AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned Senior Counsel Shri A.S.Mardikar for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri V.A.Thakare for respondents. Rule.
The petitioner claiming to be “Halba Scheduled Tribe” is serving as “Lower Division Clerk” in the office of The Superintendent of Police, Nagpur. As per contentions, in her school record, her caste was recorded as “Halba,” which is included at serial No.19 in the list of Scheduled Tribes in the Maharashtra State in Schedule of Presidential Order No.108 of 1976. She was appointed on a reserved post on 29.3.1997. Her appointment was subject to production of Caste Validity Certificate. She was granted caste certificate on 8.8.1988. Her caste claim was forwarded for validation by her office. As per contentions, she has forwarded all documents showing that she as well as other family members, i.e. her cousins Tarabai Mahadev Binekar, Parvati Pandurang Binekar, her sister Shanta Bapurao Binekar, were recorded as “Halbi.” Thus, there are consistent entries showing her as well as her family members as “Halbi.” However, respondent No.1 - Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur (the respondent Committee) has not considered the said documents and on the basis of Vigilance Report, contrary entries against her forefathers on the basis of documents which are not admissible, invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner by order dated 9.11.2001.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the present petition is filed by the petitioner.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, admittedly, there are no pre-constitutional documents. However, Dakhal Kharij Entries in the name of the petitioner show the petitioner as “Halba.” Her cousin Tarabai was also recorded as “Halba” and her real sister Shanta was also recorded as “Halba.” Their profession was shown as “Weaver.” The School Admission Extract shows that the petitioner was admitted in school on 10.7.1969 in 1st Std. and at the relevant time, she was recorded as “Halba.” Her cousin Tara was admitted in school on 3.7.1971 and her birth date was recorded as 7.8.1964, who was also recorded as “Halba.” Another cousin Parvati was admitted in school on 2.8.1976 and she was also recorded as “Halba” and her birth date was 19.3.1969 and her real sister Shanta was admitted in school in 1982 and her birth date was 20.1.1976 who was also recorded as “Halba.”
He also invited our attention towards Vigilance Report and submitted that during Vigilance Enquiry, entries in the name of the petitioner and her cousin sisters and real sister were verified by the Vigilance Officer and the Vigilance Report shows that the school record shows that they were recorded as “Halba.” However, during the Vigilance Enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has collected documents in the name of grandfather of the petitioner namely Balaji Vithoba who was recorded as “Koshti.” He submitted that these documents are not having any evidentiary value as far as the caste claim of the petitioner is concerned and relying on the said documents, the respondent Committee invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner, which is erroneous and illegal.
He submitted that Family Tree shows that original ancestral of the family of the petitioner was Vithoba who was having one son Balaji. Said Balaji was having four sons namely Bapurao, Kashinath, Mahadev, and Pandurang. The petitioner is daughter of Bapurao. Whereas, Tara is daughter of Mahadev; Parvati is daughter of Pandurang, and Shanta is real sister of the petitioner.
He submitted the respondent Committee has only considered the Vigilance Report and ignored fact that as profession of forefathers of the petitioner was “Weaving”, there is possibility of recording their caste as “Koshti.” As far as documents, on which the respondent Committee relied upon, collected by the Vigilance Officer, are concerned, the same are not admissible and, therefore, invalidation of the caste claim of the petitioner is erroneous.
In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on following decisions:
Writ Petition No.3355 of 2020 and other connected petition (Mr.Mahendra s/o Manoharrao Hedau vs. The State of Maharashtra, thr.its Chief Secretary, Mumbai and ors) decided by this court on 4.5.2026.
Writ Petition No.5095 of 2021 (Dr.Parasram Kisan Nadankar vs. Vice-Chairman, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur and ors) decided by this court on 20.10.2023;
Writ Petition No.5717 of 2022 (Akshay Gajanan Pounikar vs. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur) decided by this court on 1.9.2026;
Ku. Kunda Ramkrishna Shete vs. State of Maharashtra, thr.its Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Welfare and Social Justice Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and ors) decided by this court on 13.1.2026; and
Chetan s/o Chandrashekhar Swami vs. State of Maharashtra and ors, reported in 2008(6) Mh.L.J. 762.
