Writ Petition No. 07279 of 2011

25th March 2019

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. Suresh M. Kulkarni
Respondent Counsel: Mr. S.M. Ganachari Mrs. Ranjana Reddy
Act Name: 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 Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003

HeadLine : Caste claim – Relevance of validity certificates of near relatives – Unless issued by mistake or otherwise, such documents cannot be discarded.

Section :
Section 6 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

Cases Cited :

JUDGEMENT

Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing with the consent of learned Advocates appearing for respective parties.

2. Present writ petition has been filed for issuing writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction in the like nature to quash order dated 28­03­2011 passed by respondent no.02 ­ Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar (hereinafter referred to as "the Committee") and also for issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the nature of the tribe claim of the petitioner as belonging to "Tokre Koli", Scheduled Tribe and directing the Committee to issue validity certificate to the petitioner.

3. The petitioner has come with a case that he is selected as a Conductor (Junior) of the respondent no.03. However, respondent no.02 ­ Committee has invalidated his caste claim. The petitioner belongs to Tokre Koli, which is included in the Scheduled Tribe category at entry no.28 of the Presidential list. He was selected as against a seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe category. Thereafter, respondent no.03 had referred his tribe claim to the Committee for validation. He had filed 29 documents to support his claim before the Committee which was included validity certificate which was held to be correct by this Court in respect of his cousin Shamkant. Further, his another cousin Manohar's claim was also validated. His cousin grandfather Kautik's claim was also validated and in the affidavit, the petitioner had communicated the relationship. A detailed report of the Research Officer from Vigilance Cell showed that the information that was supplied by the petitioner was satisfactory. That information would reveal that the petitioner belongs to Tokre Koli community. However, the Committee failed to appreciate the value of the validity certificates and unnecessarily brushed aside the evidence rejecting the claim of the petitioner. By way of amendment, it has been contended that the Committee has not examined the parents of the petitioner on the point of mutual affinity as required under Rule 12(v) of the Rules of 2001. This Court in certain matters has quashed the orders of the Committee after noticing that they are in violation of Rule 12(iv). The matters were remitted to the Committee for fresh disposal. The rule of area restriction is not applicable taking into consideration the fact that since many generations, the petitioner's family is residing at the given place. The jurisdiction was vested with the Committee to consider thorough enquiry and, therefore, the order passed by the Committee on 28­03­2011, refusing the claim of the petitioner is illegal.

4. Perusal of the documents would show that the present petitioner was appointed as Conductor with respondent no.03 and he was then asked to submit certain documents. His appointment was conditional i.e. subject to validation of his claim regarding Scheduled Tribe. It appears that he was selected from a reserved seat for Scheduled Tribe. He produced the caste certificate as well as school leaving certificate. A detailed affidavit of himself giving the history as well as the relationship or family tree including the fact that about 3 ­ 4 persons from his family have got validation certificate in respect of caste claim as Tokre Koli. He had also produced affidavits of his those relatives whose caste validity was upheld along with the validity certificate issued by the respective Scrutiny Committee. It appears that two of his relatives got certificate of validity from Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik Division. It appears that in all 29 documents were submitted which also included the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 383 of 1994, dated 03­02­ 1994. It was the proceedings filed by Shamkant Vasant Baviskar, who as per the family tree given, is the cousin brother of the petitioner. Perusal of the order would show that the claim of the petitioner therein i.e. Shamkant, that he belongs to Tokre Koli, was upheld by this Court. Perusal of the order passed by respondent no.02 ­ Committee would show that documents were considered by the Committee, so also, the report produced by the Vigilance Cell, still the claim of the petitioner was rejected, especially on the ground that though caste validation certificates have been issued to the relatives of the petitioner, each case of the claimant is required to be considered separately. No doubt, certain documents on record showed entry regarding caste of the petitioner as Hindu Koli, Suryawanshi Koli and, therefore, it was taken not as Tokre Koli. Perusal of the impugned order would also show that no serious objection was taken by the Vigilance Cell. No overwriting or erasers or misrepresentation was found. Based upon these documents and after reading the impugned order, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the Committee has taken a wrong approach. Merely because certain documents show that the petitioner is Hindu Koli or Suryawanshi Koli, the Committee refused to accept petitioner as belonging to Tokre Koli.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents no.01 & 02 and learned Advocate for respondent no.03 have supported the reasons given by the Committee.

