AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
JUDGMENT (PER URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties.
The order under challenge is of dated 28.07.2025, passed by respondent No.1 District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Washim, thereby invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner, who is belonging to ‘Attar’, Other Backward Class category, as per entry No.202.
Brief facts of the case which are necessary for final disposal of the present petition are as under :
The petitioner belongs to ‘Attar’ caste, which is recognized as O.B.C., as per entry No.202 and comes under O.B.C. category. Since the petitioner belongs to O.B.C. category and since her appointment is under the O.B.C. category, the Education Officer (Primary) issued a communication on 24.01.2025, directing the petitioner to obtain caste validity certificate from the competent authority. Therefore, her caste claim was referred to respondent No.1 District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Washim on 16.02.2025, for verification and validation. It is the contention of the petitioner that she had placed on record along with validity certificates issued to her blood relatives as well as she had relied upon pre-constitutional document dated 10.10.1933, wherein caste of her great grandfather was recorded as ‘Attar’. It is submitted that despite the pre-constitutional documents are produced along with the proposal, it was not considered by respondent No.1 Committee and the Committee itself has also not considered the validity certificates as granted to the real brother as well as cousin brothers of the petitioner and invalidated the claim.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. He invited our attention towards the family tree, which is at page No.43 and reproduced as under.
वंशावळ
शेख सुलतान अतार (पणजोबा)
शेख इस्माईल मोहम्मद कासम चुलत आजोबा आजोबा
अ. सलाम अ. सत्तार अ. रज्जाक अ. अजिजज अज!दाराचे वडील अज!दाराचे काका अज!दाराचे काका अज!दाराचे काका
मो. सहीम एजाज अहमद चुलत भाऊ मो. उमैर मो. जुबैर चुलत भाऊ चुलत भाऊ चुलत भाऊ जात वैधताधारक जात वैधताधारक जात वैधताधारक जात वैधताधारक
मो. शहजाद मो. ईशा!द नौशद अहमद फि,रदोस अहमद शादाब अहमद सायमा जरीन मोठा भाऊ मोठा भाऊ मोठा भाऊ मोठा भाऊ मोठा भाऊ अज!दारस् वतः जात वौधताधारक
मो. शकीब युसरा सुंबूल भाचा भाची जात वैधताधारक जात वैधताधारक
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the family tree, name of the petitioner is appearing as a daughter of Abdul Salam. The validity certificate is already issued to her real brother viz. Firdos Ahemad, which is on record at record page No.60 as well as the validity certificate is issued to her cousin brother viz. Ajaz Ahemad, which is also placed on record. The certificate of Ajaz Ahemad was also produced before respondent No.1 Committee, which was also not considered by the Committee and invalidated the claim only on the ground that some ink was spilled over the name on pre-constitutional document dated 10.10.1933. He further submitted that even the vigilance cell report about the validity certificate given to the real brother of the petitioner as well as her cousin brothers, is in favour of the petitioner.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Apoorva D/o. Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, reported in 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401, wherein it is held that where the caste claim of a blood relative, such as father, son, daughter, brother and sister has been scrutinized and accepted, the caste claim of the applicant should be allowed without insisting on any other proof. He further placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Haseena Babu Sanadi Alias Haseena Rasul Tadval Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in 2020(4) Mh.L.J. 200 and submitted that respondent No.1 Committee, without considering the probative value of pre-constitutional documents, has invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner and therefore, the order passed by respondent No.1 Committee deserves to be quashed and set-aside.
The instant petition is strongly opposed by the learned AGP for respondent No.1-State as well as learned Counsel for respondent No.2. Learned AGP vehemently submitted that the petitioner could not prove her caste claim and therefore, the respondent No.1 Committee has rightly invalidated the claim of the petitioner. However, she fairly admitted that the validity certificates are issued to the real brother as well as cousin brothers of the petitioner and prayed for appropriate order shall be passed.
After hearing the respective learned Counsels, we have perused the entire documents. It is not in dispute that the real brother of the petitioner viz. Firdos Ahamad and the cousin brothers viz. Mohd. Zubair and Ajaz Ahemad are granted validity certificates by the Committee on the basis of pre-constitutional documents. On perusal of the order of respondent No.1 Committee, only reason assigned by the Committee is that on the document at page No.51 i.e. Kotwal Panji Nakkal dated 10.10.1933, some ink was spilled over it. The fair copy of the said Kotwal Panji Nakkal is at page No.52, which specifically shows that caste of Sultan was recorded as ‘Attar’, who has given birth to a son, whose name was Ismail. Thus, while taking entry regarding the birth of son, the caste of great-grandfather of the petitioner was recorded as ‘Attar’. As per the family tree, the said Ismail is the cousin grandfather of the petitioner.
We have perused the validity certificates, which were granted to the real brother and cousin brothers of the petitioner. The cousin brother of the petitioner viz. Mohammad Zubair, was granted validity certificate by the same committee i.e. District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Washim as well as the other cousin brother viz. Ajaz Ahmed and her real brother viz. Firdos Ahemad were granted validity certificates by the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee at Amravati.
The caste claim of the petitioner was referred to the vigilance cell for inquiry. The vigilance cell report was also in favour of the petitioner. In the case of Haseena Babu (Supra), wherein this Court has considered the aspect that though the documents produced by the petitioner are showing as a ‘Musalman’, however, this Court, in para.9, has observed as under.
