Bombay High Court
Ku. Pallavi D/O Rajendra Dardemal vs The Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary, ... on 20 July, 2022
Author: A.S.Chandurkar
Bench: A.S.Chandurkar
J-wp309.21.odt 1/18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION No.309 OF 2021
Ku. Pallavi d/o. Rajendra Dardemal,
Aged about 21 years,
Occupation : Student,
R/o. At Kanhadevi Post,
Kothulna, Tehsil-Parseoni,
Distt. Nagpur. : PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. The Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary,
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Adiwasi Vikas Bhavan,
Giripeth, Nagpur.
2. The Principal,
Nagpur Institute of Technology,
Katol Road, Nagpur.
3. The Registrar/Vice-Chancellor,
Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj,
Nagpur University (RTMNU),
Nagpur. : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Smt. Preeti D. Rane, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms. N.P. Mehta, Asstt. Government Pleader for Respondent No.1.
Shri S.S. Ghate, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : A.S.Chandurkar & Urmila Joshi-Phalke, JJ.
DATE : 20th July, 2022
::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2023 02:10:38 :::
J-wp309.21.odt 2/18
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioner had completed her Engineering course in the year 2020. Now, the petitioner, who belongs to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe intends to pursue her further education in M.Tech and for that purpose she requires a validity certificate for seeking admission and for getting a job also.
4. As per the contention of the petitioner she belongs to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe. Caste certificate was issued to her on 31.8.2010 by the competent authority. The respondent No.1 is the Committee constituted for the purpose of verification of caste claim of reserved category candidates like petitioner. The respondent No.2 is the College, wherein the petitioner pursued her education in Engineering (Electrical) course and respondent No.3 is the University. As per the contention of the petitioner her caste claim of "Mana" Scheduled Tribe was forwarded to the Scrutiny Committee ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2023 02:10:38 ::: J-wp309.21.odt 3/18 vide communication dated 24.9.2015. She had also submitted the relevant documents to support her caste claim viz. her caste certificate, school leaving certificate dated 26.6.2014. School Leaving Certificate dated 4.6.2016, School Leaving Certificate of her father dated 8.12.1987, caste validity certificate of her father dated 29.5.2007. School Leaving Certificate of her grandfather of 1941/1950/1953, extract of Kotwal Book regarding entry of her great grandfather of the year 1923. Copy of receipt of assessment of tax of the land of ancestors of the petitioner namely, Chindhu (1935), extract of Adhikar Abhilekh Panji of Family 1954-1955, caste validity certificate of her cousin uncle, namely, Sachin dated 26.11.2007, caste validity certificate of her uncle, namely, Pranay dated 30.12.2010 and caste validity certificate of her cousin aunt, namely, Prerna dated 4.10.2008. The vigilance inquiry was conducted in the year 2016 and report was submitted on 16.12.2017. The Vigilance Officer had also obtained some documents. The only pre-constitutional document which is shown to be 'Mani' of the year 1945. It is ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2023 02:10:38 ::: J-wp309.21.odt 4/18 the contention of the petitioner that instead of 'Mana', 'Mani' entry has been endorsed in the original copy. The petitioner contended that she has produced on record pre-independence document which shows that birth entry of her grandfather Shankar Natthu is of the year 1941. It is her contention that her caste claim was invalidated on the basis of adverse entries, namely, Mani, Kunbi, Mani Kunbi which are post-constitutional one. Due to inadvertence she failed to submit the reply. She contended that the Scrutiny Committee erroneously rejected her tribe claim on the ground that there are contrary entries and petitioner could not prove the affinity with the other family members, who were issued the caste validity. It is submitted by the petitioner that there are no Rules or any Code to test the affinity as regards "Mana" Scheduled Tribe. All the assessments done and the documents on record shows that the petitioner belongs to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe. The Caste Scrutiny Committee ignored that her nearest relatives were granted validity certificate and it is not considered by the Scrutiny Committee and erroneously ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2023 02:10:38 ::: J-wp309.21.odt 5/18 invalidated the claim of the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, Ms. N.P. Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 submitted that the Scrutiny Committee was justified in refusing to grant validity certificate and therefore the order passed by the respondent No.1 Caste Scrutiny Committee is correct one and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Heard Smt. Preeti Rane, learned counsel for the petitioner. She submitted that the Committee while invalidating the tribe claim considered irrelevant evidence and did not consider old documents which are of pre-independence era. The old documents which were placed on record before the Caste Scrutiny Committee by the petitioner and some were also collected by the Vigilance Cell were also not considered by the Committee. There are several documents on record to show that the petitioner belongs to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe. She submitted that as per the family tree Chindhya is the first ancestor who was having one son Natthu. Natthu has 3 sons, namely, Shankar, Rambhau and ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2023 02:10:38 ::: J-wp309.21.odt 6/18 Premraj, who are the grandfathers of the petitioner. Shankar had one daughter and two sons, namely, Nirmala, Ananda and Rajendra. Rajendra is the father of petitioner. Rambhau had two sons and one daughter Sachin, Sandip, and Sandhya and Premraj had one son and one daughter, namely, Pranay and Prerna. Petitioner is the daughter of Rajendra. Out of these relatives her cousin uncle Sachin, Pranay and cousin aunt Prerna had already granted caste validity certificate. Her father Rajendra was also granted validity certificate on 29.5.2007 by the Scrutiny Committee. She further submitted that her first ancestor Natthu, who born on 10.11.1945 recorded as a Mani, whereas her grandfather Shankar Natthu born on 15.7.1955 was recorded as 'Mana', his another grandfather born on 16.7.1968 was also recorded as 'Mana'. Her aunt Nirmala Shankarrao born on 16.7.1968 was also recorded as 'Mana'. Her cousin aunt Anandi Shankar, Vandana Shankar, Chandrakala Shankar, Vanmala Shankar and her father Rajendra Shankar are recorded as 'Mana'. Thus, there are consistent entries regarding the record of ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2023 02:10:38 ::: J-wp309.21.odt 7/18 'Mana' tribe. The pre-independence entry in respect of her grandfather Shankar who born on 1.7.1941 is recorded as 'Mana'. Thus, pre-independence entry in the name of her grandfather shows that the caste of her grandfather was recorded as 'Mana'. She submitted that the Vigilance Cell has also collected the documents, the Vigilance Cell report also shows that the ancestors are recorded as 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe. The Vigilance Cell report also shows that there are contrary entries like 'Mani', 'Kunbi' etc.
7. As against this, Ms. N.P. Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the Scrutiny Committee was justified in refusing to grant any validity certificate and therefore no interference is called for.
8. After hearing both parties at length and after perusing the record maintained by the Scrutiny Committee, apparently it shows that many documents placed on record by the petitioner as well as collected by the Vigilance Committee indicate consistent entries of the tribe as a 'Mana'. The pre- independence entry in respect of tribe of grandfather of the ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2023 02:10:38 ::: J-wp309.21.odt 8/18 petitioner, namely, Shankar Natthu recorded on 15.7.1955 as 'Mana'. Thereafter, the entries in respect of cousin grandfather are consistently recorded as 'Mana'. The birth entry of the grandfather of the petitioner, namely, Shankar Natthu is of pre-independence era.
9. The Caste Scrutiny Committee came to the conclusion that the petitioner could not prove her affinity with the other family members, who were granted validity certificate. The Committee has also observed that there are contrary entries like 'Mani', 'Kunbi', 'Mani Kunbi' etc. It is hold by the Committee that the petitioner ought to have proved the customs affinity and traditions of the 'Mana' tribe community. It is also observed by the Committee that the caste validity certificate are issued to the blood relatives of the petitioner without any vigilance inquiry.
10. The findings recorded by the Caste Scrutiny Committee only on the ground that there are contrary entries like 'Mani', 'Mana' and 'Kunbi' etc. The petitioner has placed her reliance on Ku. Nayan d/o. Bhaskar Chouke vs. The ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2023 02:10:38 ::: J-wp309.21.odt 9/18 Scheduled Tribes Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur in a Writ Petition No.491/2019, wherein this Court has considered the directions given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Application No.5270/2004, wherein it is observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that there was no reason for the Scrutiny Committee to have embark upon further inquiry into the matter and questioned the validity of the claim, only on the ground that some of the relatives caste entries in pre-constitutional documents were such as 'Mani', 'Manya', 'Mana' and 'Mana Kunbi'. Even the reasons stated by the Scrutiny Committee for rejecting the validity granted to father and real brother of the petitioner is untenable. This Court has also referred the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Gitesh s/o. Narendra Ghormare vs. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Nagpur and others, reported in 2018(4) Mh.L.J. 933, wherein it is held by this Court that in paragraph Nos.30 and 31.
