AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sr. No.,Points,Findings
1,"Whether the impugned order of the Scrutiny
Committee invalidating the claim of the
petitioners and the consequential order are
passed after following the proper process?",..In the negative.
2,"Whether any interference is called for in the
impugned judgment?",..In the affirmative.
(vi) Swapnil Gopal Thakur Vs. The Stae of Maharashtra & Ors (WP No. 2478/2013) decided by this Court on 27.07.2017.,,
(vii) Rajendrasingh Pundliksingh Sisodiya Vs. The State of Mah & Ors. (WP No. 4005 of 2012) decided on 31.07.2017.,,
(viii) Madhura Bhaskar Gaikwad Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (WP No. 7125/2016) decided by this Court on 9th Novembe, 2017.",,
(ix) Ku. Mrunalini d/o Pradip Sonawane & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (WP No. 3140/2016) decided by this Court on 20.11.2017.,,
In Vaishali Chatarsingh Ingale (Thakur) Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Amravati & Ors. reported in 2013 (6) Mh. L.",,
J. 251, the Division Bench at the Principal Seat of this Court observed in para 5 and 6 as under:",,
In the judgment reported in 2011(2) BCR 824 (Apoorva Vinay Nichale Versus Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 & Others),",,
identical issue fell for consideration of this Court and the Division Bench has considered it in paragraph 9 as follows:,,
Para 9: ""...................The matters pertaining to validity of caste have a great impact on the candidate as well as on the future generations in many",,
matters varying from marriage to education and enjoyment (employment), and therefore where a committee has given a finding about the validity of",,
the caste of a candidate another committee ought not to refuse the same status to a blood relative who applies. A merely different view on the same,,
facts would not entitle the committee dealing with the subsequent caste claim to reject it. There is, however, no doubt as observed by us earlier that if",,
a committee is of the view that the earlier certificate is obtained by fraud it would not be bound to follow the earlier caste validity certificate and is,,
entitled to refuse the caste claim and also in addition initiate proceedings for cancellation of the earlier order. In this view of the matter, we are of the",,
view that the petition must succeed. (underlining is by us).,,
Rule is made absolute in above terms. The Caste Scrutiny Committee is directed to furnish the caste validity certificate to the petitioner.""",,
It is an admitted fact that the caste claim of Shri Chatarsing Narayan Ingale, the father of the petitioner, as ""Thakur"" Scheduled Tribe is validated",,
by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, by the order dated 25.02.1989, who was the Appellate Authority at that time. The",,
above referred order of the Additional Commissioner validating the caste claim of the father of the petitioner has become final. It is not the case of the,,
respondent no.1ÂThe Scrutiny Committee that the caste certificate and the order validating the caste certificate have been obtained by the father of,,
the petitioner by fraud or misrepresentation.,,
In Balvant S/o Vithal Jalgaonkar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others reported in [2004(3) Mah L R 687], the Division Bench of this Court held",,
that, an order passed in favour of a near blood relation by competent authority which has attained finality, cannot be brushed aside lightly and has to be",,
considered as a weighty piece of evidence. Such an adjudication prior in point of time which has attained finality would bind subsequent authorities,,
while adjudicating claims of near blood relations unless same is shown to have been tainted with fraud or misrepresentation. It is further observed that,",,
collective impact of all the circumstances should be taken into consideration.Â,,
In Sanjay Pralhad Pardeshi Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2014 (4) Mh.L.J. 101, it is observed that, when a Committee has given a",,
finding of validity of caste of a candidate, another committee ought not to refuse the same status to a blood relative, who applies. A mere different",,
view on the same facts would not entitle the committee dealing with the subsequent caste claim to reject it.,,
In Monika d/o Satish Thakur Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 10123 of 2010) decided on 04.05.2018, the Division Bench",,
of this Court observed that the validity certificate issued in the name of near relatives will not be binding in following cases.,,
(i) If it is found that, the vital evidence has been ignored in granting certificate in favour of a member of a family, it would be open for the Committee",,
to arrive at a different finding. (Reliance on Raju Ramsing Vasave v Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar reported in (2009) 1 Mh.L.J. 1).Â,,
(ii) When contra evidence is noticed which was not available in the previous proceedings. (Pournima Pawar v State of Maharashtra reported in,,
AIR 2013 SC 1508).,,
(iii) When the previous validity certificate was obtained by fraud. (State of Maharashtra and Others vs Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar and another,,
reported in (2007) 1 SCC 80).,,
(iv) If the previous validity certificates were issued without following proper enquiry like vigilance, affinity test and satisfaction of the Committee.",,
The main thrust for invalidation is on the ground that, some alteration was noticed in the school admission certificate of the petitioner's father dt.",,
17.09.1976. We have gone through the record of both the petitioners as well as the records of the proceeding of their father, uncle and aunt. We",,
find that the Scrutiny Committee has not called the original record of the school to verify whether the alteration was suspicious or not.Â,,
The Vigilance Officer in his report has disclosed this fact but has not expressed that it was a forged document. In this regard, Mr Barlinge relied",,
upon the judgment in the case of Sayanna vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), wherein there was alteration by addition of a word 'lu' after the word",,
'Mannervar'. While Mannervar is not a scheduled tribe. 'Mannervarlu' is a Scheduled Tribe. The Apex Court observed that, there was no",,
vigilance report that it was a forged one. It was issued on the basis of certificate issued by President of Kundalwadi Municipality. The statement of,,
President was not recorded by the Vigilance Officer. There cannot be conclusion that 'lu' word was interpolated at the behest of the petitioner. No,,
opportunity was granted to the petitioner to explain the same. In the present case, the original record of school is not before us. It was not seen",,
