1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.991 OF 2009.
Surjitsing s/o Kanaksing Zalte,
Age: 20 years, Occ: Student,
R/o: Anjale, Tal.& Dist.Dhule.
.... PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Principal Secretary,
Social Justice & Special
Assistance Department,
Mantralaya Extension, Mumbai 32.
2.
Divisional Caste Certificate
Verification Committee No.2,
Nashik, at Dhule, Dist.Dhule.
3. Gangamai College of Engineering
Nagaon, Tq. & Dist.Dhule,
Through its Principal.
4. North Maharashtra University
U.M.V.Nagar, Jalgaon, Dist.Jalgaon,
Through its Registrar.
.... RESPONDENTS.
RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.P.R.Patil, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.K.J.Ghute-Patil, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and
2.
...
CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE &
B.R.GAVAI, JJ.
DATE : 16th March, 2009.
ORAL JUDGMENT(Per: Smt.Nishita Mhatre,J.):
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forth with, by
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:25:17 :::
2
consent.
2. By this petition, the petitioner has
challenged the order of the Scrutiny Committee by
which the caste claim of “Rajput Bhamta” (Vimukta
Jatis) has been invalidated.
3. The petitioner was born on 23rd March, 1989.
He was admitted to a school which he left on 5th
August, 1999. The school leaving certificate
issued to him indicated that he was a "Hindu
Bhamta Rajput".
ig The petitioner applied for
validation of his caste certificate after he was
selected for the first year Mechanical Engineering
Course with the respondent No.3 College. His
results for the first year were not declared
because the respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee had
not validated his caste claim. The petitioner,
then filed Writ Petition No.5077/2008 before this
Court for a declaration of his results for the
first year. The writ petition was allowed and the
petitioner’s results were directed to be
provisionally declared. It was further directed
that he would be entitled to provisional admission
if he was found to be successful. This direction
was subject to the issuance of the caste validity
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:25:17 :::
3
certificate in the petitioner’s favour by the
Scrutiny Committee. It was also made clear that
if the petitioner’s claim was rejected by the
Committee he would claim no equity.
4. The Scrutiny Committee, after considering the
report of the Home Enquiry and the Vigilance Cell
report, besides other documents produced by the
petitioner, has negatived the claim of the
petitioner. The Scrutiny Committee held that the
petitioner had not been able to establish that his
caste
was “Rajput Bhamta” and not “Rajput”. The
Scrutiny Committee while relying on the decision
of the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri
Patil and another V/s Addl.Commissioner, Tribal
Development and others reported in 1995 (2)
Bom.C.R.690, held that the petitioner had not been
able to establish his case. It was held that the
Home Enquiry also did not conclusively prove the
social status of the petitioner of being from the
“Rajput Bhamta” tribe. The Scrutiny Committee
took into consideration the various other
documents filed by the petitioner including the
validity certificates issued in favour of one
Yogini Santoshkumar Rajput and Bhagwan Narsing
Zalte, who the petitioner claims, were his
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:25:17 :::
4
cousins. The Committee discarded the validity
certificates as it was of the view that the
aforesaid persons were not “blood relations” in
terms of the G.R. dated 22.08.2007.
5. The learned Advocate for the petitioner,
submits that no Research Officer was associated
with the Scrutiny Committee and, therefore, the
order of the Scrutiny Committee is without merit.
It is further submitted that when validity
certificates have been issued in favour of Bhagwan
Narsing
Zalte and Yogini Santoshmumar Rajput, the
petitioner also should have been granted such a
certificate as he had a common ancestor with the
aforesaid two persons. The learned Advocate then
submitted that the Scrutiny Committee has erred in
taking into account the extract from the Birth and
Death Register with respect to the petitioner’s
great grandfather Chindha Khushal wherein his
caste has been shown as “Rajput”. He submits that
the petitioner’s own school leaving certificate
indicated that he was “Rajput Bhamta” and,
therefore, he should have been granted the
validity certificate by the Scrutiny Committee.
The learned advocate points out that in the case
of Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra) the Supreme Court
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:25:17 :::
5
had very clearly laid down that a Research Officer
must be associated with the proceedings of the
Scrutiny Committee and since in the present case
this has not been done, the enquiry stands
vitiated.
6. Reliance is placed by the learned Advocate for
the petitioner on the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Yatin Nilkanth
Bastav V/s Executive Magistrate & others reported
in 2003(6) Bom.C.R.334 and on the decision in the
case of Mahadeorao Shamrao Rajput V/s The State of
Maharashtra and others (Writ Petition No.4352/1984
which was decided by Division Bench of this Court
on 23rd February, 1988 to submit that merely
because the Caste of the petitioner’s great
grandfather was recorded as “Rajput” it did not
necessarily mean that the petitioner was not a
“Rajput Bhamta”. The other judgment cited by the
learned Advocate is in the case of Umraosingh
Jaisingh Chamargore V/s The Dean, Medical College,
Aurangabad & others reported in 1999(1)
Bom.C.R.810,
Bom.C.R.810 to submit that an opportunity should
be given to the petitioner once more to establish
the tribe claim.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:25:17 :::
6
7. The learned Advocate has also relied on the
judgment in the case of Jaydeo Mahadeo Parate V/s
State of Maharashtra and others reported in
2006(Supp.) Bom.C.R. 448 of the Division Bench of
this court to which one of us (B.R.Gavai,J.) was a
party to submit that he should be given benefit of
the admission granted to him instead of cancelling
the same if we concurr with the findings of the
Scrutiny Committee.
