Sanjay Sonparote vs The Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee & Ors.

Heard.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels for the parties.

The petition challenges the order dated 15.09.2021 passed by the respondent no. 1- Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati (for short, “the Committee”) invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner who claims to be belonging to ‘Halbi’ Scheduled Tribe.

Here is the case wherein, inspite of having three validity certificates in the name of the cousin brothers of the petitioner, the Committee has invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner mainly on the three grounds; Firstly, there are contra entries in the birth extract of Gopal Naroba, the grandfather of the petitioner; secondly, the birth extract of the son born to Narayan, the great grandfather of the petitioner and thirdly, the extract of admit/cancel register of Lila Gopalrao, the paternal aunt of the petitioner shows their caste as ‘Koshti’.

The petitioner claims to be belonging to ‘Halbi’ caste which is included in the Scheduled Tribes category. After being appointed as ‘Assistant Teacher’ on a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribes category, a proposal was sent by the employer of the petitioner for issuing validity to the caste claim of the petitioner. However, by the impugned order, the caste claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the Committee for the reasons mentioned above.

Having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and having gone through the record, it transpires that the Committee has ignored the oldest document i.e. School Leaving Certificate, dated 08.04.1913 which is in the name of Gopal Naruji, the great grandfather of the petitioner wherein, his caste has been shown as ‘Halbi’. This document has been discarded only on the ground that the petitioner has mentioned the name of his grandfather and great grandfather as “Gopad and Narayan” in the family tree; however, the document shows the name as “Gopal and Naru”. We are conscious of the fact that most of the time ‘Gopad’ is called as ‘Gopal’ or vice-versa and sometimes, a person is also called by the short form of his name and therefore, we find support in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that ‘Naru’ is ‘Narayan’ and ‘Gopad’ is ‘Gopal’.

That apart, this Court by passing the order in Letters Patent Appeal No. 13/2003 (in Writ Petition No. 3949/2001), Writ Petition Nos. 3932/2000 and 3572/2004 has directed the Committee to issue validity certificates to the cousin brothers of the petitioner namely, Vivek Shrikrishna Sonparote, Shrikant Shrikrishna Sonparote and Amol Sonparote respectively.

The submission of the learned counsel for the AGP is that, the petitioner has suppressed invalidation of the caste claim of his cousin Snehal Bhimrao Sonparote and has not shown her in the family tree submitted to the Committee. The petitioner has disputed his relationship with Snehal Sonparote.

We have gone through the genealogical tree obtained by the Vigilance Cell wherein, Snehal Sonparote has not been shown as the cousin of the petitioner. Be that as it may, just because the caste claim of one of the alleged relatives of the petitioner has been invalidated, that cannot be a ground to reject the caste claim of the petitioner for the simple reason that if better evidence is produced, caste validity certificate can very well be granted.

Now, we come to the sheet anchor argument of the learned AGP that the petitioner in his family tree has shown that the father of his great grandfather is ‘Punjaji’ whereas, the uncle of the petitioner- Shrikrishna Sonparote in his statement, has stated that one ‘Gavhane’ is the father of the great grandfather of the petitioner.

We have gone through the record and we do not find that the petitioner has relied upon any document in the name of ‘Punjaji’ to support his caste claim. Therefore, we find support in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no reason for the petitioner to state different names in the caste claim. Moreover, it is very difficult for the petitioner to remember the name of his forefathers, perhaps that may be the reason behind the discrepancy pointed out by the learned AGP. That part, we are also conscious of the fact that sometimes, a person is called by two names.

Be that as it may, we find support in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no document in the name of ‘Punjaji’ has been relied upon by the petitioner to support his caste claim and therefore, the objection raised by the learned AGP on this point does not stand to the reason. Considering the fact that three validities have been granted to the cousin brothers of the petitioner by this Court by passing three consecutive orders, coupled with the entry belonging to the year 1913 which has more probative value, which shows the caste of Gopal Naruji, the grandfather of the petitioner as ‘Halbi’, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of invalidation passed by the Committee. Hence, the following order:-