Back
2007 Supreme(Guj) 579
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :H.K.RATHOD
SAVITABEN HIRABHAI PATILYA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION 9586 Of 2007
Decided On : 09/24/2007
Headnote:Point in Issue :
Whether caste certificates issued in favour of petitioner that she belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community is sustainable?
Head Note :
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Caste certificate - Setting aside by Scrutiny Committee - Order of - Validity - Finding as to - Petitioner contended that while setting aside the caste certificate of Scheduled Tribe in her favour Scrutiny Committee gave no reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also did not supply documents relied up to petitioner therefore, order is not sustainable and liable to be set aside - In the facts specially looking to the averments made in order contention is totally incorrect - The Scrutiny Committee has given sufficient opportunity and according to its opinion it was more than that and detailed representations were made periodically - Ultimately when petitioner failed to satisfy the Committee in absence of concrete and unimpeachable evidence to support petitioners claim that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe Committee passed the orders setting aside two certificates showing that the petitioners belong to Scheduled Tribe Community - The Court cannot act as Appellate Court where all it is clear case of fact finding and the finding is based on documents.
Held :
The contention raised by learned Advocate Shri Vyas that no opportunity was given to the petitioner is totally incorrect looking to the averments made in the order. The Scrutiny Committee has given sufficient opportunity and according the opinion of Scrutiny Committee it was more than that and detailed representations were made periodically before the Scrutiny Committee by the petitioner but ultimately petitioner failed to satisfy scrutiny committee and in absence of concrete and unimpeachable evidence before the committee supporting petitioner that she belongs to Schedule Tribe, stands failed, therefore, and ultimately committee has pass the orders setting aside two certificates showing that the petitioner belongs to Schedule Tribe Community. [Para 5]
This Court cannot act as Appellate Court where after all it is clear case of fact finding and the finding based on documents and this cannot act as an Appellate Authority in such circumstances, therefore, according to my opinion contention raised by Mr. Vyas that opportunity was not given to the petitioner is incorrect from the record which was considered as document by the State Government office and rightly believed by Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee has not committed any error which requires any slightest interference in such a fraud case when petitioner has failed to establish her right to be a candidate belonging to Schedule Tribe. Therefore, there is no substance in the present petition. [Para 10]
Law Laid Down :
Scrutiny Committee has power to appreciate the evidence not same of the Court or provisions of Evidence Act.
Conclusion :
The finding of Scrutiny Committee that petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Tribe is valid and based on documents therefore order called for no interference.
Cases Referred :
2007 (III) CLR 350 Bombay, 2007 (1) SCC 81;; State of Maharashtra & Ors. vs. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar & Anr., 2006 (10) Scale 575;; Bank of India & Anr. vs. Avinash D. Mandivikar & Ors., 2005 (7) SCC 690;; Ram Saran vs. I.G. of Police, CRPF & Ors., 2006 (2) Scale 131, Employees State Insurance Corporation vs. Distilleries & Chemical Mazdoor Union & Ors., 2006 (7) Scale 171;; Sandeep Subhash Parate vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2006 (8) Scale 503;; A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors. vs. Government of A.P. & Ors., 2007 (4) Scale 88;; Lazarus Estates Ltd. vs. Beasley, 1956 (1) All ER 341 = 1956 (1) QB 702 = 1956 (2) WLR 502;; The Superintendent of Post Offices & Ors. vs. R. Valasina Babu, 2007 (2) Scale 215;; State of Maharashtra & Ors. vs. Sanjay K. Nimje, 2007 (2) Scale 215;; Additional General Manager/Human Resources Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. vs. Suresh Ramkrishna Burde, 2007 (7) Scale 112;; Geeta vs. State of H.P. & Ors., 2007 (7) Scale 509.
Decided in Favour of :
Respondent
Petition Dismissed
( 2 ) IN the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by Commissioner, Schedule Tribe Development Department, Gandhinagar dated 28th March, 2007 where Caste Certificate dated 30th June, 1987 and 4th September, 1987 are set aside by Scrutiny Committee.
( 3 ) THE petitioner is working as Primary Teacher with respondent school i. e. Moral Naka Primary School of Santrampur Taluka. Learned Advocate Shri Vyas challenging the order dated 28th March 2007 submitted that no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing the aforesaid order. He also submitted that documents which have been relied upon by the Scrutiny Committee have not been supplied to the petitioner. He also submitted that there is enmity between the family members which resulted to such inquiry and therefore, Scrutiny Committee has decided against the petitioner. The petitioner is discharging her duties as Primary Teacher from 8th September, 1990. He also submitted that Scrutiny Committee has not properly considered the case of the petitioner for Caste Certificate and Scrutiny Committee has without application of mind cancelled the Caste Certificate. The affidavit in reply is filed by one Shri Anilkumar Bhamaniya, Deputy Director Tribal Development Department, Gandhinagar (Page:77 of the compilation ).
( 4 ) THE present petitioner residing at Gothibada, Tal:santrampur and where the caste from where she belongs to is mentioned in School General Register No. 340 as "hindu Schedule Tribe". Whereas as per School Leaving Certificate of Bhumanand Vidhyalaya, the Social Welfare Office of Godhra at Panchmahal vide his Certificate No. 711, issued to the petitioner on 30. 06. 1987 has mentioned the caste of the petitioner as "hindu Pateliya Schedule Tribe" and in the Certificate No. PRCH/sr/1743/87 of dated 4th September, 1987 issued by Mamlatdar of Santrampur, Dist:panchmahal, the caste of the petitioner is mentioned as Hindu Pateliya Schedule Tribe and thereafter, services of Primary Teacher was obtained by the petitioner as an "aadivasi" from 08. 09. 1990. Shri Mal Somaji Vali, Shri Mal Jotibhai Vali, residents of Suka Timba, Po:jaanvad, Tal:santrampur, Dist:panchmahal have given application on 1st September, 2003 alleging that Shri Laxmanbhai Revabhai Khant who though belongs to SEBC candidate, his wife Savitaben Haribhai Pateliya residing at Gothibada making corrections and/or erasion in the School Leaving Certificate obtained services as Primary Teacher on 8th September, 1990 at Moral Naka, Tal:santrampur, Dist:panchmahal. The allegations against the petitioner is that the petitioner is not belonged to Schedule Tribe candidate even though getting benefits of Schedule Tribe and obtained job as Primary Teacher working since 8th September, 1990. For that purpose, District Collector, Panchmahal sent the report on 16th February, 2004. wherein it is mentioned that in the School, in Government Resolution No. 340, the caste of petitioner is mentioned as Hindu Schedule Tribe but in the Government Resolution No. 309, caste of her elder brother Jayanti Hirabhai Pateliya is mentioned as Hindu Kshatriya Pateliya. In the land record of Hirbhai Jethabhai Pateliya, since there was no entry as per proceeding of 73aa as mentioned in Notification dated 4. 4. 1961, the same is cancelled vide Review Order 12th February, 2004 and the marriage and social relations of the petitioner belong from Khant, Damor, Vaagdiya Since, these are the caste belonged to SEBC, the caste of wife of the petitioner viz. Savitaben Hirabhai Pateliya is not covered by Schedule Tribe even though forging documents the certificate of the Schedule Tribe caste was obtained and to that effect the report was sent to the Competent Authority. The another report from Vigilance Officer dated 11th August, 2004 also sugges
