JUDGMENT
D.D. Sinha, J.
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of Shri Mardikar. learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Puranik, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2, and Mrs. Bhandarkar, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 1.8.2003 passed by the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to “Koli Mahadeo” (Scheduled Tribe).
3. Shri Mardikar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that the impugned order passed by the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee is violative of principles of natural justice since petitioner was not given opportunity to put forth his say on the report of Police Vigilance Cell and objections raised by the petitioner were not considered. It is contended that during the course of home enquiry, Inspector, Vigilance Cell recorded statements of two persons, namely, Shaligram and Samadhan. However, these two persons are not at all related to petitioner and, therefore, their statements could not have been relied on by the Caste Scrutiny Committee to hold that petitioner does not belong to “Koli Mahadeo”. It is contended that para (8) of the impugned order shows that the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee has placed reliance on the statements of these persons and on the basis of the same, came to the conclusion that the above referred two persons are relatives of petitioner. It is submitted that the said finding is bad in law since petitioner is not given opportunity in this regard though he specifically objected before the Caste Scrutiny Committee that they are not related to the petitioner.
4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the procedure adopted by the Police Vigilance Cell was contrary to guideline No. 5 laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. u. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors. AIR 1996 SC 94 :1996 (4) S.L.R. 206 since Research Officer was not associated with the process of verification of caste claim undertaken by the Police Vigilance Cell and, therefore, impugned order is violative of directions issued by the Apex Court and is not sustainable in law.
5. Learned Counsel Shri Mardikar submits that document such as birth extract of Mouza Shelgaon Bazar dated 24.2.1957 wherein it is shown that a male child is born to Shri Dnyanoba Namdeo Koli and Dnyanoba is shown as Koli in one of the columns, cannot be relied upon, against the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner is not given any opportunity to put forth his case in respect of this document and. therefore, Scrutiny Committee is not justified in placing reliance on this document to deprive rightful claim of the petitioner.
6. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that solitary document such as School Leaving Certificate, birth extract, etc. by itself should not be the foundation for declaring candidate belonging to or not belonging to a particular caste. The overall assessment of the evidence placed before the Caste Scrutiny Committee should be made for holding whether particular candidate is belonging to a particular category or not. In order to substantiate the contentions, reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the judgment in Narayan Deoji Koli v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. and judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2260/1994 decided on 25.7.1994.
7. It is lastly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had submitted in all 32 documents to the employer, i.e. Maharashtra State Electricity Board. However, impugned order shows that the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee has considered only 17 documents, which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner and hence, on this count also, the impugned order is vitiated. In order to substantiate this contention, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Gayatrilaxmi Bapurao Nagpure v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. .
8. Shri Puranik, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 Caste Scrutiny Committee, states that petitioner is given ample opportunity to put forth his claim and, therefore, impugned order is not violative of principles of natural justice. It is contended that petitioner was called for personal hearing along with his parents/elderly persons on 27.1.2003 by telegram dated 22.1.2003. However, petitioner remained absent. Again he was called for hearing on 10.2.2003 by letter No. 53 dated 1.2.2003 sent by registered post acknowledgment due. Copy of the vigilance cell report was also sent along with the said letter. The petitioner was also informed that in case he remains absent on the next date of hearing, his claim would be decided on merits. However, the petitioner did not attend the hearing. Again the petitioner was called for hearing on 24.2.2003 by letter No. 57 dated 14.2.2003.
9. It is contended by learned Counsel Shri Puranik that the petitioner attended hearing before the Committee on 24.2.2003 and was heard by the members of the respondent Committee. The petitioner on that date stated before the Committee that, he would submit his say on the report of the Police Vigilance Cell on or before 10.3.2003. Again the petitioner was called for hearing on 14.7.2003 by letter No. 3955 dated 9.7.2003. However, petitioner chose to remain absent. The petitioner on earlier occasion, i.e. on 11.3.2003 submitted his say on the Police Vigilance Cell’s report. It is, therefore, contended that petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to put forth his claim and place on record necessary documents as well as evidence. However, he failed to do so, and, therefore, impugned order cannot be faulted with on this count.
10. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 Caste Scrutiny Committee that document dated 24.2.1957 is the birth extract of the petitioner wherein caste of the father of the petitioner Is shown as “Koli”. It is contended that this document was forwarded to the petitioner along with Police Vigilance Cell’s report. In the reply which was filed to the said Police Vigilance Cell’s report, the petitioner has not disputed either genuineness of the document or entry thereof and, therefore, respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee was justified in placing reliance on the said document.
11. Learned Counsel Shri Puranik states that the Police Vigilance Cell has conducted home enquiry as per guidelines given by the Apex Court in Madhuri Patil’s case (cited supra). It is submitted that Research Officer was associated with the process of verification of the caste claim of the petitioner and has also signed the report. The record of the Committee shows that home enquiry is conducted by the Inspector of the Vigilance Cell, which is according to the procedure contemplated in Madhuri Patil’s case and since report was signed by the Research Officer, order based on such Police Vigilance Cell’s report, is sustainable in law. The learned Counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned order is sustainable in law.
12. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel for the parties. So far as reasonable opportunity of hearing is concerned, on the backdrop of the above referred facts placed before this Court by the learned Counsel for the respondent Committee, it is evident that the petitioner was given ample opportunity to put forth his case as well as to place on record his reply and any other evidence, if he wanted to submit. The concept of principles of natural justice needs to be understood in right perspective, which normally means reasonable opportunity to defend and not unlimited opportunity and, therefore, when we consider the facts of the present case in this context, it is clear that the petitioner was given enough opportunity to put forth his defence. However, petitioner failed to avail the same and, therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to canvass grievance now that the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice. The contention canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this regard, in our view, is misconceived and devoid of substance.