Per contra, learned Assistant Government for respondents strongly opposed the said contentions and submitted that during the scrutiny of the petitioner’s caste claim, the Vigilance Cell conducted enquiry and submitted its report. The Vigilance Cell has obtained school and revenue records wherein caste of the petitioner’s blood relatives has been found recorded as “Koshti.” He submitted that documents at serial Nos.1 to 4 are obtained from the Government Offices and hence these entries bear the highest probative value of evidence as these entries have been recorded by the Government Officials while performing their day to day activities. The findings were contrary as claimed by the petitioner.
He also invited our attention towards application filed by petitioner’s grandfather Balaji mentioning himself as “Koshti.” The said application was addressed by him to the Collector. Thus, he submitted that at the relevant time “Koshti” was not caste. The caste “Koshti” was subsequently added in the category of “Special Backward Classes” in the year 1995. Thus, he submitted that forefathers of the petitioner were already recorded during the pre-constitutional era as “Koshti” and there are no other pre-constitutional documents showing that forefathers of the petitioner were recorded as “Halba.” Therefore, the respondent Committee has rightly invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner and hence the petition deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merits.
In support of his contentions, learned Assistant Government Pleader placed reliance on following decisions:
State of Maharashtra vs. Milind and ors, reported in (2001)1 SCC 4, and
Writ Petition No.1617 of 2018 (Nilkanth Mahadev Nandanwar @ Nilkanth Mahadev Gatakhaye vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and ors) decided by this court on 4.9.2024.
We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents at length.
Issue involved in the present petition is, whether the petitioner can be granted status of “Halba” in absence of any documents pertaining to pre-constitutional era and documents which are of post-constitutional era show contrary entries.
Before entering into merits of the matter, we are constrained to take into consideration observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and anr vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and ors, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 wherein object behind Constitution of the Committees is stated by the Hon’ble Apex Court. It is observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph No.9, as under:
“9.The Preamble to the Constitution promises to secure to every citizen social and economic justice, equality of status and of opportunity assuring the dignity of the individual. The Scheduled Tribes are inhabitants of intractable terrain regions of the country kept away from the mainstream of national life and with their traditional moorings and customary beliefs and practices, they are largely governed by their own customary code of conduct regulated from time to time with their own rich cultural heritage, mode of worship and cultural ethos. The Constitution guarantees to them, who are also Indian citizens, equality before law and the equal protection of law. Though Articles 14 and 15(1) prohibit discrimination among citizens on certain grounds, Article 15(4) empowers the State to make special provisions for advancement of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Article 16(1) requires equality of opportunity to all citizens in matters of appointments to an office or a post under the Union or a State Government or public undertakings etc. But Article 16(4) empowers the State to make provision for reservation of appointments or posts in favour of classes of citizens not adequately represented in the services under the State. Article 46 enjoins the State by mandatory language employed therein, to promote with special care the educational or economic interest of the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes and to protect them from "social injustice" and "all forms of exploitation". Article 51-A(h) enjoins every citizen to develop scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform. Again Article 51-A(h) requires every citizen to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement. It is, therefore, a fundamental duty of every citizen to develop scientific temper and humanism and spirit of inquiry to reform himself in his onward thrust or strive to achieve excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity. Since the Scheduled Tribes are a nomadic class of citizens whose habitat being generally hilly regions or forests, results in their staying away from the mainstream of the national life. Therefore, the State is enjoined under our Constitution to provide facilities and opportunities for development of their scientific temper, educational advancement and economic improvement so that they may achieve excellence, equality of status and live with dignity. Reservation in admission to educational institutions and employment are major State policies to accord to the tribes, social and economic justice apart from other economic measures. Hence, the tribes, by reason of State's policy of reservation, have been given the exclusive right to admission into educational institutions or exclusive right to employment to an office or post under the State etc. to the earmarked quota. For availment of such exclusive rights by citizens belonging to tribes, the President by a notification specified the Scheduled Tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities so as to entitle them to avail of such exclusive rights. The Union of India and the State Governments have prescribed the procedure and have entrusted duty and responsibility to Revenue Officers of gazetted cadre to issue social status certificate, after due verification. It is common knowledge that endeavour of States to fulfill constitutional mandate of upliftment of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by providing for reservation of seats in educational institutions and for reservation of posts and appointments, are sought to be denied to them by unscrupulous persons who come forward to obtain the benefit of such reservations posing themselves as persons entitled to such status while in fact disentitled to such status. ……….”
