Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The conduct of the petitioner is relevant. The learned counsel submits that while obtaining the caste certificate as belonging to Chapparband in the year 2001, the petitioner had annexed the various other documents of his relatives to show that he belong to Chapparband caste. On oath the petitioner stated that he belonged to Chapparband caste. The said fact needs to be considered and would negate the claim of the petitioner as belonging to Mistri caste. The learned counsel submits that the Vigilance had considered the documents produced by him. After the Vigilance was conducted for the first time again the Vigilance was conducted after one month as additional documents were submitted by the petitioner and subsequently for the third time, the Vigilance was conducted as the documents which were relied by the petitioner at the time of obtaining the caste certificate as Chapparband were produced on record. The conduct of the petitioner would disentitle the petitioner from any relief. The learned counsel submits that the surname as being synonymous with the name of a caste and the occupation professed is not sufficient to establish that the petitioner belongs to the said OBC caste. For the said purpose the learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of "Shilpa Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra and others" reported in 2009 (3) Mh.L.J.995, so also the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of "Sagiruddin Israiluddin Mistry and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others" reported in 2007 (1) ALL MR 627. According to the learned counsel, the documents placed on record by the petitioner are contradictory. The document of the petitioner bearing admission serial No.1253 shows the caste of the petitioner as Sutar. The same is interpolated and made as Mistri as per endorsement of Vigilance on the said document.

18. The surname reflected in the documents produced as being synonymous with the name of the designated caste in itself may not be sufficient to establish caste, as is observed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of "Shilpa Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra and others".