Bombay High Court
Ku. Nanda Dhanraj Moundekar vs State Of Maharashtra,Thr. Secretary ... on 24 February, 2022
Bench: A. S. Chandurkar, G. A. Sanap
4.mca.35.2022 judge.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO. 35 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.3905 OF 2000
Ku Nanda D/o. Dhanraj Moundekar,
aged about 48 Years, Occ.: Service,
R/o. Vinkar Colony, MIG, 10/2, Ring
Road, Manewada, Nagpur
....APPLICANT
// V E R S U S //
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Department of Irrigation, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee,
Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hrishikesh S. Chitaley, Advocate for petitioner
Mrs S. S. Jachak, AGP for respondent Nos.1 & 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND G. A. SANAP, JJ.
DATE : 25/02/2022
J U D G M E N T (Per : G. A. SANAP, J.)
1] The applicant/original petitioner has made this application for review and recall of the order dated 20.12.2021 passed in Writ Petition No. 3905 of 2000. In this application it is
4.mca.35.2022 judge.odt 2 the case of the applicant that while appreciating the extract from father's School Register an error has occurred. In the said extract in the remarks column date of correction of entry has been mentioned. However, the same has not been taken into consideration. Similarly, the signature below the correction made by Head Master were not taken into consideration. Over looking the said fact the document has been discarded. The remark column was not blank. It mentions the date as 19.07.1955. The said date ought to have been presumed to be the date of correction of the relevant record. The second ground is that relevant entry was made in 1955. Whereas, the Secondary School Code was enacted and given effect from 1963. The reliance placed on Clause 26.3 and 26.4 was therefore, not legally permissible while discarding the document. On the basis of the documents, the appellant was entitled to get an order directing the Caste Scrutiny Committee to issue Caste Validity Certificate to the applicant for 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe. 2] The respondent No.2 has filed the reply and opposed this application. It is contended that considering the
4.mca.35.2022 judge.odt 3 available evidence on record the writ petition was rightly rejected. No error has occurred while deciding the matter. The documentary evidence collected during the course of Vigilance Cell inquiry were found doubtful. The report was against the applicant. The applicant was granted an opportunity to deal with the said report and documents. It was not properly dealt with by filling the affidavit of father of the applicant. The affidavit of father would have clarified all the relevant circumstances which were known to him only.
3] We have heard the learned Advocate for the applicant and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.2. We have gone through the record and proceedings.
4] The Vigilance Cell report clearly indicates that in order to support this correction of the caste 'Halba' from 'Koshti' in the School record the documents relating to the father of Dhanraj were not produced. The claim of the applicant is based on the
4.mca.35.2022 judge.odt 4 corrections made in the caste of father from 'Koshti' to 'Halba' somewhere in 1955. It is a matter of record that the voluntary retirement taken by the father of the applicant coincided with her appointment. This caste certificate issued in favour of the father was not submitted for verification to the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Similarly, the caste certificate issued in favour of the brother of the applicant was also not submitted for verification to the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Considering the shaky nature of the documents and the absence of the contemporaneous evidence, it was found insufficient to accept the claim of the petitioner. For discarding this document namely the extract of the entry from the School register reasons have been recorded. One of the reasons was that father did not file a detailed affidavit to place on record the circumstances in which this change was made in the caste from 'Koshti' to 'Halba' in his School record. While going through the documents, at this stage, it is seen that attested copy of the service book of the father of the applicant has been placed on record. In the column of Nationality/Caste/Religion initially the nationality was mentioned as 'Indian'. The religion was mentioned as 'Hindu'.
4.mca.35.2022 judge.odt 5 Perusal of the extract would show that the father had joined the service in 1963. In this extract 'Halba' was later on inserted. If this document is read with this entry from school register it would show that even at the time of the entry in service in 1963 his 'Halba' caste was not initially mentioned. If the correction was made as stated on 19.07.1955, the subsequent corrections in the service book after 1963 was not justifiable. This creates further doubt. Therefore, in our view the documentary evidence placed on record is not sufficient to accept the submissions. No error apparent on the face of the record has been pointed out. The reasons have been recorded for discarding other school record of the applicant, her brother and her father where the caste is mentioned as 'Halba'. Therefore, in our view on this ground this application cannot be allowed. 5] The second ground is that in the year 1955 when this entry was corrected the Secondary School Code was not in existence. It is submitted that applying the provisions of Secondary School Code the documents have been discarded and the claim has been rejected. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner
4.mca.35.2022 judge.odt 6 in support of her claim had relied upon the letter dated 15.01.2021 received from the School under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Wherein, it was mentioned that the documents namely the application and the copy of the affidavit submitted for correction of the caste as per Rule 26.4 Appendix VI of the Secondary School Code were not available and therefore, the certified copy of the application and certified copy of the affidavit could not be issued. Since, the reference to Rule 26.4 Appendix VI of the Secondary School Code was made in this application the relevant observations came to be made in the judgment. However, the claim of the petitioner has not been rejected solely on the basis of the non- compliance of the requirement of Clauses 26.4 and 26.3 of the Secondary School Code. It is to be noted that on the analysis of the documentary evidence a finding has been recorded that the same were not sufficient to accept the claim of the applicant. One of the grounds for rejecting the claim was non compliance of the provisions of Secondary School Code. Even if it is accepted that Secondary School Code is not applicable in the case of the applicant it would not make any difference in as much as that the finding of
4.mca.35.2022 judge.odt 7 fact that the caste of the applicant's father was Koshti and not Halba has been recorded on the basis of the documentary evidence. In the Vigilance Cell report it was specifically mentioned that the record of the grandfather of the applicant was not produced to substantiate the correction made in the School record. The applicant had an opportunity to place the sufficient material to clear this doubt. Failure to produce the material on record further compounded the problem of the applicant. In view of this position we are of the opinion that there is no error apparent on the face of the record. The evidence which has been produced with this application cannot make said entry acceptable.
In view of this we are not inclined to accept the submissions. The review application deserves to be dismissed. Hence, following order-
ORDER 1] The Review Application stands dismissed.
2] No order as to costs.
3] The learned Advocate for the applicant submits that
the protection granted vide order dated 20.12.2021 may be continued for further period of four weeks. 4] Considering the facts and circumstances, the
4.mca.35.2022 judge.odt 8 protection granted vide Clause (3) of the operative part of the order dated 20.12.2021 to continue for further period of four weeks from today.
No order as to costs.
(G. A. SANAP, J.) (A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
Namrata
Signed By:NAMRATA YOGESH
DHARKAR
P. A.
High Court Nagpur
Signing Date:26.02.2022 14:38