she would urge that the order of the Committee cannot be faulted with particularly when the Committee vide reasoned order has rejected the claim of the petitioner.

9. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 would submit that in the facts and circumstances, the Court may pass an appropriate order in the matter.

10. We have delved upon the controversy in the petition based on the rival submissions.

11. The fact remains that vide impugned order dated January 31, 2022 the claim of the petitioner as that of belonging to Telangi NT-C category came to be rejected.

12. In support of the claim for issuance of such validity the petitioner has relied on document in the matter of the issuance of validity in favour of Bharat S/o Mohan Shivpure, the elder brother of the petitioner. The said validity was issued on September 8, 2011, which was duly produced by the petitioner along with her application for grant of validity.

13. Once the claim for validity is received by the Committee, the Committee is required to follow a procedure as laid down in Rule 17 of the Rules.

14. Rule 16 of the Rules contemplates the information to be supplied by the candidate like the applicant or her brother so as to substantiate the claim for issuance of validity. The Committee thereafter is required to follow the procedure laid down in Rule 17 of the Rules. The Committee is thereafter required to maintain the roznama as to the transactions of that day in relation to