The Hon’ble Apex Court also held that, entries in the school register preceding the Constitution do furnish great probative value to the declaration of the status of a caste.
The Hon’ble Apex Court noted that the admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of false social status certificate necessarily has the effect of depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined in the Constitution of the benefits conferred on them by the Constitution. The genuine candidates are also denied admission to educational institutions or appointments to office or posts under a State for want of social status certificate. The ineligible or spurious persons who falsely gained entry resort to dilatory tactics and create hurdles in completion of the inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee. It is true that the applications for admission to educational institutions are generally made by a parent, since on that date many a time the student may be a minor. It is the parent or the guardian who may play fraud claiming false status certificate. It is, therefore, necessary that the certificates issued are scrutinized at the earliest and with utmost expedition and promptitude. For that purpose, it is necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval, which may be the following:
“1.The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such officer rather than at the Officer, Taluka or Mandal level.
2.The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn and attested by a competent gazetted officer or non-gazetted officer with particulars of castes and sub-castes, tribe, tribal community, parts or groups of tribes or tribal communities, the place from which he originally hails from and other particulars as may be prescribed by the Directorate concerned.
3.Application for verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at least six months in advance before seeking admission into educational institution or an appointment to a post.
4.All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely, (1) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the department concerned, (11) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates.
In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities.
5.Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in over-all charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in the pro forma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the castes or tribes or tribal communities concerned etc.
6.The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the vigilance officer if he found the claim for social status to be "not genuine" or 'doubtful' or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue show-cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post with acknowledgement due or through the head of the educational institution concerned in which the candidate is studying or employed. The notice should indicate that the representation or reply, if any, would be made within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice and in no case on request not more than 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice.
In case, the candidate seeks for an opportunity of hearing and claims an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the Director on receipt of such representation/reply shall convene the committee and the Joint/Additional Secretary as Chairperson who shall give reasonable opportunity to the candidate/parent/guardian to adduce all evidence in support of their claim. A public notice by beat of drum or any other convenient mode may be published in the village or locality and if any person or association opposes such a claim, an opportunity to adduce evidence may be given to him/it. After giving such opportunity either in person or through counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-a-vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof.
7.In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed.
8.Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the parents/guardian also in case candidate is minor to appear before the Committee with all evidence in his or their support of the claim for the social status certificates.
9.The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day-to-day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. If after inquiry, the Caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or spurious, they should pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and confiscate the same. It should communicate within one month from the date of the conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the parent/guardian and the applicant.
10.In case of any delay in finalising the proceedings, and in the meanwhile the last date for admission into an educational institution or appointment to an officer post, is getting expired, the candidate be admitted by the Principal or such other authority competent in that behalf or appointed on the basis of the social status certificate already issued or an affidavit duly sworn by the parent/guardian/candidate before the competent officer or non-official and such admission or appointment should be only provisional, subject to the result of the inquiry by the Scrutiny Committee.
11.The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
12.No suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie.
13.The High Court would dispose of these cases as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months. In case, as per its procedure, the writ petition/miscellaneous petition/matter is disposed of by a Single Judge, then no further appeal would lie against that order to the Division Bench but subject to special leave under Article 136.
14.In case, the certificate obtained or social status claimed is found to be false, the parent/guardian/the candidate should be prosecuted for making false claim. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude, disqualification for elective posts or offices under the State or the Union or elections to any local body, legislature or Parliament.
15.As soon as the finding is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the certificate obtained was false, on its cancellation and confiscation simultaneously, it should be communicated to the educational institution concerned or the appointing authority by registered post with acknowledgement due with a request to cancel the admission or the appointment. The Principal etc. of the educational institution responsible for making the admission or the appointing authority, should cancel the admission/appointment without any further notice to the candidate and debar the candidate from further study or continue in office in a post.”
The Hon’ble Apex Court emphasized that procedure should be fair and just and shorten the undue delay and also prevent avoidable expenditure for the State on the education of the candidate admitted/appointed on false social status or further continuance therein, every State concerned should endeavour to give effect to it and see that the constitutional objectives intended for the benefit and advancement of the genuine Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes or backward classes, as the case may be are not defeated by unscrupulous persons, as the case may be.
