Pradeep Sukhdeorao Dhumale vs District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Osmanabad & Ors.

JUDGMENT (Per Ajit B. Kadethankar, J.):-

In both the Writ Petitions, respective Caste Certificate Validation claims of the Petitioners are invalidated by the respondent Caste Certificate Validation Committee. As against that, the Petitioners have approached this Court.

Petitioner in Writ Petition No.14956 of 2019 (Pradeep Dhumale) is the biological father of the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 14948 of 2019 (Supriya Dhumale). Record and findings in the claim of father are applicable to daughter’s claim in the cases in hand. Daughter Supriya has no independent evidence or record to establish her claim, other than the data and evidence produced by her father Pradeep in his validation claim. Hence we propose first to discuss the Writ Petition No. 14956 of 2019 filed by the father Pradeep Dhumale.

The invalidation is a result of absolutely no evidence in support of the claims. While both the Petitioners claim belonging to ‘Bhavsar’ caste, which is recognized as Other Backward Class, the oldest record of the father pertaining to 1968 records his caste as ‘Maratha’. Except subsequent entries of recent years showing caste ‘Bhavsar’, there is nothing on record to discard the oldest school record of 1968 showing his caste as ‘Maratha’.

Rule in both Writ Petitions. Rule made returnable forthwith in both Writ Petitions. Considering the subject matter of the writ petition, we have heard the parties for final disposal in both the matters.

Feeling aggrieved by the decision and order dated 02.02.2019 passed by the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Osmanabad (the Committee for brevity), the petitioner has lodged the present petition. Vide the impugned decision and order, the claim filed by the petitioner for validation of his caste certificate as Bhavsar falling under the Other Backward Class category (“OBC” for brevity) has been invalidated.

The petitioner claims himself belonging to Bhavsar caste which is included in the list of Other Backward Classes in the State of Maharashtra. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate Bhoom, District Osmanabad issued a caste certificate on 08.07.2014 in the name of the petitioner stating his caste as Bhavsar (OBC). For getting the said certificate validated, the petitioner lodged his claim before the Committee together with his claim proposal. The petitioner filed following evidence with the record of caste.

During the inquiry the Committee referred petitioner’s case to the Vigilance Squad for domestic vigilance. It is the petitioner’s contention that the petitioner originally belonged to the State of Karnataka and that his family shifted to Maharashtra after 1965 on account of service. Placing reliance upon the service record of one Tulshidas Dhumale pertaining to the year 1965 the petitioner sought to establish his caste as Bhavsar.

The Committee considered the documents placed by the petitioner on record as also the report submitted by the Vigilance Squad on 03.11.2017, and offered an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by notice dated 16.01.2018 thereby calling upon him to furnish his explanation and additional evidence, if any. Suffice it to note that the report submitted by the Vigilance Squad was also served on the petitioner. It appears that despite the opportunity offered vide letter dated 16.01.2018 the petitioner chose not to furnish any additional evidence or explanation/justification in support of his claim as also against the findings recorded by the Vigilance Squad. Vide the impugned decision and order dated 02.02.2019 the Committee declined to validate the petitioner’s claim. Hence, the present petition.

Mr. Mahendra Kolpe, learned Advocate for the petitioner would heavily place reliance on the service record of Mr. Tulshidas Dhumale. He would submit that this evidence is the oldest one in his hands and ought to have been relied upon by the Committee. Mr. Kolpe, learned Advocate also places reliance on a caste validity certificate in the name of one Tushar Sanjay Dhumale issued by the Latur Committee on 12.09.2018.

He would submit that being a native of the State of Karnataka he arrived in Maharashtra with his uncle whose caste is shown in the service record as Bhavsar Kshatriya. On the basis of these documents Mr. Kolpe, learned Advocate for the petitioner prays that the writ petition be allowed. In the alternative Mr. Kolpe submits that he may be allowed to place on record an affidavit sworn by the said Tushar Dhumale and Ganga Dhumale in support of his claim.

He also sought to place an additional genealogical tree on record to establish his relationship with the persons on whose validity/caste record the petitioner seeks to rely. However, during the course of hearing in all fairness Mr. Kolpe, learned Advocate submits that he does not want to press the said documents i.e., the affidavit, and the additional genealogical tree on instructions from his client who is present in the Court. As such the petitioner assails the findings of the Committee on the basis of the record that was available before the Committee.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Pravin Patil vehemently opposes the writ petition. He would point out that the Committee has categorically recorded its findings that: (i) there is absolutely no evidence even remotely suggesting that the petitioner’s ancestors/forefathers belonged to the Bhavsar caste; (ii) the petitioner’s own school record of 1968 shows his caste as Maratha.

