Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This petition is filed by a retired Assistant Conservator of Forests against findings recorded by the Caste Verification Committee, Pune. The Committee invalidated his claim as being member of "Rajput Bhamta" caste and held that he is a Hindu Rajput by caste.

2. It is not necessary to elaborately set out the facts leading to controversy about the caste claim made by the Petitioner. Suffice it to say that the Petitioner initially relied upon a caste certificate dated 26th June, 1953 claiming that he belonged to Hindu Patharwat community. The certificate was cancelled by order dated 19th July, 1982 by the then Tahsildar, Tasgaon. The Forest Department had initiated a Departmental Enquiry on charge that the Petitioner had submitted a false caste certificate. The enquiry was, however, dropped. The Petitioner sought benefits of deemed promotion and consequential monetary benefits along with pensionary benefits. He had, therefore, filed a Civil Suit No. 251 of 1989 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangli. He also filed Transfer Application No. 1758 of 1991 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. Since the Caste Certificate of the Petitioner was not verified, the Tribunal allowed withdrawal of the suit with liberty to the Petitioner to move the Government for determination of caste claim by making reference to the appropriate authority for verification thereof. The Petitioner submitted an application dated 19th November, 1996 claiming verification of his caste claim as "Rajput Bhamta". The application was referred to the Caste Verification Committee, Pune. The Committee conducted necessary inquiries into the matter, interviewed the Petitioner and also collected certain documents. The Committee found that the caste claim of the Petitioner is incorrect and he does not belong to sub-caste known as "Rajput Bhamta" and as such he is not member of VJNT.

4. We have gone through the impugned order and the copies of documents filed by the Petitioner. Crucial question is as to what exactly was the caste claim made by the Petitioner and whether the impugned order is legal, proper and correct.

5. The basis for determination of the Petitioner's caste is his representation dated 19th November, 1996 (Exhibit "B"). He made such representation in accordance with the directions of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Transfer Application No. 1758 of 1991. On perusal of the representation, it is explicit that the Petitioner requested the Government to refer his case to the Committee for verification. His specific plea under the representation is to the effect that the Committee may be requested to declare: "Whether or not I fall under Rajput Bhamta as per the Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste (Amendment) Order 1976". This aspect has certain bearing as we will pin-point in the course of further discussion.

(11) Clarification of Head Master about not having made entry as regards said caste in the school record for the year 76-77.
(12) School leaving certificate of his daughter Kumari Sujata Rajput - (caste Rajput Bhamta).
(13) Caste certificate of his daughter, Kumari Sujata -(caste Rajput Bhamta).
(14) His own Primary School leaving certificate ( caste Rajput).

7. The Petitioner had also filed some other documents including a Kabulayat dated 18th July, 1895 which disclosed that his grandfather by name Savla Vitha Naru had signed the document about receipt of Rs.1800/-for construction of a Vithoba temple -as 'Patharwat'. He also filed certain documents showing that his father-in-law had obtained Sale Deed in 1936 wherein the caste is shown as 'Patharwat'. On behalf of the Petitioner, learned Counsel contended that these documents indicated the petitioner's being of "Patharwat" caste but they are not properly appreciated. We do not find any substance in this contention. As pointed out earlier, the Petitioner submitted application (Exhibit "B") for verification of his caste claim as "Rajput Bhamta". Obviously, those private documents which indicated caste of his father-in-law and grand-father as 'patharwat' have no bearing on the issue. There was no necessity for the Committee to discuss these documents which are irrelevant in view of specific caste claim made by the Petitioner.

8. It appears that the Petitioner had previously filed caste certificate claiming himself to be "Hindu Patharwat" but later on that certificate was cancelled. He never relied on that certificate and did not seek verification of such caste claim. It is pertinent to note that on 28th August, 2000 the Petitioner was interviewed by the Committee. The Petitioner failed to furnish information regarding the traits, custom and usage of "Rajput Bhamta" caste / community. The Committee had rightly observed that "Rajput Bhamta" is erstwhile criminal tribe and, therefore, it is imperative that some entries at the police station about family members of the Petitioner could have been recorded in the history sheet. Nobody from the forefathers of the Petitioner is recorded as a criminal or history sheeter at any police station. The Petitioner utterly failed to prove his caste claim during enquiry before the Committee. His daughter's school leaving certificate is the only document which purports to show that entry of the caste is made as "Rajput Bhamta". However his unmarried daughter by name Sujata was admitted in the School by the Petitioner himself and probably after raising the disputed issue regarding the caste claim and as such the single entry in the school leaving certificate of his daughter is of no avail to prove his claim.