Here, in the present case, the petitioner wants to substantiate her caste claim belonging to “Halba Scheduled Tribe” on the strength of documents i.e. School Admission Extracts during the post-constitutional era. The Extract of Dakhal Kharij issued by the Headmaster of the Municipal School shows that the petitioner was admitted in the school on 10.7.1969 and her birth was 1.7.1963. Her real sister was admitted in school on 22.7.1982 and her birth was 20.1.1976 and her cousins were admitted in school on 3.7.1971 and 7.8.1964 and they all were recorded as “Halba.”
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that these post-constitutional documents consistently recorded blood relatives of the petitioner as “Halba” and, therefore, merely because there was no pre-constitutional documents, the respondent Committee has invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner, which is erroneous.
He, further, submitted that the respondent Committee has placed reliance on the Vigilance Report collected during revenue documents of the years 1959-1967 wherein the grandfather of the petitioner was recorded as “Koshti” as well as the father of the petitioner, Bapurao, was also recorded as “Koshti.” He submitted that there is a provision to record caste in revenue record. The petitioner has obtained the said information under the Right to Information Act. Communication issued to the petitioner by the Information Officer dated 13.6.2021 shows that in view of the Registration Act, 1908, there is no provision to mention caste in documents at the time of registration.
He further submitted that the said documents have no evidentiary value.
To substantiate his claim, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the decision of this court in the case of Dr.Parasram Kisan Nadankar (supra) wherein it is held that, “the other document that has been considered by the Scrutiny Committee is an extract from the property registered on 15.5.1963. The entry therein has been taken on the basis of Sale Deed dated 1.4.1963. Against the name of the petitioner and his brothers, word “Koshti” has been mentioned. By deleting the name of the previous owner, names of the family members of Vithoba including the petitioner, were inserted in the records. The records of this document were also summoned by the scrutiny committee and the same were examined on 18.12.2020. Since reference of word “Koshti” was found there, the scrutiny committee has proceeded to accept this document as indicating the petitioner’s social status. In reply to this document, the petitioner stated that word “Koshti” was referred to identity of persons who were locally identified on the basis of their occupation of “Weaving.” The same did not indicate the petitioner’s social status.”
It is further observed by this court that, “the document of 1963 finds place in the Property Rights Register of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation. The information supplied to the petitioner in this regard indicates that under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 as well as the Maharashtra Registration Rules, 1961, it was not mandatory to record the caste of the persons concerned while registering any document or taking entries in that regard. We further find that this document of 1963 is subsequent to the school record of the year 1959 which specifically records the social status of the petitioner as Halba. There is no reason whatsoever to ignore the document of 1959 that has been produced from the proper custody in preference to the document of 1963 which does not specifically indicate the significance of the word Koshti as to whether it indicated the social status or the profession of the persons named therein. The importance to be given to old documents has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priya Pramod Gajbe (supra) since such documents have greater probative value. We may also refer to the decision in Ashwin Rajendra Parate (supra) wherein it has been held that merely because a document prior to 1950 is not produced, the claim of such person cannot be denied for that reason.”
Here, in the present case, the contrary facts are there. The previous documents maintained in the revenue record show forefathers of the petitioner as “Koshti” and school record which is subsequent in time of the petitioner and her cousins records them as “Halba.”
Learned AGP rightly pointed out that on 4.1.1967 the grandfather of the petitioner addresses an application to the Collector, Nagpur wherein he records himself of “Koshti” Caste. Thus, he submitted that even accepting that assessment document or the documents which are maintained as far as forefathers of the petitioner in the Municipal Council Record is concerned, it records them “Koshti” and it has no evidentiary value, but the application addressed by the forefather of the petitioner i.e. grandfather of the petitioner, addressing the Collector, himself has stated that he is “Koshti.” In that circumstances, the judgment of this court in Writ Petition No.5095 of 2021 is not applicable.
