Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Shri Rajaram Bhuryaji, working as Research Officer of the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, Amaravati Division, Amaravati has filed reply on behalf of other three respondents. It is submitted that since "Rajput Bhamta" was notified as a Vimukta Jati for the State of Maharashtra in the year 1961, it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to produce the documentary evidence, may be pertaining to forefathers of the petitioner, of the period prior to 1961. The affidavits of the relatives, according to affiant, cannot prove the caste claim of the candidate and a conclusive documentary evidence pertaining to father, grandfather and great grandfather and entries showing them to be belonging to caste "Rajput Bhamta" effected prior to 1961 only can establish the caste claim of the petitioner. The committee has rejected the caste claim of the petitioner on the basis of extract of admission register issued by the Head Master, Central Marathi Pre-Primary School, Chandol Panchayat Samiti, Buldhana dated 24-3-2005. This entry in the Admission Register shows that birth date of the father of the petitioner is 15-2-1946 and date of admission in the school was 21-4-1953, wherein caste is recorded as "P.R." (probably Pardeshi Rajput), which is not included in the list of Vimukta Jatis. The Scrutiny Committee found this oldest document to be having greater probative value than other documents and hence the petitioner's claim was invalidated by the impugned order. The extract of Admission Register given by the same Head Master pertaining to Shri Punilal Shi vial (petitioner's uncle) showed uncle's birth date to be 2-8-1951 and date of admission to be 28-7-1959. The examination of the Admission Register showed that the caste was registered only as "Rajput" and the word "Bhamta" was subsequently added in a different ink. Since the entries pertaining to father and uncle of the petitioner showed that they do not belong to Vimukta Jati (Rajput Bhamta), the committee has rejected the caste claim of the petitioner, in the light of ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil's case to the effect that each case must be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and School leaving certificate of the petitioner and her School Register cannot be considered favourably in view of adverse record of father and uncle. The committee, thus, looks to the caste of the petitioner, who has obtained an employment on the post reserved for Vimukta Jati (Rajput Bhamta), to be the spurious claim on the basis of false social status certificate obtained by her. It is said that even the caste validity certificate in favour of Dr. Dongarsingh and Dr. Rajendrasingh, said to be cousins of the petitioner, cannot be considered favourably in view of school record pertaining to father and uncle of the petitioner. The theme of the argumentative affidavit filed on behalf of the Scrutiny Committee is that the caste of the father determines the caste of the child and since the school record of the father and uncle of the petitioner did not show the caste to be "Rajput Bhamta" all other evidence is incapable of outweighing those old entries and therefore, the Scrutiny Committee has rejected the caste claim of the petitioner.

So far Punnilal is concerned, his birth date is 2-8-1951 and extract of the Admission Register showed that he was admitted in the school on 28-5-1959. His caste was recorded as "Bha. Ra." (short form of "Bhamta Rajput"). The Scrutiny Committee on perusal of original Admission Register felt this to be a manipulated entry. It believed that the word "Bha" is subsequently added in different ink. The committee has described it as suffix instead of describing it as prefix (because in the entry as "Bha Ra" first letter "Bha" of the word "Bhamta" is before "Ra" first letter of word "Rajput"). The entry pertaining to petitioner's father Ramsingh in the admission register of his school showed his caste as "Pa Ra" (probably "Pardeshi Rajput") and since this caste is not recognised as Vimukta Jati, the Committee felt that this basic record was strongly adverse to the claim of the petitioner.

So far group of documents at Sr. Nos. 1 to 8 is concerned, the same contains the affidavits filed by the petitioner, of her cousins- Dr. Dongarsingh, Dr. Rajendrasingh, Shri Hukumsing and her uncle Punnilal. There is also a letter from the Member of the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad dated 18-4-2004 addressed to the Director General, Health Department, Mumbai indicating that the said committee has validated the caste claim of Dr. Govindsingh Fulsingh as "Rajput Bhamta" on 5-5-2004. Suffice it to describe that this group of documents is mainly containing affidavits of close relatives of the petitioner, supported by the certificates of validated caste claims of the affiants to be belonging to Vimukta Jati - Rajput Bhamta. The committee has dismissed these documents with reasons as follows :
From the reasons recorded by the Scrutiny Committee for rejecting those documents of close relatives, which we have reproduced earlier, it is evident that the Scrutiny Committee has thrown these certificates of close relatives out of reckoning. The Committee could not have done so even after relying upon the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Madhuri Patil. Without going to others, who are said to be close relatives, at least on perusal of the validity certificates of Dr. Dongarsingh and Dr. Govindsingh, it can be seen from paper book pages 38, 39, 41 and 42, that their validity certificates were issued on 18-1-1997 and 5-5-2004, i.e. after constitution of the Scrutiny Committee as per the directions of the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil's case. The Scrutiny Committee could not have thrown away these certificates merely on the basis of the fact that the entry pertaining to father of the petitioner in School Admission Register, which was of the year 1953, did not show his caste as "Rajput Bhamta", that was the period much prior to recognition of caste "Rajput Bhamta" as Vimukta Jati. Unawarness of the benefits might be the cause for inaccuracy or incompleteness of the entry. As observed by us earlier, at the stage of entries into the schools of all three daughters, including the petitioner, their caste is registered as "Rajput Bhamta" and that was registered when no benefits of reservation were expected in immediate future. Those pieces of evidence, although otherwise only supporting pieces of evidence, taken together with validated caste certificates of two second degree cousins of the petitioner, namely, Dr. Dongarsingh and Dr. Govindsingh, the Scrutiny Committee could not have rejected the caste claim, on the sole basis that her father's School Admission Register in the year 1953 did not record his caste as "Rajput Bhamta". For the reasons discussed hereinabove, we must say that appreciation of evidence by the Scrutiny Committee is perverse, in its total rejection of taking into consideration the documents at Serial Nos. 1 to 8 and 13 to 17 and placing mere reliance upon the Admission Register of the father of the petitioner to reject her caste claim.