AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(PER: M. W. CHANDWANI , J.):-
Heard.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels for the parties.
The petition challenges the order of invalidation dated 18.07.2023 passed by respondent no. 1- Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati (for short, “the Committee”) rejecting the caste claim of the petitioner, who claims to be belonging to ‘Halbi’ Scheduled Tribe. This is the third round of litigation between the parties.
The petitioner was appointed as ‘Shikshan Sewak’ on the post reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category with respondent no. 2-Zilla Parishad, Amravati. The petitioner submitted his caste claim for validation to respondent no.1. Respondent no. 2- Zilla Parishad sought to terminate the service of the petitioner for want of caste validity certificate and therefore, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1459/2012. This Court, by order dated 28.08.2012, directed the Committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner afresh within six months and continued the service of the petitioner. The Committee, by the order dated 17.04.2013, invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner on the ground that the Vigilance Cell has found three documents of Subhadra, Kashinath and Hiraman of the year 1946, 1914 and 1919 respectively wherein, their caste is recorded as ‘Koshti’. However, the petitioner denied his relationship with those persons. Consequently, the said order came to be challenged before this Court again by filing Writ Petition No. 3149/2013. This Court, by order dated 06.10.2022, directed respondent no. 1 to reconsider the caste claim of the petitioner by taking into consideration the material available on record. Respondent no. 1- Committee, by order dated 18.07.2023, again rejected the caste claim of the petitioner mainly on the ground that one of the entries dated 15.10.1938 which is in the name of Ganpat Bhagwansa, the cousin great grandfather of the petitioner wherein, in the caste column, his caste is shown as ‘Rangari’ and also on the ground that the caste claim of Manish Pandurang Hedaoo, the real brother of the petitioner was invalidated by the Committee by its order dated 30.11.2004, which was not challenged by his brother before the Competent Court.
Having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and having gone through the impugned order and the record of the Committee, it is revealed that in the Vigilance Enquiry, contra entries were found showing the caste as ‘Koshti’ against the name of Kashinath Bhagwan and Hiraman Bhagwan, the cousin great grandfathers of the petitioner of the year 1914 and dated 03.05.1919 respectively but the petitioner denied his relationship with Kashinath Bhagwan and Hiraman Bhagwan. We have perused the genealogical tree prepared by the Vigilance Cell wherein, Kashinath and Hiraman have not been shown as the sons of Bhagwan. Therefore, these documents ought not to have been relied upon by the Committee for invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner. It appears that one birth entry dated 15.10.1938 of a girl child born to Ganpat Bhagwan, the cousin great grandfather of the petitioner was found by the Vigilance Cell wherein, his caste has been shown as ‘Rangari’.
It appears to us that there are consistent entries since year 1929 in the names of the forefathers of the petitioner showing their caste as ‘Halbi’ except the entry dated 15.10.1938. We do not find any other entry amongst the voluminous documents relied upon by the petitioner, showing the caste of his forefathers as ‘Rangari’. Therefore, the Committee has erred in relying on this stray entry showing the caste of the cousin great grandfather as ‘Rangari’ by ignoring the oldest document dated 14.08.1929 in the name of Kashinath Sadashiv, the cousin grandfather of the petitioner as well as the document dated 03.10.1930 in the name of Raghunath Sadashiv, the grandfather of the petitioner which is showing their caste as ‘Halbi’.
The petitioner has also denied having any relationship with Deorao Sadoba to whom a girl child was born and in her birth entry dated 06.07.1946, his caste has been shown as ‘Koshti’. The name of Deorao Sadoba has also not appeared in the family tree submitted by the petitioner. Rather, the Vigilance Cell has recorded the statement of one Ganesh Sormare who has also, in his statement given to the Vigilance Cell stated that Subhadra is not related to the petitioner.
Great emphasis has been laid by the learned AGP on the entry of the admit/cancel register dated 02.08.1957 in the name of Devidas Raghunath, the uncle of the petitioner wherein, it has been alleged that by deleting the word ‘Ko’, ‘Halba (Vinkari)’ has been interpolated. We have perused the said document and we do not find force in the argument of the learned AGP for the reason that the document is of the year 1957 which shows the caste of the forefathers of the petitioner as ‘Halbi’. Even otherwise, in the very document, the profession of the uncle of the petitioner is shown as ‘Vinkari’ (weaving).
Needless to mention that, in the decision in the case of Priya S/o. Pravin Parate Vs. Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur and others [2013 (1) Mh.L.J. 180], this Court has observed in para no. 10 as under:-
“10.Insofar as the reliance on some of the entries pertaining to petitioners relatives from paternal side showing caste to be 'Koshti' on which Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel relies, are concerned, perusal of the said document would reveal that though the caste of the said person is written as Koshti, the profession is also shown as weaving. As can be seen from the Gazetteer of Amravati District, that Halbi's in erstwhile Ellichpur and Anjangaon Surji in Daryapur Taluq in Amravati District were also engaged in the profession of weaving. It is common knowledge that persons engaged in the profession of weaving were called as "Koshti". A possibility cannot be ruled out that due to this, said entries might have recorded. It is also relevant to refer to some portion from the authority of R.V Russell on Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India, published in 1916, wherein while dealing with the Halba Tribe, it has been stated that "Some of these soldiers may have migrated west and taken service under the Gond Kings of Chanda, and their descendants may now be represented by the Bhandara Zamindars, who, however, if this theory be correct, have entirely forgotten their origin. Others took up weaving and have become amalgamated with the Koshti caste in Bhandara and Berar.”
From the aforesaid authority, it would reveal that persons belonging to Halba Tribe had migrated to west and taken service under the Gond Kings of Chanda. It can also be seen that some of them had taken to weaving and had amalgamated with the Koshti caste in Bhandara and Berar. Merely because some stray entries as "Koshti" are recorded in respect of caste of some of the relative of petitioners from their paternal side; the voluminous documentary evidence of pre-Constitution era which clearly certify the petitioners great-grand father and his brothers to be Halbi, could not have been lightly brushed aside by the Scrutiny Committee. As discussed hereinabove, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Anand (supra), found that the pre-Independence documents have a greater probative value and they should be given due consideration while considering the claim of a tribal.”
In view of the above, we find that the Committee has grossly erred in rejecting the caste claim of the petitioner in view of the voluminous documentary evidence of pre-constitutional era, more particularly, the oldest documents i.e. the admit/cancel register dated 14.08.1929 of Kashinath Sadashiv, the cousin grandfather of the petitioner as well as the School Leaving Certificate dated 03.10.1930 of Raghunath Sadashiv, the grandfather of the petitioner showing their caste as ‘Halbi’.
Just because the caste claim of the real brother 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.
In view of the discussion above and the voluminous documents submitted by the petitioner, we find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is unsustainable in law and the petition therefore, deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order:-
The petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 18.07.2023 passed in Case no. AMT/STCC/Amt/S.ST/2005/10018 by respondent no. 1- Committee is hereby quashed and set aside.
iii) It is declared that the petitioner belongs to ‘Halbi’ Scheduled Tribe which is an entry at Sr. No. 19 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.
iv) Respondent no. 1- Committee is directed to issue validity certificate to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.
Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.