Bombay High Court
Devidas Baburao Hajare And Anr. vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 7 August, 1987
Equivalent citations: AIR 1987 BOMBAY 354, (1987) MAH LJ 801
JUDGMENT H.H. Kantharia, J.
1. A common question which we are called upon to consider in these two writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution is the controversy concerning the caste claim made by the petitioners. Petitioner 1. Devidas Baburao Hajare, is the father of petitioner 2 Sanagita, in Writ Petition No. 261 of 1987, and petitioner 2 Kavita, in Writ Petition No.887 of 1987. Petitioners claim that they belong to Gadi-Lohar community which is included in the list of the Nomadic Tribes. Respondents 1 and 2 both the writ petitions cotrovert the petitioner's claim.
2. The core and conscience of the Constitution is to ensure justice, social, economic and political to the people of this vast and great country among whom millions and millions are the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes who are the ligitimate beneficiaries of an elaborate system of "compensatory discrmination" which given them special and preferential treatment, among other things, in the field of education so that they may meaningfully participate in th emainstreat of national life.
3. Article 15(4) of the Constitution lays down that nothing shall prevent the State from making any specially and educationally Backward Classes or the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Articles 46 provides that State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. The Presidential Orders 1950, made under Arts. 341 and 342 by public notification specify Castes and Tribes which shall for the purposes of the Constitution be deemed to be the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Prliament may lbe law include in or exclude from the said list any Caste or Tribe. By jGovernment Circular, Education and Social Welfare Department No. CBC-1470/10269-J, D/- 124-8-1970, a community known as Gadi-Lohar was included in the list of the Nomadic Tribes in so far as it related to the State of Maharashtra.
4. But there are some unscrupulous and dishonest persons in this country who never fail to defeat these massive and far reaching endeavours made by a democratic nation to integrate an oppressed, depressed and excluded population into the mainstream of national life. The means adopted by them are too mean to be over emphasised. They indulge in various kinds of deceitful and fraudulent methods for obtaining bogus caste Certficates on the basis of which they get admisisons in educational institutions, and more particularly for much sough after medical and engineeering cojurse, in the reservd category thus depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes student sof their fundamental right to education which was denied to them for thousands of years. The instant case is one such eloquent example.
5. Kavita was studying in 10th Standard in a school at Kalyan, Thane District, in the year 1982-83. In the School Register her caste was shown as Lohar. Her father obtained a caste certificate from the Tehsildar of Dhule District on the basis of which he got a correctionmade in her school leaving certificate in the year 1983 thereby changing her caste from Hindu non-backward Class to Gadi-Lohar. And to the basis of such corrected school eaving certificate, she got admission for the medical course in the reserved category for No, matic Tribe in the year 1985, after passing her 12th Standard examination. She appeared for the first M.B.B.S. examination in November, 1986. However, in the meanwhile, the Cassette verification Committee constituted by the Governement of Maharashtra under the Directorate of Social Welfare, Pune, examined her caste certificate and invalidated the same . Therefore, her first M.B.B.S. results were withheld in January, 1987.
6. Petitioner 1 also got changes made in the school records of his younger daughter sangita changing her caste from Lohar to Gadi-Lohar in the School leaving certificate, After Sangita passed her 12th standard examination in June, 1986, she applied for admission to the medical course in onme of the reservation seats for the Nomadice Tribe. She submitted school leaving certificate, however, was forwarded to the jcAste Verfication Committee. The said Committee called Sangita and her father for interview and on the basis of the information gathered at the interview and from the documents, the said committee by a well reasoned and well lconsidered spseaking order dt. 4th June 1986, invalidated her claim as belonging to Gadi-invalidated her claim as belonging to Gadi-Lohar Community. Sangita therefore, preferred an appeal lto the Commission Konkan Division, Konkan Bhavan, New Bombay. The Commissioner dismissed her appeal by an order dt/- 17-10-1986.
