Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

counsel for the Petitioner pointed out that there are other documents, which indicate that uncle of the Petitioner and great paternal aunt were members of "Hindu Mahar" Scheduled Caste. Respondent No.2 - Scrutiny Committee has not taken into account those documents.

7] It was further pointed out that grandfather of the Petitioner had married a Devdasi and because of that middle name of the father of the Petitioner was shown as Shrimati (Aai) Phappe. 8] As against this, the learned AGP supported the impugned order.

Vs. State of Maharashtra1, it is now well recognized that if both the places i.e. the place from where the claimant has migrated and the place to which he has migrated, formed part of one and the same State before re-organization and the Caste/Tribe is recognized in both the States after the States re-organization, the claim cannot be rejected on the ground that the claimant is a migrant since the place of origin now does not form part of the State. 10] On merits of the matter, we find that the Vigilance Enquiry report categorically records that the enquiry with the local residents revealed that the Petitioner belonged to Hindu Mahar, Scheduled Caste. As regards the existence of pre-constitutional documents, which vouch for the veracity of the claim of the Petitioner, it seems that Respondent No.2 - Scrutiny Committee has not considered the entry in the birth register of village Mangur, Taluka Chikodi, District Belgaum, of the year 1921, in respect of birth of Hausi Gandhari Bap Rama Mahar, the great paternal aunt of the Petitioner. It has been the consistent claim of the Petitioner that Hausi was the sister of his grandfather Ganpati, who had initially married a Devdasi i.e. Shrimat Phappe, and by whom the Petitioner's 1 (2004) 9 SCC 481.