13. We want to express that petitioner in fact has submitted his reply to the Police Vigilance Cell’s report before the Committee on 11.3.2003 and, therefore, it is not now open to the petitioner to canvass any grievance in this regard. Since petitioner had filed his reply on 11.3.2003, it was for the petitioner to include in the said reply all the objections and contentions, which petitioner wanted to canvass before the Committee since decision on those contentions was required to be taken by the Committee and it is not open for the petitioner to canvass such grievance before this Court for the first time on the ground that sufficient opportunity has not been given to him to put forth his defence when in fact situation is otherwise. In the circumstances, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to show that Shaligram and Samadhan whose statements were recorded by the Police Vigilance Cell during home enquiry were not related to him is misconceived and this is not the sufficient ground to hold that the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice.
14. The facts which are placed before us by the learned Counsel for the Caste Scrutiny Committee demonstrate that Research Officer was associated with the process of verification, which is evident from the fact, that the Police Vigilance Cell’s report is signed by the Research Officer. It is well settled that, so far as home enquiry required to be conducted by the Inspector, Police Vigilance Cell is concerned, it is not necessary that Research Officer should also remain present with the Inspector during such enquiry. However, requirement is that the evidence which is collected by the Police Vigilance Cell needs to be considered by the Research Officer before signing the report. In the instant case, home enquiry is conducted by the Inspector of the Police Vigilance Cell and after considering the entire evidence collected by the Cell, report is signed by the Research Officer and, therefore, there is no apparent violation of directions of the Apex Court mentioned in Madhuri Patil’s case and hence, contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this regard is also misconceived and devoid of substance.
15. As regards contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had submitted 32 documents in support of his caste claim to the employer Maharashtra State Electricity Board, but documents referred by the Committee in the impugned order are only 17 and same has resulted in serious prejudice to the petitioner is concerned, we must express that while considering validity of the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee under extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, what is to be seen is whether material relied on by the Caste Scrutiny Committee is sufficient to hold as to whether a candidate belongs to a particular caste or not and this Court is not required to conduct a fishing enquiry and is also not expected to substitute Its own view in this regard.
16. In the instant case, crucial document which goes to the root of the matter is birth extract of petitioner dated 24.2.1957 wherein caste of the father of petitioner is shown as “Koli”. It is pertinent to note that petitioner has not either specifically or otherwise disputed genuineness of the document or entry made therein. In other words, there is no challenge to this document by the petitioner and, therefore, by necessary implication, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this document is not only authentic one, but carries more probative value than other documents, which are filed by the petitioner on record since they are of later date. It is well settled that document which is old, genuine and reveals true facts has more probative value than other documents, which are later in point, of time. The document in question in no uncertain terms conveys that caste of the father of the petitioner is ‘Koli” and, therefore, it will not only be incorrect, but also impermissible to hold that petitioner is “Koli Mahadeo” when it is not disputed that caste of the father of the. petitioner shown in the old document is ‘Koli”. In the instant case, this crucial undisputed genuine document is the turning point and decisive factor so far as determination of the caste of the petitioner is concerned. As we have already observed hereinabove, when the caste of the father of the petitioner is shown as “Koli” and same is not disputed, it will be inconceivable to hold that petitioner belongs to the caste other than that of his father.
17. There is no quarrel in respect of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Narayan Deoji Koli as well as in the case of Master Prashant Sitaram Shirshat (cited supra). However, the findings recorded in the respective cases by this Court were altogether in different facts and circumstances and context. It is well settled by the Apex Court that no Court can direct the Authorities to add or subtract any word in regard to caste entry of the individual and, therefore, words mentioned in the document pertaining to caste will have to be considered as they are and it is not open for the Court to apply its reasoning why a particular word is not finding place in the column of caste or was not mentioned for some reason. We are afraid that it will not be open for us to hold in the instant case that in the document in question, i.e. birth extract of the petitioner of the year 1957 the caste of the father of the petitioner is inadvertently or for some other reason shown as “Koli” and grant the benefit to the petitioner of “Koli Mahadeo” caste. It is no doubt true that Caste Scrutiny Committee needs to assess overall evidence placed before it by the candidate himself as well as Police Vigilance Cell and is required to reach necessary conclusion after considering these aspects. However, this does not prohibit the Committee to rely on a document, which is not only genuine and authentic but a decisive factor in determining caste claim of the petitioner. However, in the present case, the Caste Scrutiny Committee has given detailed reasons why other documents submitted by the petitioner cannot be relied on and also considered the evidence available on record in respect of affinity test, social and cultural traits including ethnic linkage and found that petitioner failed to establish his affinity towards “Koli Mahadeo” (Scheduled Tribe) and, therefore, this is not the case where Caste Scrutiny Committee only on the basis of document, i.e. birth extract of the petitioner dated 24.2.1957, by ignoring other factors, rejected the claim of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore, law laid down in the above referred decisions, in our view, does not further the case of the petitioner. Similarly, there is no quarrel with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gayatrilaxmi Bapurao Nagpure (cited supra). However, for the reasons referred to hereinabove, same also does not further the case of the petitioner.
18. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the petition is dismissed. The rule is discharged. No order as to costs. Needless to mention that petitioner is entitled to make representation to the employer in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Milind and Ors. 2001 (1) Mh. L.J. 1 : 2001 (1) Bom. C.R. 620 : 2001 (1) All M.R. 573 : AIR 2001 SC 393 : 2001 (1) SCC 4 and relevant Government Resolutions.