The Committee has further observed that the petitioner could not establish his relationship with Purushottam Dhumale, Jaykumar Dhumale, Vijaykumar Dhumale, Amrapali Dhumale, Archana Dhumale and Tushar Dhumale; and (iii) the report of the Vigilance Squad was served on the petitioner. The petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to resolve the deficiencies in his claim and to substantiate it with additional cogent evidence. The petitioner did nothing in response. Hence the Committee has rightly decided the petitioner’s caste claim on the basis of the available record.

Mr. Patil strongly opposes the remand of the matter back to the Committee. He would submit that in the given circumstances the petitioner must not be given an opportunity to fill up any lacuna. With this, Mr. Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

With the able assistance of the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader we have gone through the original record of the petitioner’s case which is produced by the Committee before us.

The very first and the biggest hurdle in the petitioner’s way is his own school record of 1968. The petitioner cannot deny that his school record shows his caste as ‘Maratha’. As regards his migration from Karnataka to Maharashtra the Committee has observed that there was nothing on record to suggest such migration of the petitioner’s family. Even in the writ petition no such record is produced before us, nor is it explained as to how it would have substantiated the petitioner’s claim.

So far as the service record of one Tulshidas Dhumale is concerned, the Committee has observed that the petitioner could not establish his relationship with the said person as per the genealogical tree. The Committee observed that the affidavit dated 28.07.2015 produced by the petitioner does not establish his relationship with those persons on whose caste record he relies. Even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the said Tulshidas was relative of the Petitioner, the basic school record of the Petitioner of 1968 itself shows his caste as ‘Maratha’. As such, Tulshidas’s service record cannot have overriding effect over petitioner’s own school record. Petitioner’s school record showing his caste as “Maratha” is the strongest contra entry against his claim for Bhavsar caste.

In the light of the above, it cannot be said that the Committee has erred in rendering its finding against the petitioner’s claim.

Although the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment and order delivered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sagar Bhupal Malage vs. Member/Chairman, Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No.2, Kolhapur and Others reported at 2019(3) Mh.L.J. 319, we have no reason to disagree with the propositions laid down in the cited judgment. With due respect, we record that the facts of the case in hand are altogether different from the cited case. In the present case as we have observed, there is nothing on record even remotely suggesting the caste of forefathers/ancestors of the petitioner was recorded as “Bhavsar” at any point of time.

It is sought to be submitted that due to illiteracy, petitioner’s caste was recorded as ‘Maratha’. This is not at all a justifiable reason.

The other evidence on which the petitioner has placed reliance is of the recent period and hence cannot be of any avail to the petitioner. Considering that during the vigilance inquiry the residents of the petitioner’s place stated that the petitioner and his family had shifted from Karnataka to Maharashtra in 1965 that by itself will not validate the petitioner’s claim. Thus, there is a strong contra entry against the petitioner himself. The petitioner was given full opportunity of hearing by the Committee. As such, there is no objection from the petitioner’s side that the principles of natural justice were followed by the Committee during the investigation and hearing.

Hence, we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner could not establish that he belonged to “Bhavsar” caste, and the Committee was fully justified in passing the impugned decision and order. Considering the fact that ample opportunity was given by the Committee to the petitioner to adduce additional evidence and justification/explanation against the report submitted by the Vigilance Squad, we do not find any merit in the alternate prayer for remand of the case to the Committee. This is also so because, the documents which the Petitioner was to cite before the committee were sought to be produced before us. However after arguing on credibility of those documents for a long time, learned advocate for the Petitioner sought leave to drop reliance on those documents and prayed to ignore those from consideration on instructions of the Petitioner present in the court.

The petitioner in this petition is daughter of petitioner in Writ Petition No.14956 of 2019. She produced the following evidence with the record of caste.

In view of the facts of the case and the record placed before us, learned advocate for the Petitioner fairly submitted that the petitioner has no other case than what was sought to be set up by her father, Pradeep Dhumale. Except the petitioner's own caste certificate dated 31.05.2013, the petitioner has solely relied upon the claim filed by her father. By reasoned orders we have upheld the invalidation of the caste claim filed by the petitioner's father. The findings recorded above in the case of the petitioner's father are applicable to the petitioner and binding on her. Hence for want of any independent evidence in support of the petitioner's caste validity claim, the findings recorded above are applicable to the petitioner's case. Resultantly, both the writ petitions fail. In view of this, we pass the following order :