"30. It is urged before us that while issuing the caste validity certificates in the names of the father and other blood relatives of the petitioner, the Police Vigilance Cell enquiry was ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2023 02:10:38 ::: J-wp309.21.odt 10/18 not conducted. Rule 12(2) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 being relevant, is reproduced below :
"12. Procedure to be followed by Scrutiny Committee.
(2) If the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the documentary evidence produced by the applicant the Scrutiny Committee shall forward the applications to the Vigilance Cell for conducting the school, home and other enquiry."
It is the discretion of the Scrutiny Committee whether the claim is to be forwarded to the Vigilance Cell for conducting school, home and other enquiry. If the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the documentary evidence produced, then only it can forward the documents to the Vigilance Cell. But if the Committee records its satisfaction on the basis of documentary evidence produced and issues a validity certificate, it cannot question its correctness, legality or binding nature or finality attached to it under sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001) on the ground that the Police Vigilance Cell enquiry was not conducted. The Committee, in our view, was wrong in ignoring the caste validity certificates issued in the name of the father of the petitioner validating his claim for 'Mana Scheduled Tribe'.
::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2023 02:10:38 ::: J-wp309.21.odt 11/18
31. This question has been dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale v. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others, reported in 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401. Para 7 of the said decision being relevant, is reproduced below :
"7. We thus come to the conclusion that when during the course of enquiry the candidate submits a caste validity certificate granted earlier certifying that a blood relation of the candidate belongs to the same caste as that claimed by the applicant, the Committee may grant such certificate without calling for Vigilance Cell Report. However, if the committee finds that the earlier caste certificate is tainted by fraud or is granted without jurisdiction, the Committee may refuse to follow and may refuse to grant certificate to the applicant before it."
The relevant portion in para 9 of the said decision is also reproduced below :
"9. ... In the circumstances, we are of the view that the committee which has expressed a doubt about the validity of caste claim of the petitioner and has described it as a mistake in its order, ought not to have arrived at a different conclusion. The matters pertaining to validity of caste have a great impact on the candidate as well as on the future generations in many matters varying from marriage to education and enjoyment, and therefore where a committee has given a finding about the validity of the caste of a candidate another committee ought not to refuse the same status to a blood relative who applies. A merely different view on the same facts would not entitle the committee dealing with the ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2023 02:10:38 ::: J-wp309.21.odt 12/18 subsequent caste claim to reject it. There is, however, no doubt as observed by us earlier that if a committee is of the view that the earlier certificate is obtained by fraud it would not be bound to follow the earlier caste validity certificate and is entitled to refuse the caste claim and also in addition initiate proceedings for cancellation of the earlier order. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the petition must succeed. Rule is made absolute in above terms. The Caste Scrutiny Committee is directed to furnish the caste validity certificate to the petitioner."
It is not the finding of the Committee that the father of the petitioner obtained the caste validity certificate by playing a fraud or that the grant of certificate was without jurisdiction. On the contrary, the certificates indicate that the same are issued in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5270 of 2004. A merely different view on the same facts in a subsequent case of blood relative would not entitled the Committee to reject the claim. If the Committee is permitted to alter or change its view repeatedly, it would create an anomalous situation that each of the blood relatives would be of different caste/tribe and finality attached would become redundant. In our view, therefore, the Committee ought to have validated the certificate in favour of the petitioner."
11. In the above case similar issue as regards rejection of the validity granted in the family arose. In the case of Gitesh (supra) the validity granted in the family was not ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2023 02:10:38 ::: J-wp309.21.odt 13/18 considered as a valid proof of the caste or the tribe claim for the reason that the validity granted earlier was not after the conduct of Vigilance inquiry. Dealing with this contention, the Division Bench of this Court by referring to the provisions made in Rule 12(2) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 held that it is the discretion of the Scrutiny Committee, whether the claim is to be forwarded to the Vigilance Cell for conducting school (home) and other inquiry or not. It is further held that if the Scrutiny Committee was not satisfied with the documentary evidence produced, then only it could forward the documents to the Vigilance Cell. It further held that if the Committee recorded its satisfaction on the basis of documentary evidence produced and issued a validity certificate, noone could question the correctness or legality of the certificate or its binding nature and finality attached to it under sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2023 02:10:38 ::: J-wp309.21.odt 14/18 Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000.
