Back
2007 Supreme(Guj) 582
2008 (2) GCD 1131 (Guj)
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.K. Rathod
Savitaben Hirabhai Patilya
Versus
State of Gujarat and Ors.
Special Civil Application No. 9586 of 2007—Decided on 24/09/2007
Appearance :
Mr. Dhaval D. Vyas, for the Petitioner No. 1.
Mr. Vinay Pandya, AGP for the Respondent No. 1.
Mr. U. M. Shastri, for the Respondent No. 3.
Decided in Favour of :
Respondent
Petition Dismissed
Headnote:Subject :
Service and Employments — Scrutiny Committee — Power of — Scope — Natural Justice.
Point in Issue :
Service and Employments — Scrutiny Committee — Power of — Scope.
Head Note :
Service and Employment — Scrutiny Committee — Power of — Scope — Scrutiny Committee has power to examine to issue if it is raised before the Committee and Committee has power to appreciate the evidence not same of Court — Provisions of Evidence Act is not applicable to procedure adopted by Scrutiny Committee — High Court cannot act as appellate Court where after all it is clear case of fact finding and finding based on documents.
Held :
Scrutiny committed has power to examine the issue if it is raised before the Committee and committee has power to appreciate the evidence not same of the Court or provision of the Evidence Act is not applicable to the process of the committee procedure adopted by the Scrutiny Committee while examining the issue whether she is belonged to Schedule Tribe or not. 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. [Para 10]
H.K. Rathod, J.—Heard Shri Dhaval D. Vyas, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Shri Vinay Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by Commissioner, Schedule Tribe Development Department, Gandhinagar dated 28.03.2007 where Caste Certificate dated 30.06.1987 and 04.09.1987 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 28.03.2007 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 8.09.1990. 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 4.09.1987 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 8.09.1990 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 08.09.1990. For that purpose, District Collector, Panchmahal sent the report on 16.02.2004. 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 04.04.1961, the same is cancelled vide Review Order 12.02.2004 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 11.08.2004 also suggests that petitioner is belonged to Hindu Schedule Tribe. After considering the
