Bombay High Court
Raju S/O Prakashsing Rajput (Bundele) vs Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny ... on 13 January, 2016
Author: Vasanti A. Naik
Bench: Vasanti A. Naik
wp265.15.odt 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.265 OF 2015
PETITIONER: Raju S/o Prakashsing Rajput
(Bundele), aged about 31 years,
Occupation: Service, R/o at Chikhli
Road, Shivshankar Nagar, Buldhana
Tah. and Dist. Buldhana.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS: 1. The Divisional Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee No.2, Akola,
ig Division Amravati.
2. Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Company Ltd. O & M
Circle, Vidhyut Bhavan, 1st Floor,
Buldhana, through its
Superintending Engineer.
Shri N. B. Kalwaghe, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri P. S. Tembhare, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent
No.1.
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK
AND
A.S. CHANDURKAR JJ.
DATED
: 13
JANUARY, 2016.
th
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order of the respondent - Scrutiny Committee dated 14-10-2014 invalidating the ::: Uploaded on - 15/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:54:38 ::: wp265.15.odt 2/5 claim of the petitioner of belonging to "Rajput Bhamta" (Vimukta Jati-
A).
The petitioner claims to be belonged to 'Rajput Bhamta' (Vimukta Jati) and since the petitioner sought promotion on the basis of his caste claim, the same was referred by the employer to the Scrutiny Committee for verification. The petitioner tendered a number of documents before the Scrutiny Committee for proving his caste claim.
After the vigilance report was received and the petitioner was served with the show cause notice, the petitioner tendered an old document in respect of the great grandfather of the petitioner namely Gendasing Hirasing, of the year 1937. The said document was accepted by the Scrutiny Committee. As the petitioner failed to prove the caste claim on the basis of the documents tendered by him, the Scrutiny Committee invalidated his caste claim. The Scrutiny Committee also found that in a few documents the word "Bhamta" was written in a different ink, whereas the ink used for writing the word "Rajput" was different. The order of the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner is challenged by the petitioner in the instant petition.
Shri Kalwaghe, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside inasmuch as the Scrutiny Committee has failed to consider one of the old vital documents pertaining to the great grandfather of the petitioner though it has great probative value. It is submitted that though this document is categorically referred to by the Committee in para 2 of the impugned ::: Uploaded on - 15/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:54:38 ::: wp265.15.odt 3/5 order, there is no consideration or discussion on the said document in the impugned order. It is submitted that the Kotwal Book entry of the year 1937 has great probative value and hence, it was necessary for the Scrutiny Committee to have considered the said document while verifying the caste claim of the petitioner, more so when the same was accepted on record. It is submitted that the Scrutiny Committee did not call for a vigilance enquiry in respect of difference of ink in writing the word "Bhamta" in a few documents. It is submitted that it was necessary for the Scrutiny Committee to have called the explanation of the petitioner in respect of the finding on use of different ink. It is also submitted that though the vigilance report is favourable to the petitioner, the said report was not considered in the right perspective by the Scrutiny Committee.
Shri Tembhare, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the Scrutiny Committee supported the order of the Scrutiny Committee. It is, however, fairly admitted that though there is a reference to the old document of the year 1937 in para 2 of the impugned order, the said document is not considered by the Scrutiny Committee in the subsequent part of the order. It is submitted that the Scrutiny Committee was not required to seek a vigilance report in respect of the documents where the word "Bhamta" was written in a different ink as the Scrutiny Committee members had called for the originals of those documents and had personally verified the same. It is submitted that this Court may not interfere in the impugned order in the ::: Uploaded on - 15/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:54:38 ::: wp265.15.odt 4/5 circumstances of the case.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remanded to the Scrutiny Committee for a fresh decision on merits. The petitioner has admittedly tendered a copy of the Kotwal Book entry in respect of the great grandfather of the petitioner of the year 1937 while submitting the reply to the show cause notice. The said document was accepted by the Scrutiny Committee on record and this fact could be depicted from the observations made by the Scrutiny Committee in para 2 of the impugned order. The old document of the year 1937 has great probative value.
It was, therefore, necessary for the Scrutiny Committee to consider whether the said document is genuine and pertains to the great grandfather of the petitioner and whether the same could be useful while verifying the caste claim of the petitioner. The Scrutiny Committee has, however, not considered this vital document though the same is accepted on record. Non-consideration of a material document while deciding the caste claim would result in vitiating the impugned order.
Also, we find much force in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that it was necessary for the Scrutiny Committee to have called for some explanation from the petitioner in regard to the use of different ink while writing the word "Bhamta" in a couple of documents.
The Scrutiny Committee ought to have confronted the petitioner in respect of difference of ink in the said documents while writing the ::: Uploaded on - 15/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:54:38 ::: wp265.15.odt 5/5 words "Rajput Bhamta" It would, therefore, be necessary for the Scrutiny Committee to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to give his say - explanation in this regard. We, however, accept the submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that it was not necessary for the Committee to again call for a vigilance enquiry in respect of the documents in which there was a difference of ink as the originals were called by the Scrutiny Committee and the members of the Scrutiny Committee personally verified the documents and recorded their opinion in respect of the same.
ig Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Scrutiny Committee for a fresh decision on merits after considering the document of the year 1937 and granting an opportunity to the petitioner to explain in respect of the alleged difference of ink while writing the words Rajput Bhamta in a few documents. The Scrutiny Committee should decide the caste claim of the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the petitioner before the Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner undertakes to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 1 st of February, 2016 so that the issuance of notice to the petitioner could be dispensed with.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
//MULEY//
::: Uploaded on - 15/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:54:38 :::