Ku. Vaishnavi Purushottam Dehankar vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

(Per : M.W. Chandwani, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.

The petition challenges the order of invalidation dated 31.03.2022 of the caste claim of the petitioner as ‘Bhamati’ which is recognized as ‘Vimukta Jati-(A)” under Government Resolution No.CBC 1361-M dated 21.11.1961.

The petitioner secured admission in M.Sc. (Agricultural Science) on a seat reserved for Vimukta Jati-(A) and therefore, she was directed to get her caste claim validated. Consequently, her application was forwarded to respondent no.2 – Committee. The petitioner produced all the documents showing her caste and caste of her forefathers as ‘Bhamati’. Caste validity certificate had already been granted to the father and brother of the petitioner. It appears that respondent no.2-committee referred the matter to the Vigilance Cell for vigilance enquiry. During the vigilance enquiry, the Vigilance Cell procured documents dated way back to the year 1929 such as school admission certificate of the cousin grandfather – Kisan Ganpat Tendkar dated 01.11.1929 wherein, his caste is shown as ‘Bhamati’; school admission certificate of the cousin grandfather Namdeo Sitaram Tendkar dated 01.04.1932 wherein, his caste is shown as ‘Bhamati’ and the school admission entry of the cousin grandfather Gulab Sitaram dated 01.06.1947 wherein, his caste is shown as ‘Bhamati’.

However, the Vigilance Cell found an entry in the admission register in respect of Ambar Sitaram, grandfather of the petitioner wherein, his caste is shown as ‘Raut’. The vigilance cell has specifically mentioned that ‘Raut’ is not a caste but a title which was given to Ambar Sitaram. However, the committee treated the caste of the grandfather of the petitioner as ‘Raut’ and invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner even ignoring the validity certificate granted to the father and the brother on the ground that the certificates were obtained by suppressing material facts.

Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the record filed on the file of respondent no.2-Committee, we find that there are various pre-constitutional documents in the name of the cousin grandfather of the petitioner i.e. Kisan, Namdeo and Gulab wherein, their caste is shown as ‘Bhamati’. Since, ‘Raut’ is a title as opined by the vigilance cell, the finding of respondent no.2-Committee does not stand. In view of the validity certificates granted to the father and the brother of the petitioner and the pre-constitutional documents of the forefathers of the petitioner showing their caste as ‘Bhamati’, the findings recorded by the Committee are contrary to Rule 16 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 and against the mandate as laid down by this Court in Apoorva D/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others ^{11.2010 (6) MhLJ 401} and therefore, we set aside the impugned order dated 31.3.2022 passed by respondent no.2 – Committee invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner.

It is hereby declared that the petitioner belongs to ‘Bhamati’ Vimukta Jati (A).

We direct respondent no.2-Committee to issue caste validity certificate to the petitioner, within two months from the date of receipt of this order.

Rule is made absolute in the abovesaid terms. No order as to costs.