Bombay High Court
Divya Suresh Naidu vs The Scheduled Tribe Certificate ... on 30 June, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 BOM 941
Author: Amit B. Borkar
Bench: R. K. Deshpande, Amit B. Borkar
1 wp6229-18judgment.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 6229 OF 2018
Divya Suresh Naidu
Aged about 21 years,
Occ. Student- Final MBBS,
C/o. Suresh Hanumantrao Naidu,
At Po - Chaprasipura, Camp,
Amravati- 444 602. . . . PETITIONER
...V E R S U S..
1. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Amravati Division, Amravati,
Through its Member Secretary,
Sun House, Chaprasipura,
At & Post Amravati-444 601.
Email- [email protected].
2. State of Maharashtra,
Tribal Development Department,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Mantralaya Extension, Madam Cama Road,
Mumbai-400 032.
[email protected]
3. State of Maharashtra,
Medical Education & Drugs Department,
Through its Additional Chief Secretary,
9th Floor, G.T. Hospital Campus,
Near Mantralaya, Lokmanya Tilak Road,
Mumbai-400 001.
4. Government Medical College, Nagpur
Through its Dean,
Hanumannagar, Nagpur-440 003.
5. Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik,
Through its Registrar,
Dindori Road, Mhasrul,
Nashik-422 004. . . . RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/07/2020 22:13:00 :::
2 wp6229-18judgment.odt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. P. D. Rane, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri S. M. Ukey, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 4.
Shri Abhijit Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no. 5.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- R. K. DESHPANDE AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED :- 30.06.2020
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : AMIT B. BORKAR, J.):-
1. Hearing was conducted through video conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the audio and video quality was proper.
2. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. The petitioner has approached this Court, being aggrieved by the order dated 19.07.2018 passed by respondent no.1-Scrutiny Committee thereby invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner belonging to "Mannewar" Scheduled Tribe.
4. The petitioner is a student pursuing MBBS course and the caste certificate dated 18.07.2012 was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati. The claim of the petitioner was forwarded to the Scrutiny Committee by Principal, Vidyabharati Mahavidyalaya ::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/07/2020 22:13:00 ::: 3 wp6229-18judgment.odt Amravati on 31.10.2013. The petitioner, in support of her caste claim interalia produced two pre-constitutional documents. The said documents were at Sr. No. 2 and 3 on the list produced before the Scrutiny Committee. The document at Sr. No. 2 is Death Extract of the cousin paternal uncle of the petitioner bearing date 17.12.1931 and Sr. No. 3 is Death Extract of the the great- grandfather of the petitioner bearing date 05.05.1937. The Vigilance Cell has verified both these documents. There is no dispute about the genuineness of both these documents. The Scrutiny Committee by the impugned judgment has invalidated claim of the petitioner mainly on the grounds that the caste mentioned in pre-constitutional documents is "Manewar" and not "Mannewar" and the petitioner has also failed to establish her caste after applying affinity test.
5. It appears that during the pendency of the claim before the Scrutiny Committee, the cousin brother of the petitioner was granted validity certificate in pursuance of the judgment delivered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3462 of 2004. On 22.06.2018, the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3462 of 2004 was placed on the record of the Scrutiny Committee by father of the petitioner. The petitioner has produced acknowledgement of the said application at Annexure-3 of this petition (page 35). Despite the said judgment ::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/07/2020 22:13:00 ::: 4 wp6229-18judgment.odt being placed on record of the Scrutiny Committee, the caste claim of the petitioner was invalidated without considering the said judgment.
6. The petitioner has therefore filed the present petition challenging the order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 19.07.2018. This Court on 25.09.2018 issued notice to the respondents making it returnable on 09.10.2018. By way of ad-interim relief, it was directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner on the grounds of invalidation of tribal claim of the petitioner.
7. During the pendency of this petition, the petitioner has filed Civil Application No. 720 of 2020 to bring on record subsequent events, which took place during the pendency of the present petition. It is stated that the petitioner has completed her MBBS course. The Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik has issued a provisional passing certificate to the petitioner on 07.02.2019 which is made subject to the outcome of the present petition. The petitioner has completed her internship and the Government Medical College, Nagpur has issued internship completion certificate to the petitioner. It is stated that the University is refusing to issue Degree Certificate to the petitioner for want of caste validity certificate. Unless the petitioner gets University completion certificate, she will not receive her permanent registration number from the Maharashtra Medical ::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/07/2020 22:13:00 ::: 5 wp6229-18judgment.odt Council. The petitioner has cleared her NEET-PG exam and at the time of counseling caste validity certificate would be necessary.