8. On the other hand, the learned AGP appearing
for the respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee submits
that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) does not in any
way advance the case of the petitioner. He
submits that all the requirements of Kumari
Madhuri Patil’s case as stipulated by the Supreme
Court, have been considered while enacting the
Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes,
Denotified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic
Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special
Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and
Verification of ) Caste Certificate Act, 2000. He
submits that all the enquiries are now conducted
by the Scrutiny Committee in accordance and in
consonance with the aforesaid enactment. The
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:25:17 :::
7
learned Advocate points out that the Scrutiny
Committee has appreciated the evidence on record
in its proper perspective and, therefore, no
interference is called for by this court in its
writ jurisdiction. The learned Advocate then
points out that each case of validation must be
considered on its own merits and it was not
necessary that because one of the members of the
family had been granted a certificate of
validation of the caste claim that the other
members would automatically be entitled to the
same.
He submits that it is for the applicant to
prove his caste claim rather than contending that
he should be treated at par with the other members
of his family. As regards the judgment in the
case of Yatin Nilkanth Bastav V/s Executive
Magistrate & others (supra), the learned Advocate
submits that this judgment does not take into
account the decision of the Supreme Court in the
case of State of Maharashtra V/s Milind. He
further submits that when the Caste of the great
grandfather of the petitioner was recorded as
“Rajput”, the petitioner could not claim that he
was a “Rajput Bhamta”. The document was pre 1960
i.e. when the “Rajput Bhamta” tribe became
entitled to reservations. The document being of
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:25:17 :::
8
1935, has a greater probative value according to
the learned A.G.P. As regards the requirement of
the association of the Research Officer along with
the Scrutiny Committee, as held in the case of
Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), the learned Advocate
submits that the enquiry has been conducted in
accordance with the aforesaid Act and therefore,
no fault could be found with the constitution of
the Scrutiny Committee.
9. In the present case, the petitioner’s school
leaving
certificate indicates that his caste was
“Hindu Bhamta Rajput”. The petitioner’s cousins
Bhagwan Narsing Zalte and Yogini Santoshkumar
Rajput had obtained validity certificates
indicating their Caste was “Rajput Bhamta”.
However, as seen from the genealogy produced by
the petitioner, the relationship between the
aforesaid two persons and the petitioner, is too
distant for the Scrutiny Committee to have granted
the Caste validity certificate to the petitioner
on the basis of their certificates. Chimna was
their common ancestor. He had two sons Vijaysingh
and Khushalsingh. Bhagwan is from the lineage of
Vijaysingh while Yogini and the petitioner are the
descendants of Khushalsingh. Khushalsingh had two
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:25:17 :::
9
sons Mohan and Chindha. Yogini was the great
granddaughter of Mohan who was the step-brother of
Chindha. The petitioner is the great grandson of
Chindha. Thus, it is obvious that though they
have a common ancestor, the petitioner would not
be entitled to any benefit only because of the
fact that these two persons had their Caste
certificates validated. The petitioner’s
relationship is too distant from both Bhagwan or
Yogini. He must, therefore, prove independently
that he is entitled to the validity certificate.
10. We have not been shown the reasons for which
the certificates of validity were issued to these
two persons by the Scrutiny Committee and,
therefore, it is difficult to accept the
submissions of the learned Advocate for the
petitioner that he is also entitled to a validity
certificate. In our view, therefore, the Scrutiny
Committee has rightly discarded the certificates
issued in favour of Bhagwan and Yogini for being
the basis on which the petitioner would be
entitled to the Caste validity certificate.
11. The learned Advocate for the petitioner
points out that the petitioner’s great grandfather
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:25:17 :::
10
i.e. Chindha’s birth extract indicates that his
Caste was “Rajput”. He points out that it was an
old, pre Constitution document. He submits that
the term “Bhamta” may have been excluded while
recording the Caste of the petitioner’s great
grandfather in the birth extract since it was a
derogatory term. He has placed reliance on the
judgment of the High Court in the case of Mahadeo
Shamrao Rajput V/s The State of Maharashtra and
others (Writ Petition No.4352/1984). The Division
Bench of this Court, while considering the case,
where
the petitioner claimed that he belonged to
the “Rajput Bhamta” Caste has observed that
“Bhamta” is a term of abuse and it was for this
reason that the term “Bhamta” was not shown in the
record of the Birth and Death Register. The
submission of the learned Advocate for the
petitioner is without any merit. It was only
after the Presidential Order of 1960 that “Rajput
Bhamta” tribe was conferred the status of a
Scheduled Tribe entitled to the reservations. It
was only after independence that it was felt that
the word “Bhamta” should not be used as it was a
term of abuse or in any case was derogatory. When
the Caste of the petitioner’s great grandfather
was recorded in 1935 there was no question of not
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:25:17 :::
11
including the word “Bhamta”, if indeed, he did
belong to the “Rajput Bhamta” tribe. The
petitioner’s school leaving certificate has been
issued in 1999, indicating that he belongs to the
“Rajput Bhamta” tribe. It is, therefore, quite
possible that it was only in order to avail of the
benefits of reservations that the petitioner’s
Caste was shown as “Rajput Bhamta” instead of
“Rajput”.
