Satish Eknath Majoke vs Caste Scrutiny Committee, VSNT and Other Backward Class and Others

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.—Heard respective Counsel. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has chosen not to appear and had not filed reply. Before the Caste Scrutiny Committee, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground basically that he is not native of State of Maharashtra.

Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the provision of Rule 12 of Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 to urge that the Vigilance Committee ought to have gone to East Punjab to verify the authenticity of caste claim of the petitioner. Learned AGP has invited our attention to the observations made in the impugned order to urge that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and effort is to continue in service for some time and continue to receive salary.

With the assistance of learned Counsel, we have perused papers. The petitioner has not supplied family tree. In absence of family tree, insistence upon Rule 12(3) of the Rules 2003 is misconceived. The petitioner had received adverse report of Vigilance Committee. He has not produced report before this Court.

Reply, if any, filed by him to that report is also not produced.

In this situation, we find substance in the contention of learned AGP that the petitioner is only making roving effort in the matter.

Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the documents, prima facie, established that the family of petitioner has migrated to Maharashtra in 1948. "Rajput Bhamta" has been recognized as VJ in 1961. Thus, on that date, they were residing in State of Maharashtra. Thus, merely because they are native of Punjab or then "Rajput Bhamta" is not recognised as backward tribe in Punjab, the caste claim could not have been invalidated.

The basic burden to prove his caste was/is upon the petitioner. In the present matter, he has not discharged it. Hence, interest of justice can be met with by giving petitioner one opportunity to provide family tree and to supply necessary records of his ancestors and other relatives to substantiate his caste claim.

We direct the petitioner to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 8th April 2013 and on that date the shall supply necessary documents and details with proper affidavit of any elderly person in his family and also his personal affidavit.

We find that the petitioner has not made true and complete disclosure before Committee though necessary. Hence, we direct respondents 2 and 3 to reduce his monthly salary to 75%. Thus, though the petitioner will continue in service till his caste claim is again verified by respondent No. I, he shall to receive 75% of normal salary till the caste claim is decided. Subject to this, the impugned order dated 6.9.2012 is quashed and set aside and proceeding is restored back to Scrutiny Committee for fresh decision. Fresh decision shall be taken within four months in accordance with law after 8th April 2013. The petition is allowed. No costs.