Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(Per - M. S. JAWALKAR, J.)

1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission by consent of the parties and at the request of parties.

Judgment 2 J-WP No.2529.2023.odt

2. The Petitioner by this petition is challenging the order dated 19.12.2022 passed by the Respondent No. 1 Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Amravati thereby invalidating the caste claim of the Petitioner to the 'Naikda' Scheduled Tribe, which is enlisted at Sr. No. 35 of the Scheduled Tribe Order, 1950.

Sr. Description of Document Caste Date No. 1 School Leaving Certificate of Petitioner's Naikda 01.10.1953 Father (1st Std) 2 Dakhal Kharij Register of the Petitioner's Naikda 10.03.1947 Father 3 Birth Extract of Petitioner's Father Naikda 25.05.1940 namely Adnyansingh 4 Birth Extract of Cousin Grandfather Naikda 20.01.1949 namely Dayaram 5 Copy of Extract of Revenue document

5. It is further contended that the Police Vigilance Cell conducted inquiry and submitted its first report to the Respondent No. 1 Scrutiny Committee on 21.02.2007. The Petitioner submitted his reply to the vigilance report on 21.05.2013 and denied the contents of the report and further submitted certain pre-constitutional documents in his reply. The Police Vigilance Cell conducted further inquiry and submitted its second vigilance cell report to the Respondent No. 1 Committee on 27.11.2020. The Petitioner submitted his reply to the second vigilance report in August 2022 consequent to which, the Respondent No. 1 Caste Scrutiny Committee, vide order dated Judgment 4 J-WP No.2529.2023.odt 19.12.2022 invalidated the caste claim of the Petitioner, which is challenged in this petition.

13. The Petitioner placed on record the document of 1940, which is a birth extract of the Petitioner's father namely Adnyansing showing his caste as 'Naikda'. Similarly in Dakhal Judgment 9 J-WP No.2529.2023.odt Kharij Ragister of the Petitioner's father dated 10.03.1947, also showing the caste as 'Naikda'. Thus, these two documents prior to 1950 shows caste as 'Naikda'.

14. The Petitioner has placed on record an affidavit along with one more document of 1930, wherein Khiraman is shown to have given birth to Dalpat. Moreover, the Petitioner again reiterated that in School Leaving Certificate though, the date of birth is shown as 10.03.1947, the same is not found in the Tahsil record as intimated by the Tahsildar Motala. Thus, the Birth Extract of 1940 pertaining to the father of the Petitioner Adnyansing needs to be considered. In view thereof, there is no reason not to believe the subsequent documents of 1952 and 1953 in respect of Chandrabhan Adnyansing and Raibhan Gangaram by raising doubt that there is overwriting. We have seen the coloured photocopy of the said entries, we do not see any overwriting against the entry of Raibhan Gangaram. When there are old entries of birth extract of father of the Petitioner showing his caste as 'Naikda', which are prior to 1950, having most probative value. The subsequent entries even if it is presumed that there is some overwriting, the old entries prevail Judgment 10 J-WP No.2529.2023.odt over the same. The caste of father of the Petitioner recorded as 'Naikda' in Birth Extract of 1940.

(iii) It is declared that the Petitioner duly established that he belongs to "Naikda" Scheduled Tribe.

(iv) The Respondent Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati is hereby directed to issue the validity certificates of "Naikda" Scheduled Tribe to the Petitioner within a period of six weeks.