7. Aggrieved by the order dt/- 4th June, 1986 of the Caste Verification Committee and the order dt/- 17-10-1986 passed by the Commissioner in Appeal lNo. Appeal Desk/NT/50/86 invalidating her caste claim, Sangita filed Writ Petition No. 261 of 1987. Kavit adid not prfer an appeal to the Commissioner but directly field Writ Petition No.887 of 1987 in this Court because she felt that it was o use preferring an appeal before the same Commissioner who had rejected the caste claim of her younger sister.
8. This court while exercising writ jursidcition under Art. 226 of the Constitution does not review each and every peice of evidence like an appellate court. However, we carefully went through the entire record nd the impugned orders and gave our anxious thought to the issues involved in the matter as the educational career of two young girls was at stake. Our thorough scrutiny of the entire record leaves no doubt in our minds that petition 1 obtained bogus caste certificates in favour of his daughters Kavita and Sangita to enable lthem to seek entry in the medical college.
9. The following are our reasons and conclusions as a result of examination of the material on record.
10. The caste certificate issued in favour of Sangita by the Executive Magistrate, Kalyan showing her caste as Gadi-Lohar is not valid firstly lbecause it is not in the prescribed form as per para 3 of the government lResolution dt/- 21-3-1979 and secondly because it does not idicate the Government Order under which the caste in question was notified as Nomadic Tribe. Sangita, at the relevant time, was ordinarily lthe resident of village Donaicha in Dhule District and therefore, the Executive Magistrate, Kalyan, had no jurisdiction to issue a caste certificate in her favour. It appear that the Executive Magistrate, Kalyan, issued the caste certificate most mechanically and with total non-application of mind as the only basis on which he had issued the said certificate was the school leaving certificate issued by the Headmaster of Mohan Colony School, Mohane on 23rd July, 1984, which was not enough proof to issue a caste certificate. The certificate was to even dated by the Executive Magistrate. It seems that some sort of a "form" of caste certificate was made available to the Executive Magistrate on which format he issued the caste certificate.
11. The birth extract from Sahada Nagar Palika showing caste of petitioner 1 as Gadi-Lohar appears to be a clear case of manipulation. The date of birth of petitioner 1 is 3-11-1939 but the entry regarding his birth date was made as late as on 3-9-1985 on the basis of an order passed by an Executive Magistrate and an affidavit. The surname of the father of petitioner 1 mentioned in the birth register is "Mistry" (Hajare). Normally, a carpenter (Sutar) or a blacksmith (Lohar) is addressed as "Mistry" in Maharashtra but a Gadi-Lohar who carries on his tiny occupation of blacksmiths in small huits or on the outskirts of the villages is not addressed as "Mistry" This goes to show that petitioners 1's father was Lohar by casts and not Gadi-Lohar.
(c) The Caste Verification Committee granted 10 ldays time to Sangita and her father to produce their primary school leaving certificates to show that they belong to Gadi-Lohar Community but neither Sangita's nor her father's certificate was produced for the perusal of the Committee.
12. Although SAngita claims to be belonging to Nomadic Tribe, the record does not show that she had at any time during her school career availed of any of the concessions such as tuition fees, free studentships and scholarships granted to the students belonging to Nomadic Tribes.
13. The surnames of the relatives of the petitioners as stood revealed in the questionnaire were Bagul, Jadhav, Khele, Kale, etc. which are usually the surnames of Lhars notified as other Backward Classes.
14. Sangita and her father miserably fialed at the interview before the Caste Verification Committee in pointing out the differneces in the occupations of Lohars and Gadi-Lohars.
15. The family occupation of the petitioners was stated to be carpentry work which normally is not the occupation of Gadi-Lohars who are a wandering tribe and work as polishers tinkers and knife sharpeners.
16. According to the petitioners, their motherongue is mixed Gujarati-Marathi but they speak Arirani Marathi. They are unable to speak mixed Gujarati-Marathi. In fact, Gadi-Lohars speak mixed Gujarati-Marathi which the petitioners do not and cannot speak.
