Bombay High Court
Smt. Chanashri Chambayya Swami (Name ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 28 January, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 BOM 119
Author: Surendra P. Tavade
Bench: S. C. Gupte, Surendra P. Tavade
WP.30953.2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Aarti Digitally signed
by Aarti G.
Palkar
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
G. Date:
2021.01.29
Palkar 13:09:49 +0530
WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.30953 OF 2019
Smt. Dhanashri Chambayya Swami ....Petitioner
vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioner.
Mr. P.N. Diwan for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
CORAM : S. C. GUPTE AND SURENDRA P. TAVADE, JJ.
DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS RESERVED: JANUARY 18, 2021
DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED: 28 JANUARY, 2021
JUDGMENT (PER SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J.) :
. Rule.
2. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. The petition is heard fnally.
3. The Petitioner has fled this petition seeking quashing and setting aside the impugned Order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the Respondent No.2-Caste Scrutiny Committee, thereby rejecting the caste claim of the Petitioner.
4. It is contended that the Petitioner belongs to Hindu 'Beda Jangam', which is recognied as a Scheduled Caste. On 20.06.2008 the Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the establishment of Respondent No.5 on the basis of his caste claim as 'Beda Jangam'. After appointment of the Petitioner, Respondent No.5 has submitted proposal of the Petitioner for caste verifcation. On 02.12.2017, Respondent No.2-the District Caste Aarti Palkar 1/7 WP.30953.2020.odt Certifcate Scrutiny Committee, Kolhapur issued show-cause notice to the Petitioner and asked her to produce more evidence in support of her caste claim. Accordingly, the Petitioner appeared before Respondent No.2- Committee and submitted afdavits of two senior citizens, who supported her caste claim. Respondent No.2 had also called for a Vigilance Report from the concerned police station. On the basis of the documents including the Vigilance Report and afdavits of two senior citizens, the impugned Order came to be passed.
5. It is contended by the Petitioner that the impugned order is illegal and invalid. No cogent reasons are given by Respondent No.2 while rejecting the caste claim of the Petitioner. It is contended that Respondent No.2 has not dealt with the documents or the explanation given by the Petitioner to the show-cause notice. The caste certifcate and the entry in the service-book of the father of the Petitioner was also not considered by Respondent No.2. It is contended that Respondent No.2 has simply held that the Petitioner has not submitted pre-constitutional documents; hence, her claim was wrongly rejected by Respondent No.2-Committee. It is contended that the caste certifcate of the real brother of the Petitioner was also not considered by Respondent No.2-Committee. It is contended that the brother of the Petitioner was issued a caste certifcate, wherein the caste is shown as 'Beda Jangam', but the said fact is not considered by Respondent No.2- Committee. It is contended that the impugned order is not legal and valid; hence, it be quashed and set aside and Respondent No.2-Committee be directed to issue caste certifcate in favour of the Petitioner.
6. Respondent No.2 appeared and fled its Afdavit-in-Reply through Radhkisan Navnath Devde. It is contended that the Petitioner was selected on the seat reserved for Scheduled Caste category. She claims to be of 'Beda-Jangam' caste. Her caste certifcate was sent to Respondent No.2- Committee for verifcation. Respondent No.2-Committee has verifed and Aarti Palkar 2/7 WP.30953.2020.odt considered her caste certifcate, school leaving certifcate, father's bonafde certifcate and other revenue documents of the Petitioner. Similarly, Respondent No.2-Committee has also considered Vigilance Cell Report. It is contended that Respondent No.2-Committee has come to the conclusion that there was no document showing the caste of the Petitioner as 'Beda Jangam'. It is contended that the Petitioner relied upon school leaving certifcate issued by the Headmaster of Shri Vikas Vidya Mandir, Kolhapur in respect of her brother, wherein her brother's caste is mentioned as 'Hindu Beda Jangam'. The said document was verifed by Vigilance Cell and found that in the original school register the word 'Beda Jangam' was written subsequently in place of the original entry of 'Hindu Lingayat'. It is contended that the frst page of original service-book of father of the Petitioner was produced on record. In the original service-book words 'Beda Jangam Scheduled Caste' was written subsequently as it is in diference of ink as well as handwriting. It is contended that words 'Beda Jangam' are interpolated. It is contended that the documents produced by the Petitioner are not sufcient to validate her claim as 'Beda Jangam'. The Petitioner has failed to establish her caste as 'Beda Jangam'. Respondent No.2- Committee has also considered the report of Vigilance Cell and two afdavits, namely, of Chandrashekhar Mali and Basappa Ravandi. It is contended that Respondent No.2 has rightly considered all documents in proper prospective and come to a correct conclusion. There is no need to interfere with the order of Respondent No.2-Committee. It is contended that the petition has no merit, it be dismissed with costs.
7. Heard learned Counsel Mr. Bhavke for the Petitioner as well as AGP on behalf of Respondent No.2. Learned Counsel Mr. Bhavake has taken us through the impugned order dated 10.10.2019. The said order has been challenged on the ground that Respondent No.2 has not considered certain vital documents, namely, school leaving certifcates of the Petitioner and her brother and the caste certifcate issued in the name of Shivanand Irayya Aarti Palkar 3/7 WP.30953.2020.odt Swami. It is also contended that the afdavits of two senior members of the community are not considered by Respondent No.2-Committee.
8. The Petitioner is required to prove her caste on the basis of documents; if she fails, then the report of Vigilance Cell and Afnity test may not be helpful to her.
9. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that Respondent No.2- Committee has considered the school leaving certifcates of the Petitioner and her brother. The brother of the Petitioner was born in 1965, whereas the Petitioner was born in 1973. In school record, the caste of the Petitioner and her brother is shown as 'Hindu Beda Jangam', but it appears from the Vigilance Report that word 'Beda Jangam' in the caste certifcate of the brother of the Petitioner was subsequently written. There was erassion of original words 'Lingayat'. Hence, Respondent No.2-Committee has not considered the said caste certifcate.
10. The father of the Petitioner was born in 1939. His school leaving certifcate shows his caste as 'Hindu Lingayat', but in his service-book his caste is shown as 'Beda Jangam Scheduled Caste'. On this point, the Vigilance Report shows that words 'Beda Jangam Scheduled Caste' are in diferent ink and handwriting than the other contents of the original document. It is mentioned in the Vigilance Report that the said words are interpolated in the original document. The words 'Beda Jangam Scheduled Caste' were subsequently added in the document. Hence, the said document was not relied upon by Respondent No.2-Committee. Though Respondent No.2 Committee has specifcally observed that there was interpolation in the service-book of the father of the Petitioner and the caste certifcate of his brother, no explanation has been given by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not at all denied the said observation made by Respondent No.2.
Aarti Palkar 4/7WP.30953.2020.odt
11. The Petitioner has also produced on record the caste certifcate of Shivanand Irayya Swami. It was issued on 24.05.2004. The caste certifcate shows that Shivanand Irayya Swami belongs to caste 'Beda Jangam'. It was incumbent upon the Petitioner to show that the said Shivanand Irayya Swami was from her paternal family. The Petitioner has not shown her relations with Shivanand Swami. No family tree was produced on record showing that the said Shivanand Swami was in blood relation with the Petitioner. Hence, the said certifcate was not considered by Respondent No.2-Committee.
12. It is vehemently contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the Vigilance Report was in favour of the Petitioner, but it was not considered by Respondent No.2. But, in fact, the Vigilance Report shows that the entries in the service-book of the father of the Petitioner was tampered with and the words 'Beda Jangam Scheduled Caste' appeared to have been added subsequently as there was a change in the ink and handwriting used for the said words. Similarly, the Vigilance Report shows that in the school leaving certifcate of the brother of the Petitioner, words 'Beda Jangam' were subsequently recorded. So practically, the Vigilance Report is also not in favour of the Petitioner.
13. Respondent No.2-Committee has not considered the afdavits of senior members of the community namely, Chandrashekhar Mali and Basappa Ravandi, because there was no documentary evidence produced by the Petitioner to prove her caste. It appears that the Vigilance report has been properly considered by Respondent No.2-Committee. In the case of Anand vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims & Ors.1, the Apex Court, in clear terms, has held as follows:-
"While dealing with documentary evidence, greater reliance may be placed on pre-Independence documents because they furnish a higher degree of probative value to the declaration of status of a 1 (2012) 1 SCC 113 Aarti Palkar 5/7 WP.30953.2020.odt caste, as compared to post-Independence documents. Needless to add that in the event of a doubt on the credibility of a document, its veracity has to be tested on the basis of oral evidence, for which an opportunity has to be aforded to the applicant. However, with the migrations, modernisation and contact with other communities, these communities tend to develop and adopt new traits which may not essentially match with the traditional characteristics of the tribe. Hence, the afnity test may not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant with a Scheduled Tribe. The afnity test is to be used to corroborate the documentary evidence and should not be the sole criteria to reject a claim.
14. In the present case, Respondent No.2 has considered the documentary evidence produced by the Respondents and observed its opinion regarding its truthfulness. Therefore, there is no fow or perversity in the fndings of Respondent No.2.
15. On going through the report of Respondent No.2-Committee, it appears that the documents produced by the Petitioner have been properly considered by Respondent No.2-Committee. Respondent No.2-Committee has expressly opined that the caste of the Petitioner was frst time shown as 'Beda Jangam' in the school record of her brother in the year 1979. The caste of the father of the Petitioner was recorded in the school record as 'Hindu Lingayat'. It appears that it was changed to 'Beda Jangam' in service record. On perusal of Page No.1 of service-book, it appears that words 'Beda Jangam Scheduled Caste' were subsequently recorded in the service-book. The handwriting of the said words was diferent from the other handwriting on Page No.1. The said diference is visible to the eyes. Therefore, the said document is rightly discarded by Respondent No.2- Committee. Besides the three documents, there are no other documents produced by the Petitioner concerning her blood relations to prove her caste as 'Beda Jangam'.
Aarti Palkar 6/7WP.30953.2020.odt
16. No doubt, the Petitioner has relied on the certifcate of Shivanand Swami, but it is not proved that the said Shivanand Swami was a blood relation of the Petitioner, so the said document is also not helpful to the Petitioner.
17. Respondent No.2 is a quasi judicial authority. It has considered all documents produced by the Petitioner and rejected her caste claim. To set aside the impugned order, no clinching material is produced on record by the Petitioner. Similarly, no apparent error or fault or fow is established by the Petitioner. To set aside the impugned order which is passed by the quasi judicial authority, material is required to show that the impugned order is perverse or illegal.
18. On this point, the ratio laid down in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind & Ors.2 is very useful. The Apex Court has held that the High Court's power of judicial review of inferior tribunal's order is supervisory and not appellate. In the present case also, there is no need to reexamine the material placed before the Scrutiny Committee to record any conclusion to the contrary.
19. On going through the impugned order, we fnd that it is proper and legal. No perversity was committed by Respondent No.2. Hence, the petition has no merit and it is required to be dismissed. Hence, we pass the following order.
ORDER The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J) (S.C. GUPTE, J.)
2 (2001) 1 SCC 4
Aarti Palkar 7/7