AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Shri Narnaware, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents.
The challenge is to the order of Scrutiny Committee dated 1-10-2010. The Scrutiny Committee has by said order found that as the Petitioner professes Muslim religion, he cannot be Scheduled Caste.
Shri Narnaware, Learned Counsel contends that the documents as required were submitted by the Petitioner and those documents reveal that the Petitioner belongs to Bahana Scheduled Caste. Those documents were not sent to Police Vigilance Cell and there is no Police Vigilance report obtained thereof. He, therefore, contends that the procedure as mandated by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patila and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, , as required by Act No. 23 of 2001 and 2003 Rules framed thereunder (Rule 12(5)) has not been followed. He further states that the constitution of Respondent No. 1 - Committee also is bad as its Chairman has to be Additional Commissioner (Revenue) as per the judgment of this Court dated 20-1-2010 in Writ Petition No. 2527 of 2009. According to him, in present Committee Presiding Officer is Deputy Commissioner.
The learned Additional Government Pleader has contended that as per Scheme of Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, the person like Petitioner, who is a Muslim by religion cannot be a Scheduled Caste. Our attention is being invited to Clause 3 thereof and to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Soosai Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, .
In view of this stand and finding of the Committee, we have asked the Learned Counsel to demonstrate that a person professing Muslim religion can also be a Scheduled Caste. The Learned Counsel has contended that here he is only pointing out the procedural violations and incompetency of the Scrutiny Committee. The verification of his caste claim on merits can be done by Respondent No. 1 and at appropriate stage before that authority, the Petitioner can demonstrate even this fact.
In the light of the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court mentioned above and the provisions of Clause 3 of Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, it is apparent that the Petitioner cannot claim to be a member of Scheduled Caste. Though an opportunity was given to the Petitioner by this Court, he has refused to point out his entitlement. It is, therefore, obvious that the Petitioner is only complaining about the procedural breaches and other violations, though in law no prejudice is caused to him and he has not suffered any injury.
We find the grievance in present writ petition misconceived. Petition rejected. However, there shall be no order as to costs.