17. The petitioners are unable to explain the traints and characteristics of Gadi-Lohars.
18. The deotoes worshipped by the petitioners are Ganpati, Suryachandra, Ramdeoji, Shitalamata, achalamata etc. and their family deity is Suptashringidevi which deities are normally worshipped by Hindu-Lohars in Mahrashtra whereas Gadi-Lohars worship balaji and Bhavanimata and strongly believe in ghosts.
19. The customs and traditions followed by the petitioners do indicate that they are Lohars belonging to other Backward Calsses.
20. The Lohars perform Sradha which the Gadi-Lohars do not do.
21. While verifying the caste claim of Kavita, the Caste Verification Committee deputed one of its Officers to enquire into her school records when it was revealed that she belongs to Hindu-Lohar community and not Gadi-Lohar. It was found that the entry aginst the caste of kavita was showing "Non-Backward Class" which was scored out and the words Gadi-Lohar were subsequently added.It was also noticed that her school by New Era English Primary School, Ulhasnagar, showed that she belongs to Hindu-Lohar community whereas the xerox copy of the school leavilng certificate dt/- 14th June, 1983 issued buy national Rayon Corporation colony School, lMohance Kalyan shows that the entry Gadi-Lohar was made after scoring out the original entry "Non-Backward Class." The word Gadi is shown to have been prefixed to the word lohar.
22. The original admission form dt/- 28th May, 1974 of Sangita shows her caste as Lohar. The school leaving certificate dt/- 16th May, 1974 issued by New Era K.G. Class also shows her caste as Lohar However, on the basis of a letter issued by zilla Parishad, Thane, on 30th July 1983, the school record was corrected so as to idicate her caste as gadi-Lohar. A letter dt/- 7th Aprilk, 1983 issued by National Rayon Corporation shows that the caste in the School record was changed on the basis of the caste cetificate issued to petitioner 1 and it is not mentioned ther ein as to on what basis the caste certificate was isssued to petitioner 1.
23. Entry No. 3753 in the Genral Register of the School in respect of Sangita originally showed her as "non-backward Class" but the same was changed to Gadi-Lohar on the basis of a letter dt./-30th July 1983 issued by Zilla Parshsad, Thane. And similar is the case in respect of school records of Kavita. Her caste as Lohar, and entry No. 3391 in the General Register of the school shows "non-backward Class."
24. From these facts and circumstances, it is crystal clear that the petitioner belong to Hindu-Lohar caste and not Gadi-Lohar as falsely claimed by them.
25. It was, however contended on behalf of the petitioners that petitioner 1 has two uncles (his father's brothers) viz. Trimbak Krishnaji Hazare and Eknath Krishnaji Kazare. Trimbak Krishnaji Hazaare has two sons by name (I) Anil, and (ii) Sachindra, Anil had obtained admission in Medical College in the year 1979 against a reserved seat for Nomadic Tribe and Sachindra had secured admission in Medical College in the year 1983-84 on the same basis that he belongs to Nomadic Tribe i.e. Gai-Lohar. It was, therefore, urged that on the basis of the proof as to the caste of the blood relations of the petitioners, Kavita and sangita shold have also been held to be beldonging to Gadi-Lohar Community of the Nomadic Tribes, However, it was averred in the affidavit of suhas Radhakrishna Mantri, Naib Tahsiladar in the office of the lCommissioner, on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, that Sachindra's case is not applicable in the background of the school records of Kavita and Sangita which show that intially they claimled to belong to Lohar caste. As regards the caste certificate dt/- 1sat July 1977 in favour of Anil the same was issued only on the basis of a caste certificate issued by the special Executive Magistrate certificate was not issued on the basis of original entries in the birth register or school admission register which are gneerally considered as sound and reliable proof in support of a caste claim. Then again the caste certificate in favour of Dinanath Hazare, another blood relation of the parties was also issued on the basis of a caste certificate showing no details relied of a caste certificate showing no details relied upon as a proof for issuance of the said caste certificate in favour of Dinanath.