12. Thus, in the light of the above said judgment it is the discretion of the Scrutiny Committee whether the claim is to be forwarded to the Vigilance Cell for conducting the inquiry or not. This question also dealt by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Apoorva d/o. Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others, reported in 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401. Para 7 of the said decision reproduced below :
"we thus come to the conclusion that when during the course of enquiry the candidate submits a caste validity certificate granted earlier certifying that a blood relation of the candidate belongs to the same caste as that claimed by the applicant, the Committee may grant such certificate without calling for Vigilance Cell Report. However, if the Committee finds that the earlier caste certificate is tainted by fraud or is granted without jurisdiction, the Committee may refuse to follow and may refuse to grant certificate to the applicant before it."
It is further held by the Division Bench that in the circumstances we are of the view that the Committee which ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2023 02:10:38 ::: J-wp309.21.odt 15/18 has expressed a doubt about the validity of the caste claim of the petitioner and has described it as a mistake in its order ought not to have arrived at a different conclusion. The matters pertaining to the validity of caste have a great impact on the candidate as well as on the future generation in many matters varying from marriage to education and enjoyment. A merely different view on the same facts could not entitle the committee dealing with the subsequent caste claim to reject it.
13. Here in the present case it is not the contention of the Committee that the earlier caste certificate is obtained by fraud or is granted without jurisdiction. As there is no observation that the earlier caste certificate validated is by fraud or without jurisdiction, the Committee cannot refuse to grant certificate to the petitioner. As observed above in the present case the Committee nowhere observed that father of the petitioner or other relatives have obtained caste validity certificate by playing fraud or that grant of certificate was without jurisdiction. The validity certificate granted to the father and real uncle of the petitioner and cousin uncle of the ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2023 02:10:38 ::: J-wp309.21.odt 16/18 petitioner were without conducting Vigilance inquiry, as observed by the Scrutiny Committee in the impugned order. But the respondent No.1-Caste Scrutiny Committee had not inquired before rejecting the validity of the petitioner, whether earlier Scrutiny Committee were satisfied on the basis of the documentary evidence produced and whether they found that there was no need to conduct any vigilance inquiry but without making any inquiry the Scrutiny Committee straightway rejected the validity and refused to accept the earlier validity certificate as sufficient proof of the social status of the petitioner. In the present case, we find that there is nothing on record which shows that while granting validity certificate to the father or the other relatives the earlier Scrutiny Committee had not recorded its satisfaction regarding the sufficiency of the documentary evidence warranting no further vigilance inquiry in the matter. In the light of the above discussion there is no reason to accept the contention of the Scrutiny Committee that the validity certificate produced on record as a proof of the tribe claim of ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2023 02:10:38 ::: J-wp309.21.odt 17/18 the petitioner do not constitute any conclusive evidence for recording a finding as regards social status of the petitioner. The validity certificate granted earlier to the father, uncle of the petitioner have to be treated as conclusive proof to issue the validity certificate to the petitioner. There was no need for the Scrutiny Committee to enter into the caste entries of the relatives of the petitioner which are showing the contrary entries. In fact, a single entry which is of pre-independence era shows that the predecessor of the petitioner was 'Mana'.
14. In the light of the above discussion, we find that the finding of the Committee is erroneous and liable to be set aside. Hence, we proceed to pass following order :
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The order passed by the Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur dated 5.3.2018 invalidating tribe claim is set aside.
(iii) The order dated 26.6.2020 passed by the Scrutiny Committee refusing to consider the petitioner's tribe ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2023 02:10:38 ::: J-wp309.21.odt 18/18 claim on account of passing of the earlier order dated 5.3.2018 does not survive.
(iv) It is declared that the petitioner belongs to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe.
(v) The Scrutiny Committee within a period of six weeks on receipt of copy of this order shall issue validity certificate to the petitioner.
(vi) The respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall take necessary steps as regards the education of the petitioner in view of issuance of validity certificate.
15. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs.
(Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.) (A.S.Chandurkar, J.) okMksns ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2023 02:10:38 :::