8. The petitioner, in support of her case, has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3462 of 2004, dated 14.06.2018 directing issuance of validity certificate in favour of the cousin brother of the petitioner and case of Anil Ramdas Mede v/s State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2004 (4) All MR 639 and unreported judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1028 of 2005, dated 28.04.2016. Relying upon the said judgments, it is submitted that caste validity certificate having been granted in favour of the cousin of the petitioner for "Mannewar" Scheduled Tribe and rejection of the caste claim of the petitioner is erroneous. The word "Manewar" in vernacular language is the same as the word "Mannewar" in English. Merely because "Mannewar" is differently pronounced in vernacular language, the same cannot be a ground to deny the benefit to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the two pre-constitutional documents having probative value were placed on record before the Scrutiny Committee and genuineness of which was not disputed in the Vigilance Cell Report.
9. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents supported the impugned order on the ground that as ::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/07/2020 22:13:00 ::: 6 wp6229-18judgment.odt per settled principles of interpretation of entry in a Presidential Order, the entry is required to be read as it is. Therefore, the Scrutiny Committee has rightly invalidated the claim of the petitioner. Both the pre-constitutional documents contained an entry of "Manewar" and not "Mannewar". The petitioner has failed to establish her claim by affinity test and therefore, the Scrutiny Committee has rightly invalidated the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner and therefore, no interference at the hands of this court is called for.
10. We have heard both learned counsel appearing for the parties and carefully considered documents on record.
11. It appears that in pursuance of order in Writ Petition No. 3462 of 2004 dated 14.06.2018, a copy of which was produced by way of an application on 22.06.2018, the validity certificate was issued in favour of the cousin brother of the petitioner and this fact is not disputed. The Scrutiny Committee has ignored said material document even though said judgment was produced on record. A profitable reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Apoorva Vinay Nichale v/s Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 1 and others, reported in 2010 (6) Mh.LJ 401, wherein this Court has taken a categorical view that if during ::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/07/2020 22:13:00 ::: 7 wp6229-18judgment.odt the course of the inquiry, the candidate submits a caste validity certificate granted earlier certifying that blood relation of the candidate belongs to the same cast, as claimed by the applicant, the committee may grant such certificate without calling for the Vigilance Cell Report. In the facts of the present case, it is nobody's case that the cousin brother of the petitioner has obtained caste validity certificate by practicing fraud.
12. The period of documents placed on record at Sr. No. 2 and 3 would show that they are pre-constitutional documents of petitioners' forefathers having probative value and showing their cast as "Manewar". The Division Bench of this Court in unreported judgment in Writ Petition No. 5119 of 2016 in the case of Manish Bansidhar Panchgam v/s State of Maharashtra has laid down that the word "Manewar" in vernacular language is not different from the word "Mannewar" in English. It is further held that merely because the word "Mannewar" can be pronounced in somewhat different pronunciation in vernacular language, it cannot be a ground to deny the benefits to the candidate. When the claim is based on pre-constitutional documents, the candidate is entitled to get all benefits. In the present case, there are two pre-constitutional documents in the name of forefathers of the petitioner and ::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/07/2020 22:13:00 ::: 8 wp6229-18judgment.odt genuineness of which is not disputed in the Vigilance Cell Report.
13. Insofar as the reason given by the Scrutiny Committee that the documents of some of the relatives show the cast to be "Telugu" is concerned, it is common knowledge that "Telugu" refers to language of an area which was part of Andhra Pradesh and now a separate State. The Division Bench of this Court in case of Anil Ramdas Mede v/s State of Maharashtra, reported in 2004 (4) All MR 639 has held that there is no caste as Telugu. Telugu is an official language declared under the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Scrutiny Committee was not justified in using entry "Telugu" in the documents of the relatives of the petitioner as a factor against the petitioner.
14. The Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the caste certificate also on the ground of failure to establish affinity test. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anand Katole v/s Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, reported in 2011 (6) Mah LJ 919 has held that pre-constitutional documents will have to be given a greater probative value than affinity test. In the above backdrop, we find that taking into consideration the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3462 of 2004, directing issuance of caste validity certificate in favour of the cousin brother of the petitioner and pre-constitutional ::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/07/2020 22:13:00 ::: 9 wp6229-18judgment.odt documents as old as 1937, the claim of the petitioner will have to be considered as a valid one. We, therefore, pass the following order :-
(i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The judgment and order passed by the Scheduled Tribe
Certificate Scrutiny committee, Amravati Division, Amravati on 19.07.2018 is quashed and set aside.
(iii) It is declared that the petitioner belongs to "Mannewar" Scheduled Tribe which is at Sr. No. 18 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order 1950. The Scrutiny Committee shall forthwith issue validity certificate to the petitioner.
(iv) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
(v) The order be communicated to the counsel appearing for the parties, either on the email address or on WhatsApp or by such other mode, as is permissible in law.
JUDGE JUDGE
RR Jaiswal
::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 02/07/2020 22:13:00 :::