We respectfully agree with submissions of learned AGP as the extract contrary facts are in the present case and in the cited case i.e. in Writ Petition No.5095 of 2021 wherein there was a previous document i.e. school record recording social status of the petitioner therein as “Halba and subsequent document recording him as “Koshti” and, therefore, this court has rightly found that the findings of the respondent Committee are erroneous.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also placed on the decision in Mr.Mahendra s/o Manoharrao Hedau vs. The State of Maharashtra, thr.its Chief Secretary, Mumbai and ors (supra) wherein also this court observed that word “Koshti” is appearing due to their profession. The court has also considered that there were pre-constitutional entries showing forefathers of the petitioner therein as “Halba” and, therefore, this court has found that the findings of the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner therein are erroneous.
Here, in the present case, previous documents which are also of post-constitutional era show the forefather i.e. the grandfather of the petitioner as “Koshti.” The application filed by the grandfather itself records himself as “Koshti.” There is no pre-constitutional documents showing the forefather of the petitioner is recorded as “Halbi/Halba.” Therefore, the decision in the above said writ petition is also not helpful to the present petitioner.
Similarly, facts in Nilkanth Mahadev Nandanwar @ Nilkanth Mahadev Gatakhaye vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and ors and facts in the present case are not identical and, therefore, the said decision is not helpful to the present petitioner.
On the contrary, learned AGP has rightly placed reliance on the decision in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Milind and ors (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that, “it is not at all permissible to hold any enquiry or let in any evidence to decide or declare that any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community is included in the general name even though it is not specifically mentioned in the concerned Entry in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.”
Admittedly, caste “Koshti” was included in the list of SBC in the year 1995. There was no caste “Koshti” recognizing in 1995 as SBC. Not only the revenue records but also the application filed by the grandfather of the petitioner records himself as “Koshti” and there are no pre-constitutional documents which make it clear that the petitioner could not prove her caste claim belonging to caste “Halba.” Considering the same observations of this court in Nilkanth Mahadev Nandanwar @ Nilkanth Mahadev Gatakhaye vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and ors (supra) is apt here, this court recorded that this court is not empowered to read down entries to mean that “Koshti” even if it is recorded can be inferred to mean as “Halba Scheduled Tribe.”
Apart from the above, a fact remains that the petitioner was served with show cause notice after receipt of the Vigilance Report and the petitioner could not explain about the said adverse entries.
Admittedly, burden casts upon the petitioner under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes, Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (the Act of 2000) thereby explaining the adverse entries to which she has failed to do so.
We, therefore, find that the respondent Committee has given due weightage to the circumstances that there are old entries of the year 1959 showing the grandfather of the petitioner as “Koshti.” Moreover, no pre-independence documents are placed on record to show that the forefather of the petitioner were recorded as ‘Halba.”
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anand vs. Committee and Verification of Tribe Claims and others, reported in 2012(1) SCC 113 wherein it is observed that, “in case the applicant is the first generation ever to attend school, the availability of any documentary evidence becomes difficult, but that ipso facto does not call for the rejection of his claim. In fact the mere fact that he is the first generation ever to attend school, some benefit of doubt in favour of the applicant may be given. Needless to add that in the event of a doubt on the credibility of a document, its veracity has to be tested on the basis of oral evidence, for which an opportunity has to be afforded to the applicant.”
We are in respectful agreement with submissions made in the above said decision. However, considering fact in the present case, that the grandfather of the petitioner himself approaches the Collector with an application wherein he himself mentions as “Koshti,” it substantiates the contentions of learned AGP that the forefather of the petitioner belongs to “Koshti,” but to seek the benefit of caste “Halba,” in view of the fact that caste “Halba” was included in the list of 1950 at the time of independence, the subsequent documents showing the petitioner and her cousins and real sister as “Halbi” cannot be ruled out. The respondent Committee has assigned the reason for not accepting the caste claim of the petitioner.
As already observed, the burden is on the petitioner to prove her caste claim by explaining adverse entries to which the petitioner failed to do so and, therefore, no case is made out to interfere with the order of the respondent Committee and, therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. At the same time, in view of existing policy of the Government, as per Government Notification 21.12.2019 in case, if the petitioner takes all proceedings before respondent No.3/The Police Superintendent for treating her appointment on supernumerary post, the same be considered, in accordance with prevailing policy of the State Government, expeditiously and benefit be given to her if she is other entitled.
In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Rule stands discharged.