Bombay High Court
Ku. Yogita D/O Raju Nandha vs The Divisional Caste Scrutiny ... on 22 June, 2016
Author: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 wp2247.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2247 OF 2015
Ku. Yogita d/o Raju Nandha,
age 18 years, occupation :
student, r/o Radha Nagari,
Bang Layout, Digras,
Taluq Digras, District Yavatmal.
ig ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1) The Divisional Caste Scrutiny
Committee No.1, Amravati
Division, Amravati.
2) Principal, Jawaharlal Darda
Institute of Engineering and
Technology, M.I.D.C., Lohara,
Yavatmal.
3) The Director of Technical Education,
Mumbai.
4) The Registrar, Sant Gadge Baba
University, Amravati. ... Respondents
-----------------
Shri C.S. Dhore, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms. P.D. Rane, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.1
and 3.
Shri F. Mirza, Advocate for respondent no.2.
----------------
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:17:01 :::
2 wp2247.15
Date of reserving the judgment : 15/6/2016
Date of pronouncing the judgment : 22/6/2016
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATED : JUNE 22, 2016
JUDGMENT (PER KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.) :
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of learned Counsel for the parties.
2) Petitioner, a student in Computer Science and Engineering, with respondent no.2 College, claiming to be belonging to "Darji" (Other Backward Class) assails order dated 18/2/2015 passed by respondent no.1 invalidating her caste claim.
3) Shri Dhore, learned Counsel for petitioner, states that petitioner submitted various documents like School Leaving Certificate of herself, her father, paternal and maternal grand-father, paternal uncle, etc. She also produced various documents of pre-independence period to show that her caste was "Darji"
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:17:01 :::3 wp2247.15 recognised as Other Backward Class by the Central Government in the Central List of Other Backward Classes. Respondent no.1 Committee forwarded the claim of petitioner to Vigilance Cell for further enquiry. A report was submitted by Vigilance Cell to respondent no.1 Committee. Show cause notice was issued to petitioner. It is submitted that voluminous documents submitted by petitioner were not properly considered by respondent no.1 Committee and her caste claim was wrongly held invalid.
4) Learned Counsel Shri Dhore further submits that two important documents, namely, "Pratidnya Lekh" showing birth date of paternal grandfather of petitioner issued by Principal, Nagar Parishad School, Digras in the year 1940 and School Leaving Certificate of great great grandfather of petitioner Dahyabhai Gopalji Nandha issued prior to 1967 were wrongly rejected by respondent no.1. It is submitted that in the School Leaving Certificate of maternal grandfather of petitioner, caste mentioned is "Darji". The same is in Gujarati script, but respondent no.1 Committee read it as "Harak", which resembles to be written in Hindi.
5) Ms. Rane, learned Assistant Government Pleader for ::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:17:01 ::: 4 wp2247.15 respondent nos.1 and 3, supports the impugned order.
6) With the assistance of learned Counsel for petitioner, we have gone through the impugned order. We do find substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of petitioner that pre-independence documents were not properly considered and "Darji" in one of the documents was wrongly read as "Harak".
Further, respondent no.1 Committee has not considered the main contention of petitioner that "Darji" in Hindi is synonymous to "Shimpi" in Gujarati. She claims herself to be Gujarati.
7) In that view of the matter, we find it appropriate to remit caste claim of petitioner for fresh consideration to respondent no.1 Committee and pass the order in the following terms :
(i) The impugned order dated 18/2/2015 passed by respondent no.1 Committee is quashed and set aside.
(ii) Respondent no.1 Committee is directed to decide caste claim of petitioner afresh as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months.
(iii) Respondent nos.2 to 4 are directed not to disturb the education of petitioner on the ground of non submission of ::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:17:01 :::
5 wp2247.15 validity certificate till decision of respondent no.1 Committee on her caste claim.
(iv) In the event decision is adverse to the interest of petitioner, the same shall not be given effect to for a further period of three weeks from the date of communication of decision to petitioner.
8) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
khj
::: Uploaded on - 22/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:17:01 :::