26. Mr. Angal, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, brought to our notice a circular No. CBC-1680/65396(499)/D-V dt/- 6-9-1983 issued by the Social Welfare Cultural Affairs, jSports and Tourism Department of the Governmen of Maharashtra and vehemently urged that the caste claims of kavita and Sangita should have been considered a svalid on the basis of the caste clailms of their blood relations viz. Anil and Schindra. He also relied upon an unreported judgment dt/- 23rd June, 1983 of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petn. No. 2749 of 1982 in Bijendra Pratap Patel v. S. L. Dipali and another judgment of a Division Bench in Abhay Shrawanji Prate v. State of Maharashtral, 1984 Mah LJ 289 : (AIR 1985 45).
27. Now, each case which involves an issue or question of fact must turn on the facts, evidence and circumstances of that case, Lack of materials and evidence in the one cse may not be there in another case Just as an unfavourable caste decision in one matter cannot by itself affect and pre-empt a favourable order in the matter of anotehrh relation if otherwise justified, so also a favourable caste order in one case cannot by itself induce and influence a similar order in a subsequent case may be of a relation. Such prior orders one way or the other qua relations would lbe but one circumstances land even a strong circumstance to be considered in a later caste inquiry of another relation. But the same cannot be per se conclusive either way. Casete certificates of blood relatilons cannot become conclusive proofs. At the most such caste certifiacates of blood relations can be sued as a guideline and/or circumstnces to be taken into consideration but along with the other evidence on the record. The totality certificate issuing authority that a particular applicant belongs or does not belong to a certain caste. There cannot be hard and fast rule for granting or rejecting the caste claims of the applicants. The caste certificate issuing authorities have ot apply their minds to the facts and cicumstances and evidence in every individaul case before them.
28. In the face of voluminous evidence on record inthis case, it is impossible to hold that the petitioners belong to Gadi-Lohar community. On the contrary, we are more than convinced that they obtained bogus caste certificates and that they really do not belong to Gadi-lohar community. The caste certificates of Anil and Sachindra would be of no avail to Kavita and Sangita. Had there been some independent satisfacoty evidence that kavita and Sangita belong to Gadi-Lohar community, their claims would have stood strenghened and fortified by the caste certificates issued in favour of Anil and sacjhindra. But the facts and circumstances here clearly establsihed and we have absolutely no doubt in our mind that kavita and Sangita do not belong to Gadi-Lohar community. In our judgment, taking advantage of the fact that belong to Lohar caste, their father obtained bogus caste certificates in their favour by prefixing the word Gadi to the word Lohar. We strongly feel that caste certificates obtained by Anil and Schindra are also bogus. They however, have been lucky in escaping detection and in getting admission to medical course.
29. WE are very much unhappy to note the way in which the Executive Magistrate Kalyan, issued the caste certificate in favour of Sangita. We understand that there are umpteen unmber of castes of issuance of bogus caste certificates and we strongly condemn it. We asked Mr. Gangal, learned Assistant governerment pleader, as to why action should not be taken agianst such Executive Magistrates who issue false caste certificates Mr. Gangal submitted that this malady has already come to the notice of the Government and warning s have been given to the executive magistrates that strict disciplinary actions would be taken aginst those who indulge in issuing fase cost certificates and as result in issuance of false caste certificates. WE hope and trust that the Government warning will go a long way in educating the Executive Magistrates that they shalll not do any thing that is unjust, improper and illegal. We may add that if this warning has no salutary effect on such erring Magistrates, storng action should be taken aginst them. We also understand that many a time genuine Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe persons are harassed and/or denied caste certificates by some Executive Magistrates on flimsy grounds thus denying and frustrting the rightful claims of the disadvantaged and under-privileged people. We strongly deprecate such tendency which often delays and even defeats the attainment of the goal of social justice.
30. We find no merit in thse writ petitions. Both the writ petitions fail. The same are dismissed. Rule in each of them is discharged with costs.
31. Petitions dismissed.