by the Scrutiny Committee. Xerox copy brought on record shows an endorsement below it that the word 'Koli' is in fountain pen ink whereas; the,,
word Mahadev is written by the BallÂpen. We, however, find that, there is no difference in the handwriting. The entire certificate is having the",,
same handwriting. Besides, in the proceedings of the petitioners' father, he had produced school leaving certificate of 1982, which is also showing the",,
same tribe as Koli Mahadev. Then it is certain that, such addition must have been done before 1982. The members of the Scrutiny Committee",,
relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Balaji Mohan Madewad Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 7934 of,,
2006) decided on 17.10.2017, wherein it was observed that, if basic documents militate against the tribe or caste claim set up by the candidate, the",,
validity granted to a relative, no doubt by a duly constituted scrutiny committee would not supersede the basic documents of the concerned",,
candidate. Here in that case, Mahadev word was not only in different ink but also in different handwriting and it appeared that it was subsequently",,
written at different point of time. In the present case, we don't find any material to infer that it is in different handwriting or that it was made at",,
different point of time. Hence we hold that the scrutiny committee should not have given undue importance to ignore the three validity certificates,,
issued in favour of father, uncle and aunt of the petitioner.Â",,
Again reliance is placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur in the case of Laxmikant Nitaram Kumre Versus,,
Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee and Ors. decided on 08.12.2016, wherein there was no vigilance enquiry and affinity test and the",,
decision was given in great haste.,,
The matter was remanded to the Committee. Reliance was also placed on the judgment in the case of Narayan Dindaji Jambhule Versus Scheduled,,
Tribe Certificate Verification Committee & Ors (PIL No. 102/2013) decided on 15.04.2013, wherein it is observed that, when the validity certificate is",,
granted without following the procedure as prescribed by law, then merely because validity is granted to the family member of a candidate, it would",,
not bind the Committee to grant validity to other members of the family. In this regard, we find that, in all the three matters, the vigilance enquiry",,
was held and the affinity test was also held and those supported the claims made by father, uncle and aunt of the petitioners'.",,
When the vigilance report or the affinity test is held to be supporting the claim of any person, it is difficult to understand how in a subsequent",,
proceedings the subsequent committee can hold that the said vigilance report as well as the affinity test were against them. We find that, there was",,
same material before the same Vigilance Officer and same facts were considered for the affinity test.Â,,
In Ku. Madhuri Patil Versus Additional Commissioner, Thane and others reported in AIR 1995 SC 94, it was held that, affinity test and home",,
enquiry with regard to anthropological moorings and ethnological kinship affirmity (sic) gets genetically ingrained in the blood are very much relevant,,
for determining the tribe of a person.Â,,
In the light of the acceptance of previous vigilance report and affinity test and in absence of any specific grounds to show how those were wrong,",,
the Committee could not have ignored the validity certificates issued in favour of the petitioners father, uncle and aunt only on the basis of its opinion",,
about the affinity test and vigilance report.,,
Reliance is also placed by the Committee on the fact that 'the petitioners' father claimed that his father was illiterate' whereas; he had attended,,
school and, therefore, there was material suppression of the said fact. We do not find substance in this fact. We find that the tribe of petitioners'",,
grandÂfather was recorded in the school record as Hindu. It is not a caste or tribe but it is a religion. It means the record did not show any caste,,
or tribe. In such case, it will be a suppression but not suppression of material facts.",,
The Committee has relied on the record of caste as Hindu in case of the petitioners' grand father, grand uncle and grand cousinuncle in 1955, 1965",,
and 1974. We find that, this is not a contra entry. Hindu is not a caste but a religion. In Madhuri Patil's case (supra), caste Hindu Koli was",,
recorded and it was held as contra entry to the claim of the petitioners that they belong to Koli Mahadev. The said case can be distinguished on the,,
facts. Here we find that, the old school record did not note the caste of the petitioners.",,
There was also reliance on the fact that the petitioners did not disclose that they belong to areas recognized as tribal areas and, thereafter, their",,
forefathers migrated to the nonÂtribal area. This ground could have been considered had it been the first claim in the family of the petitioners. But,",,
there were three previous claims. The petitioners father, real uncle and real aunt have been given tribe validity certificates. Those were not",,
challenged and have become final. In this situation, the main focus should have been whether those certificates were wrongly issued or not. We do",,
not find any material to hold that, those certificates were wrongly issued. It was also not proper on the part of the committee to expect preÂ‐",,
presidential record and at the same time hold that the admission of grandÂfather of petitioners in school was indicative that they were educated and,,
not belonging to the backward scheduled tribe.Â,,
We make it clear that, appreciation by scrutiny committee for tribe verification in normal case would be different from the same in cases where",,
there are validity certificates issued in favour of close paternal relatives including the father of the claimants which have attained finality. In such,,
cases, the Committee has to assume that the petitioners must be belonging to the caste or tribe of their father and other close paternal relatives, and",,
should find out whether there is any strong material to disbelieve the validity certificates issued in favour of near relatives which have attained finality.,,
We, therefore, hold that the impugned orders of the scrutiny Committee are not sustainable. Both the petitioners have established that they",,
belong to Koli Mahadev and their claims should have been allowed. Hence, we pass the following order.",,
(i) The order passed by respondent No. 2 dt. 10.01.2018 is quashed and set aside.,,
(ii) Respondent No. 2 Â Committee is directed to issue tribe certificate of Koli Mahadev (with correct spelling) in favour of the petitioners No. 1 & 2,,
at the earliest before 1st August, 2018.",,
Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs.,,