12. In the case of Yatin Nilkanth Bastav (Supra),
the Division
Bench of this Court has held that
rejecting a claim of the petitioner in that case
that he belonged to the “Mahadeo Koli” tribe only
on the ground that his father’s school record
showed that he was a “Koli” and not “Mahadeo Koli”
was unacceptable. It was held that the general
description of the genus does not exclude any
particular specie and, therefore, merely because
the certificate described the petitioner’s
ancestor as “Koli” it can not be presumed that
they were not “Mahadeo Koli”. We are afraid that
it is not possible to accept this conclusion drawn
by the Division Bench of this Court, in view of
the later judgments of the Supreme Court and the
High Court. Besides, Kolis are classified as a
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:25:17 :::
12
Special Backward class while Mahadeo Kolis are a
Scheduled Tribe. The judgment therefore appears
to be per incuriam.
13. Insofar as the reliance placed by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, on the case of Jaydeo
Mahadeo Parate V/s State of Maharashtra (supra) is
concerned, we find that the same is misplaced. In
the said case, this Court has considered the case
of a person who was employed from the category
reserved for Scheduled Tribes, claiming to be
belonging to
the “Halba” Tribe. Taking into
consideration the peculiar facts relating to
position of “Halba Koshtis” in the Vidharbha
Region, in view of the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court, in the case of Abhay Parate
V/s State of Maharashtra reported in 1984
Mh.L.J.289 and the fact that the said controversy
was put to rest by the Apex Court on 20th
November, 2000 by a decision in the case of State
of Maharashtra V/s Milind (supra), and in view of
the protection granted by the Apex Court in the
said case, this Court has held that the services
of the petitioner were entitled to be protected.
This was because he was appointed much prior to
the date of the said judgment delivered by the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:25:17 :::
13
Apex Court. In any event, the Court had found in
the said case that the petitioner has not played a
fraud by producing a false certificate. In that
view of the matter, we find that the said judgment
is not applicable to the facts of the present
case.
14. In our view, the Scrutiny Committee has
correctly held that the petitioner does not belong
to the “Rajput Bhamta” tribe. The mere fact that
the Research Officer was not associated with the
Scrutiny Committee,
ig would not invalidate their
order. It cannot be doubted that the enquiry has
been conducted in accordance with the provisions
of the aforesaid Act and, therefore, the order of
the Scrutiny Committee must be up held. Cogent
reasons have been given by the Committee for
discarding the documents on which the petitioner
relied for establishing his claim. He has also
failed the affinity test.
15. The submission of the learned Advocate for
the petitioner that the petitioner’s admission
should be protected, is also without any
substance. In the earlier petition filed by the
petitioner, this Court had made it clear by it’s
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:25:17 :::
14
order dated 26th August, 2008 in Writ Petition
No.5077/2008 that the admission and the
declaration of the result was provisional and
subject to the issuance of the Caste validation
certificate in favour of the petitioner. In the
present case, we are not impressed with the
submissions of the learned Advocate for the
petitioner that he should be permitted to
prosecute his studies in the Engineering Stream.
The Court had made it clear that the petitioner
would not be entitled to claim equities in case
his caste claim was invalidated.
16. In the case of Union of India V/s Dattatray
Namdeo Mendhekar & others reported in 2008(3) ALL
M.R.441,
M.R.441 the Supreme Court considered the effect
of invalidation of the Caste certificate issued in
favour of a person. The Supreme Court
distinguished Milind’s case and observed that, “it
did not apply to the appointments made on the
posts of the wrong claims of the Caste tribe”.
The Supreme Court observed that in Milind’s case
it had observed that since he had been admitted to
the Medical Course in the Scheduled Tribes
category 15 years prior to the decision of the
Supreme Court, the seat could not have been
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:25:17 :::
15
offered to another deserving candidate even if the
admission was to be annulled. The Supreme Court
observed that public money had already been spent
on the respondent in that case and, therefore, it
would not be of any use to strip the respondent of
his degree.
17. The petitioner, in the present case, had been
admitted to the Engineering Stream and has
completed only one year. His admission was
provisional and the declaration of his result was
also provisional.
ig Thus, no equities have been
created in his favour. In our view, the
petitioner, having deprived a deserving candidate
belonging to the Scheduled Tribes category, should
not be permitted to benefit from his wrong doing.
18. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule
discharged. No orders as to costs.
(B.R.GAVAI,J.) (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE,J.)
lkp
Authenticated Copy,
(L.K.Pradhan)
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:25:17 :::
16
P.A.to the Hon'ble Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:25:17 :::