6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties and after going through the impugned order, we are of the opinion that the impugned order is based on misreading of the documents and so also on wrong notion that the caste validity certificates of the relatives of the petitioner are not required to be considered. Some decisions of the Apex Court or this Court have been referred, but it appears that they are out of context and latest legal position appears to have been not considered at all. It appears that even the decision in Raju Ramsing Vasave Vs. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar & others [(2008) 9 SCC 54] appears to be misread, under which circumstance, it was observed that only because by mistake or otherwise, a member of his family had been declared to be belonging to be a member of Scheduled Tribe, the same by itself would not be conclusive in nature so as to bind another Committee while examining the case of other members of the family in detail. What has been missed by the Committee is that if the validity certificate has been obtained by mistake or otherwise, then only the facts are required to be re­considered. But otherwise, the general proposition that the Committee will not discard the caste claim and validity of the near relative of the applicant, when it is relied upon. Here in this case, this Court by a judicial order had allowed the petition and directed the Committee in that case to issue certificate to Shamkant and the family tree that has been given in the affidavit of the petitioner shows that Shamkant can be said to be a near relative of the petitioner. Shamkant was the grandson of great grandfather of the petitioner and both the branches of the family had common ancestor by name, Kachru Abaji Koli. Out of the said family tree, validity certificate has been granted to Manohar, Murlidhar and at the cost of repetition, Shamkant, whose petition was allowed by this Court. When there were three instances in the house itself, stating that the family belong to Tokre Koli community, then the claim of the petitioner ought not to have been simply discarded.

7. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied on the decision by this Court in Omkar s/o. Kailas Kamble Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others, Writ Petition No. 10392 of 2017, dated 27­09­2017, wherein this Court relying on the decisions in (1) Raju Ramsing Vasave Vs. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar & others (supra), (2) Devika S. Gangawane Vs. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No.7305 of 2014, dated 27­01­2015), (3) Mohammad Munaf Mohammad Hanif Bedre & others Vs. State of Maharashtra & others (Writ Petition No.6614 of 2016, decided on 19­ 07­2016), (4) Apoorva d/o. Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee & others (2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401), has observed that, "The principle of law which can be culled out from these judgments is that in the absence of any fraud, misrepresentation, order being without jurisdiction or there is ignorance of any vital document while granting previous validation certificate, the validity certificates of the near relatives of the claimant cannot be discarded."

8. The validity certificates granted to Shamkant, Murlidhar and Manohar have become final and, therefore, they ought to have been considered by respondent no.02 ­ Committee. Further, other reasons given for discarding the claim appear to be artificial. The Committee has not considered which documents should be given more importance than the other. The caste validation certificate issued by a competent authority is always on higher side as compared to the extracts of school general registers. Definitely, this Court while allowing the petition filed by Shamkant had considered the family history which was taken in the vigilance report. Further, the Committee which issued validity certificates to Manohar and Murlidhar has also followed proper procedure. Therefore, these documents ought to have been given more importance than the other documents on the basis of which these important documents have been discarded.

9. In the circumstances, in the absence of valid reasons for discarding said validation certificates of the petitioner's near relatives, the impugned order passed by the Committee cannot be sustained and, therefore, it is liable to be quashed and set aside.

10. Hence, the following order :­
(a) The writ petition is allowed.
(b) The impugned order dated 28­03­2011 [Exhibit "E"] passed by respondent no.02 ­ Committee is hereby quashed and set aside.
(c) Respondent no.02 ­ Committee is directed to issue tribe validation certificate, as belonging to "Tokre Koli", Scheduled Tribe, to the petitioner, forthwith.
(d) Rule made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

Petition allowed