Back
2012 (1) GCD 284 (SC)
Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam &
Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar
Bharati Balkrishna Dhongade
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 10465 of 20111—Decided on 05/12/2011
Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2001 — Section 8 — Caste Certificate — Issuance of to appellant ‘Namdeo Shimpi’ Entry No. 153 in Government Notification — Not valid as rightly held by Caste Scrutiny Committee and High Court — In the State of Maharashtra, It has not been thought fit to include ‘Namdio Shimpi’ under the category of ‘Shimpi’ though same has been included in the State of Karnataka — It is well accepted that a caste may fall under the category of OBC’s in one State but the said caste may not be classified as OBC in other State — Court held that in absence of any specific evidence in support of the claim no benefit can be given to appellant.
Held :
Court is also satisfied that the said Committee has considered the distinction between the list of OBCs in the State of Karnataka and in State of Maharashtra and has taken note of the fact that though the Karnataka State has thought it fit to include ‘Namdeo Shimpi’ under the category of ‘Shimpi’ (OBC), the Government of Maharashtra has not done so. This has also been rightly highlighted in the impugned order by the Division Bench of the High Court. [Para 15]
When it is not so expressly or specifically included in the Government Resolution/order along with the main caste, in such case, even if it is synonymous to the one mentioned in the order, it is not permissible to avail such benefit of reservation. It is well known that a caste may fall under the category of OBCs in one State, but the said caste may not be classified as OBC in other State. At any rate, Court is of the view that no specific evidence was led by the appellant to discharge the burden of proof on her under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2001. Inasmuch as the burden of proof under Section 8 of the said Act being on the person who claims to belong to that caste, tribe, or class, in view of the factual conclusion by the Committee based on relevant acceptable material and the decision of the Division Bench, we are unable to accept the claim of the appellant.
Court is satisfied that the Committee and the Division Bench of the High Court have considered the entire material in the light of the decisions of this Court and came to a finding of fact that the appellant does not belong to caste ‘Shimpi’ (OBC) and belongs to ‘Namdeo Shimpi’ caste which is not OBC in the State of Maharashtra. [Para 16]
Law Laid Down :
A caste may fall under the category of OBC in one State but the same caste may not be classified as such in other State.
P. Sathasivam, J.—Leave granted.
2. The principal question which arose for consideration in this appeal is whether “Namdeo Shimpi” caste is a sub-caste within the meaning of Entry 153 (Shimpi) in the Government Notification notifying list of Other Backward Classes (OBC) relating to the State of Maharashtra, even though it is not specifically mentioned as such?
3. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 21.10.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 5772 of 2009 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.
4. Brief Facts:
(a) On 18.01.1997, the Additional District Deputy Collector, Mumbai Suburban District, Mumbai issued a Caste Certificate to the appellant herein certifying that she belongs to Hindu Shimpi Caste which is recognized as Other Backward Class (Sr. No. 153) under Government Resolution No. CBC 1467/M dated 13.10.1967, Education and Social Welfare Department and as amended from time to time. In the year 2007, the appellant herein along with Mrs. Safia Parveen Abdul Munaf- Respondent No. 6 contested the elections of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai from Ward No. 62 reserved for women candidate belonging to the other backward classes and the appellant won the election. As per the policy of the State Election Commission, the Caste Certificate of the appellant herein was sent to the Scrutiny Committee to scrutinize the caste claimed and issue of validity certificate.
(b) After the elections, Respondent No. 6 forwarded a complaint to the Caste Scrutiny Committee (in short ‘the Committee’) alleging that the appellant’s claim of belonging to caste “Hindu Shimpi” was not proper. The appellant herein also submitted the documents in support of her claim. By order dated 20.04.2007, the Committee certified that the Caste Certificate issued to the appellant was valid and accepted that she belongs to ‘Shimpi’ of Other Backward Class (OBC).
(c) Challenging the said order, Respondent No. 6 filed Writ Petition No. 5112 of 2007 before the High Court of Bombay. By order dated 15.09.2008, the High Court set aside the order dated 20.04.2007 passed by the Committee and remanded the matter back to it for de novo consideration and decision in accordance with law. By order dated 19.06.2009, the Committee declared the claim of the appellant herein as invalid and cancelled the Caste Certificate issued to her.
(d) Aggrieved by the order dated 19.06.2009, the appellant herein filed Writ Petition No. 5772 of 2009 before the High Court of Bombay. By order dated 21.10.2010, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
(e) Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant herein has preferred this appeal by way of special leave petition before this Court.
5. Heard Mr. L. Nageswara Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Mr. S. Sukumaran, learned Counsel for respondent No.5 and Mr. A.V. Sawant, learned Senior Counsel for the contesting respondent No.6.
6. Mr. Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant by drawing our attention to the Government Resolution dated 03.06.1996 issued by Social Welfare, Cultural Affairs and Sports Department, Government of Maharashtra, submitted that in view of illustration given in Clause 25, the Committee and the High Court ought to have accepted the claim of the appellant and declared that she belongs to ‘Namdeo Shimpi’, which is one of the castes included in Other Backward Classes (OBCs). In the above-mentioned Government Resolution, Clauses 25 and 31 have been pressed into service. They are as follows:
“Clause 25
If in the list of O.B.C.’s if there is a clear reference of the main caste, the competent authorities should issue caste certificate to the sub-caste or the similar caste of the main caste i.e., in the list of list of O.B.Cs’ caste Kunbi is included. If in the documents of any person the word used
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