“In support of his submission that there is no reason for Respondent No.2 - The Committee to disbelieve the vigilance cell report which is in favour of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to rely upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Imram A Ajij Shaikh (supra). Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said Report are relevant and the same are reproduced herein under for ready reference :-
“6 There is nothing on record to show any contra material and/or any objection by any one on record. The inquiry report itself supports the case of the petitioner based on all the traits, traditions, characteristics and customs of his caste. There is nothing to disbelieve the inquiry conducted by the Vigilance Cell. Respondent no.2 wrongly rejected the documents placed by the Petitioner as caste is mentioned only as Musalman. In the Muslim community, there are few cases in which the caste is recorded regularly and/or properly in any Government record. Therefore, the Committee ought to have considered the Vigilance Cell report instead of relying solely upon the documents placed on record by treating it to be unreliable. The Committee must consider in such situation that unless contrary material is placed on record and other documents are not clear as not available in the particular community, the Vigilance Cell report needs to be respected. There is no question of discarding the Vigilance Cell report, the purpose for which is well reconsidered and even recorded by the Apex Court in Madhuri Patil's case and Dayaram's case (supra).
7.Therefore, taking an overall view of the matter, we are inclined to set side impugned order dated 29 May 2013 with direction to re-consider the same, in accordance with law, in view of the above observations, including the Supreme Court judgments referred to above. It also means that the concerned Respondents, in case the caste is validated in favour of the petitioner, to pass consequential order at the earliest."
As far as the validity granted to the blood relatives of the petitioner are concerned, admittedly the petitioner relied upon the document of the year 1933, which is a pre-constitutional document, which acquires the probative value. In the case of Yogesh Madhav Makalwad Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, [MANU/SC/1070/2025], the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by referring its earlier judgment in the case of Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and Others, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 113, has observed in para. 22 as under :
“22.It is manifest from the afore extracted paragraph that the genuineness of a caste claim has to be considered not only on a thorough examination of the documents submitted in support of the claim but also on the affinity test, which would include the anthropological and ethnological traits, etc., of the applicant. However, it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down an absolute rule, which could be applied mechanically to examine a caste claim. Nevertheless, we feel that the following broad parameters could be kept in view while dealing with a caste claim:
(i)While dealing with documentary evidence, greater reliance may be placed on pre-Independence documents because they furnish a higher degree of probative value to the declaration of status of a caste, as compared to post-Independence documents. In case the applicant is the first generation ever to attend school, the availability of any documentary evidence becomes difficult, but that ipso facto does not call for the rejection of his claim. In fact, the mere fact that he is the first generation ever to attend school, some benefit of doubt in favour of the applicant may be given. Needless to add that in the event of a doubt on the credibility of a document, its veracity has to be tested on the basis of oral evidence, for which an opportunity has to be afforded to the applicant;
(ii)While applying the affinity test, which focuses on the ethnological connections with the Scheduled Tribe, a cautious approach has to be adopted. A few decades ago, when the tribes were somewhat immune to the cultural development happening around them, the affinity test could serve as a determinative factor. However, with the migrations, modernisation and contact with other communities, these communities tend to develop and adopt new traits which may not essentially match with the traditional characteristics of the tribe. Hence, the affinity test may not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant with a Scheduled Tribe. Nevertheless, the claim by an applicant that he is a part of a Scheduled Tribe and is entitled to the benefit extended to that tribe, cannot per se be disregarded on the ground that his present traits do not match his tribe's peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies, etc. Thus, the affinity test may be used to corroborate the documentary evidence and should not be the sole criteria to reject a claim.”
Admittedly, the pre-consitutional document, which has a probative value to the declaration of the status of a caste as compared to post-Independence documents, is ignored by respondent No.1 Committee. Similarly, the Scrutiny Committee also ignored the fact that the real brother as well as cousin brothers of the petitioner are granted with validity certificates, which is not in disputed. It is nowhere the contention of the Scrutiny Committee that the blood relatives have obtained the said certificates either by fraud or misrepresentation. Therefore, the law laid down by this Court in the case of Apoorva Nichale (Supra), is applicable in this case, wherein this Court observed that, the Government of Maharashtra by its Resolution dated 22.08.2007 directed that where during the course of enquiry or scrutiny of a caste claim it is seen that the caste claim of a blood relative, such as father, son, daughter, brother and sister has been scrutinized and accepted, the caste claim of the applicant should be allowed without insisting on any other proof. The guidelines provided by the Government Resolution are based on sound principles. If the relationship by blood is established or not doubted, and one such relative has been confirmed as belonging to a particular caste, there is no reason why public time or money should be spent in the committee testing the same evidence and making the same conclusion unless of course the Committee finds on the evidence that the validity of the certificate of such relation has been obtained by fraud.
In the present case, we find that District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Washim and Amravati have granted validity certificates to the real brother as well as cousin brothers of the petitioner and in view of the decision in the case of Apoorva Nichale (Supra), respondent No.1 Committee ought to have granted validity certificate to the petitioner as nothing on record to show that the blood relatives of the petitioner have obtained the validity certificates by way of misrepresentation or by playing fraud. The relationship by blood is also established and not disputed and when such relation has confirmed as belonging to a particular caste, there is no reason to again test the same.
Thus, in the light of above observations, we have no hesitation to hold that the order passed by respondent No.1 District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Washim, Dated 28.07.2025, thereby invalidating the claim of the petitioner, is illegal and deserves to quashed and set aside. Therefore, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
The Writ Petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 28.07.2025, passed by Respondent No.1 District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Washim, in Case No. जा.क्र .जिजजाप्रपसवा शिशम/ अतार/फिवद्या र्थी7 / प्र.क्र . SE-2025-00099229 जा.क्र . 825, is hereby quashed and set aside.
It is hereby declared that the petitioner belongs to ‘Attar’ Other Backward Class.
Respondent No.1 District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Washim is directed to issue Validity Certificate to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Rule is made absolute in the above said terms. No order as to costs.