Scrutiny Committees must accurately interpret documents without multiplying entries or ignoring replies to vigilance reports; perverse invalidations based on fabricated contra indications quashed with deterrent costs.

JUDGMENT :

NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner belongs to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe and, therefore, his claim for validation was forwarded to the Scrutiny Committee along with necessary documents for the purpose of verification. On 29.6.2019 the Police Vigilance Report came to be submitted in case of the petitioner and on 30.7.2018 the Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner.

3. Being aggrieved by the said invalidation, the petitioner chose to challenge the same by filing a Writ Petition before this Court in Writ Petition No.909/2021. On 14.11.2022 this Court quashed and set aside the invalidation order and sent back the matter to the Scrutiny Committee for deciding the caste claim of the petitioner afresh. After remand, on 26.4.2023 a fresh Police vigilance report came to be submitted and on 20^th June, 2023, the petitioner submitted his reply to the said vigilance report. Thereafter, on 19.7.2023, the Scrutiny Committee again invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner. This order is assailed in the present petition on various grounds.

4. We have heard Ms. Preeti Rane, leaned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.V. Narale, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner by taking us through the record of the Scrutiny Committee submits that the Scrutiny Committee has gravely failed in validating the caste claim of the petitioner without considering the oldest and relevant documents. She further submits that the finding of the Scrutiny Committee regarding the documents of the year 1892 to 1896 that the said document is not a conclusive proof because of some alleged contra entries regarding the caste of the forefathers as ‘Kunbi’ is erroneous since it does not consider the reply to the vigilance report in which the petitioner has specifically denied the relationship. It is her further submission that as far as affinity test is concerned, a detailed reply was also filed to the same, which is also not considered. It is her submission that the entire exercise has been done with a pre-determined mind to reject the caste claim. She further submits that the validity certificate granted to her real brother has not also been considered by the Scrutiny Committee, which was a decisive factor.

6. Per contra, Mr. S.V. Narale, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent supports the finding of the Scrutiny Committee. He submits that high reliance was placed by the petitioner on land record of the year 1892 to 1896, but it was found in the vigilance inquiry that the caste of ‘Ziblya Shama Mana’ was recorded as ‘Kunbi’ which fact is suppressed by the petitioner. He further submits that there are various contra entries which records caste as ‘Kunbi Mana’, ‘Mani Kunbi Hindu’, and ‘Mani Kunbi’. Thus, the caste claim, in view of the said various contra entries, is suspicious and, therefore, no conclusive findings could have been reached by the Scrutiny Committee. He further submits the document of school leaving certificate of the petitioner cousin great grand-father Shankar Zibal shows caste as ‘Mana’, but the school register shows otherwise. He, therefore, supports the impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee.

7. We have carefully perused the record of the matter and also considered the submissions advan