2014(3) ALL MR 181


Gangadhar S/O. Papanna Allamwar Vs. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee & Ors.

Review Application No. 152 of 2010,Writ Petition No. 3319 of 2009

17th July, 2013

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. S.M. VIBHUTE
Respondent Counsel: Mr. K.G. PATIL, Mr. P.S. PATIL

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 (2000), S.6 - Rejection of caste claim - Review petition - Maintainability - Applicant sought review of rejection order while placing reliance upon entries in school record - Addition or insertion in relevant entry is vivid and visible to naked eye - Several other overwritings and insertions also found therein - Entries not credible - Sole ground of review loses its foundation - Review petition dismissed - Court also deprecated tendency of filing review petition only upon unavailability of Judge deciding the case. (Paras 17, 18, 20, 21 )


A. H. JOSHI, J. :- Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard with consent of the parties.

2. We had directed the Committee to make available the record of the scrutiny of petitioner's Tribe Claim. It was accordingly produced at the time of hearing.

3. Petitioner claims that he belongs to "Mannerwarlu" Scheduled Tribe. He had secured a certificate to that effect. The Scrutiny Committee invalidated it. Petitioner challenged the judgment and order passed by the Scrutiny Committee thereby invalidating petitioner's claim that he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe Mannerwarlu.

4. This court had decided Writ Petition No. 3319 of 2009, vide judgment and order dated 15.7.2009 (Coram : V.C. Daga and A.V. Potdar,JJ).

The Division Bench concurred with the findings given by the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner had failed to prove the tribe claim during the hearing before the Scrutiny Committee.

5. In this review application, the petitioner has raised certain grounds, and has urged those during oral arguments. Those are:-

"(I) It is argued that the applicant had placed on record a copy of the extract of Accession Register of the school pertaining to Entry No. 48/1490, issued to the applicant by the Head Master and Certified true copy signed by the Block Education Officer in which applicant's caste is described as "Munerwarlu".

(II) The Scrutiny Committee had relied upon record collected by the Vigilance Cell. It pertained to the birth record of the applicant and his cousin. The copies of admission register relied upon by the Vigilance Cell and which were before the Scrutiny Committee described the applicant's tribe to be, "Munarlu"("eujyq") and the caste of Saylu Laxman Allamwar, the uncle of the applicant to be "Munerwar"("equsjokj") and the reliance by the Committee is erroneous."

6. It is evident that copy of school record about accession pertaining to the petitioner produced by the Vigilance Cell and another produced by the petitioner do differ on the point of description of Tribe. Therefore, in the course of hearing of this Review Application, this court had queried the applicant, as to whether the applicant can swear if he has seen the original school record pertaining to the admission of the applicant to vouch that the caste of the applicant mentioned in the accession register is "Munerwarlu" as is represented in the copy relied upon by the petitioner.

In response to the query put by the court, Learned Advocate for the applicant had taken instructions and sought time to file an affidavit to that effect.

7. Accordingly, an affidavit sworn by the applicant is filed before this court. In the affidavit, petitioner has stated that in the original record pertaining to the school in relation to Entry No. 48/1490, pertaining to the applicant's accession his tribe is mentioned as "Manerwarlu".

8. Upon considering the version contained in petitioner's affidavit, this court had directed the learned Assistant Government Pleader to secure the original register concerned and produce it on next date.

9. Today, during the course of hearing, learned AGP has tendered original register.

10. We have perused the original register and, particularly, Entry NO. 48/1490, pertaining to the petitioner - Allamwar Gangadhar Papanna. The register was offered for perusal to learned Advocate for the petitioner as well as to the Advocate for the Committee.

11. Learned Advocate for the petitioner maintains that the entry supports the petitioner's version and vouches for his submission and the affidavit too.

12. We have perused the register and entry concerned. Said entry No. 48/1490 contains description/narration "Mannerwarlu" ("eusjokjyw"). The "LU" ("yw")is seen in the space below the word "Maanerwar" ("ekujs okj"). It prima facie appears from the mode of writing that what was originally written, was Maanerwar ("ekusjokj"), and later "LU" ("yw") is an insertion.

13. Learned Special Counsel appearing for the Committee had also pointed out from the register that there are many other entries pertaining to other students in which there is either overwriting, insertion or interpolation.

14.We have perused such suspicious entries in said register flag-marked by learned Special Counsel for Committee.

15. At this stage learned Advocate for the petitioner urged that a finding as regards over-writing or fabrication needs expert opinion and the register be referred for opinion to an expert.

16. We have considered the oral request of learned Advocate for the petitioner. We have ourselves discretely examined numerous entries made in said register. The insertion of letter "LU" ("yw") is vivid and is visible to the naked eyes. Filling of the columns in the register is done in natural course. The letter "yw" would be written in continuity and entry in next column would be written in next line. Such is not the fact. Moreover, overwriting and insertion is seen as regards many more entries as regards the caste of the student concerned.

17. The credibility and worthiness of the record as original record which constitutes evidence of the entry made at the relevant time is therefore so grossly lowered that it is lost.

18. In this background sole ground of review that there is conflict of record loses its foundation.

19. We are not persuaded and convinced as regards the reasons in existence, if any, as to grounds due to which grounds now pressed before us could not be and were no resorted before the court hearing the Writ Petition.

20. We do deprecate the tendency to wait till the Hon'ble Judge who had decided the case to be unavailable, and take out the Review Application for hearing belatedly.

21. Considering all these facts, coupled with, what has been discussed hereinabove, we are satisfied that no case for review is made out.

22. The application failed to show any error apparent on the face or injustice being perpetrated. The application has no merit and deserves to be dismissed.

23. It is made clear that we have not made any observations on the applicant's prayer for protection of employment, depending upon the policy decision of the Government, if any.

At this stage, learned Advocate for applicant states that he may move the Government for such protection. We make no observation in this regard and let said question to be governed in accordance with law.

24. Review application is rejected. Rule is discharged with costs.

Application dismissed.