Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. However since the issue regarding the caste claim of the Petitioners has had a checquered history we have closely examined the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee and we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the caste scrutiny committee.

7. As stated hereinabove the Caste Scrutiny Committee has thoroughly examined the documentary evidence produced by the Petitioners before it and we are satisfied with the exercise carried out by the Scrutiny Committee. The Petitioners have laid much stress on the documents in Urdu and the documents in Modi script which according to them are pre 1950 documents. The Said documents have been reflected in the order of the caste scrutiny committee as item nos. 1 to 8. The Petitioners had furnished private translation of the said Urdu and Modi documents. Since the said documents were not translated by any authorised or competent authority the Caste Scrutiny Committee vide its letter dated 20.11.2000 forwarded the said documents to the Assistant Director Marathwada Archives Aurangabad for translation. The said documents were translated by one Shahanaz Sultana Khan reputed to have proficiency in translation of Urdu to Hindi and the Modi documents were translated by Laxman Govind Kale. Assistant Director, Marathawda Archives, Aurangabad. It is pertinent to note that the said translated documents relate to the Petitioners great grandfather and grandfather. In the said documents the caste of the Petitioners great grandfather and grandfather is mentioned as "Lingdir". Some of the other documents referred to in the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee refer to the Petitioners ancestors caste as "Lingdhar". It is therefore clear that the caste which is recognised as scheduled caste is "Lingder" and the documents disclose the caste as "Lingdir" or Lingdhar. Apart from this it is pertinent to note that in the service book of the Petitioners father the caste is mentioned Page 3570 as "Lingayat". If the caste of the Petitioners great grandfather and grandfather were mentioned as Lingdir or Lingdhar the same should have been followed in respect of the Petitioners father also. However as stated earlier in the Petitioners fathers service record the caste is mentioned as "Lingayat". Therefore the Petitioners cannot rely upon the mentioning of the caste as "Lingdir" or Lingdhar in the documents of the Petitioners great grandfather and the grandfather so as to contend that "Lingdir" or Lingdhar is synonymous to "Lingder". In any event it is not for us to decide that Lingdir or Lingdhar is synonymous to Lingder which is a schedule caste. It is well settled by the judgments of the Apex court that the entries in the Presidential order cannot be added to by synonyms. The contention of the Counsel for the Petitioners therefore cannot be accepted. The Committee has also caste doubts about the antiquity and authenticity of the said documents and has observed that the said documents appear to be of recent origin. Another aspect to be noted is that though the documents are of pre 1950 vintage the Petitioners filed the said documents only on 16.10.2000 and not at the inception of the enquiry. This gives rise to a serious doubt of the genuineness of the said documents as observed by the Committee.