Bombay High CourtWP/7020/2015rule made absolute

Pushkar Subhash Chavan v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary, Tribal Development Deptt. And ORS.

2017-11-27Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sandeep Kashinath Shinde,Hon'Ble Shri Justice B.R. Gavai5 pages

* 1/5 * 11-WP-7020-2016.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7020 OF 2015 Pushkar s/o Subhash Chavan Age: 23 years, Occupation: Student, R/o Bhagyajoti Apartment, Row House No.5, D.G.R.-2, I.T.I. Link Road, Kamatwadishiwar, Nashik, Tq. & District Nashik ......Petitioner V/s.

1 The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

2 The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik Region, Nashik.

3 Savitribai Phule Pune University, Ganesh Khind Road, Pune, Through its Registrar.

4 The Principal, M.E.T.'s Institute of Engineering, Bhujbal Knowledge City, Aadgaon, Nashik, District: Nashik .......Respondents Mr. R.K.Mendadkar , Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. C.P.Yadav , AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2-State. CORAM :

CORAM : B.R.GAVAI & B.R.GAVAI & SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

* 2/5 * 11-WP-7020-2016.doc DATE :

DATE : 27 27 th th November, 2017.

November, 2017.

P.C. :

Rule Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

. Rule made returnable forthwith.

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned AGP for the State by consent.

the learned AGP for the State by consent.

The Petitioner takes exception to the order dated The Petitioner takes exception to the order dated 13.12.2012 passed by the Respondent No.2 invalidating the 13.12.2012 passed by the Respondent No.2 invalidating the caste certificate of the Petitioner as belonging to 'Thakur' caste certificate of the Petitioner as belonging to 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe.

Scheduled Tribe.

The Petitioner was granted caste certificate by the The Petitioner was granted caste certificate by the Competent Authority as belonging to 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe Competent Authority as belonging to 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe on 11.12.2001. Pending verification, he was admitted to the on 11.12.2001. Pending verification, he was admitted to the first year engineering course. On 13.12.2012, the Respondent first year engineering course. On 13.12.2012, the Respondent No.2-Committee invalidated caste certificate of the Petitioner. No.2-Committee invalidated caste certificate of the Petitioner. It appears that documentary evidence pressed into It appears that documentary evidence pressed into service in support of his claim has been completely ignored by service in support of his claim has been completely ignored by the Committee and proceeded to decide the claim on the basis the Committee and proceeded to decide the claim on the basis of affinity test.

of affinity test.

Mr. Mendadkar, the learned counsel for the Mr. Mendadkar, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, has brought to our notice finding recorded by the Petitioner, has brought to our notice finding recorded by the Committee in paragraph 6.1 as to how the pre-constitutional Committee in paragraph 6.1 as to how the pre-constitutional

* 3/5 * 11-WP-7020-2016.doc document was dealt with by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. document was dealt with by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. It is the matter of record that the Petitioner in It is the matter of record that the Petitioner in support of his claim has relied on and produced school record support of his claim has relied on and produced school record of his grand-father which is at Page 34. It is the extract of of his grand-father which is at Page 34. It is the extract of school register no.1. It shows Shankar Mahipat Chavan, school register no.1. It shows Shankar Mahipat Chavan, grand-father of the Petitioner was admitted in the school in grand-father of the Petitioner was admitted in the school in 17.3.1934 and his caste has been recorded as 'Thakur'. Yet 17.3.1934 and his caste has been recorded as 'Thakur'.

Yet another document is at Page 31 duly verified by the Vigilance another document is at Page 31 duly verified by the Vigilance Committee. This document relates to school record of the Committee. This document relates to school record of the Petitioner's father, grand-father, paternal uncle, cousin. It Petitioner's father, grand-father, paternal uncle, cousin. It may be stated that the Petitioner's grand-father Shankar's may be stated that the Petitioner's grand-father Shankar's school record was verified. Admittedly, this document is prior school record was verified. Admittedly, this document is prior to 6.9.1950, a date on which the Constitution (Scheduled to 6.9.

1950, a date on which the Constitution (Scheduled Tribe) Order, 1950 was issued and as such would have more Tribe) Order, 1950 was issued and as such would have more probative value.

probative value.

It appears that the Committee discarded this It appears that the Committee discarded this document on the ground that the reliance could not have been document on the ground that the reliance could not have been placed on this piece of evidence alone and, therefore, his claim placed on this piece of evidence alone and, therefore, his claim was required to be tested by holding affinity test. It is settled was required to be tested by holding affinity test. It is settled law that pre-constitutional documents furnish high degree of law that pre-constitutional documents furnish high degree of probative value to the declaration of the status of the caste of probative value to the declaration of the status of the caste of the Petitioner. We, therefore, hold that the Respondentthe Petitioner. We, therefore, hold that the Respondent-

* 4/5 * 11-WP-7020-2016.doc Committee fell in error in discarding this piece of evidence. Committee fell in error in discarding this piece of evidence. Genelogy placed on record by the Petitioner has Genelogy placed on record by the Petitioner has not been disputed by the Committee. In the case of not been disputed by the Committee. In the case of Anand Anand V/s. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe V/s.

Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and Others Claims and Others, reported in , reported in 2011(6) Maharashtra 2011(6) Maharashtra Law Journal 919 Law Journal 919, wherein it was held that the affinity test , wherein it was held that the affinity test may be used to corroborate the documentary evidence and may be used to corroborate the documentary evidence and should not be the sole criteria to reject the claim. It was held should not be the sole criteria to reject the claim.

It was held that, while dealing with the caste claim in respect of the that, while dealing with the caste claim in respect of the documentary evidence greater reliance may be placed on predocumentary evidence greater reliance may be placed on preindependence documents because it carries a higher decree of independence documents because it carries a higher decree of probative value to the declaration of status of caste as probative value to the declaration of status of caste as compared to post independence documents.

compared to post independence documents.

In the case in hand, the Committee has erroneously In the case in hand, the Committee has erroneously refused to consider school record of his grand-father and other refused to consider school record of his grand-father and other relatives. Infact, this was the oldest one. Hence, document relatives. Infact, this was the oldest one. Hence, document could not have been overlooked while appreciating the claim of could not have been overlooked while appreciating the claim of the Petitioner.

the Petitioner.

In that view of the matter, we are of the considered In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the Petitioner has proved his claim that he belongs view that the Petitioner has proved his claim that he belongs to 'Thakur' caste which is "Scheduled Tribe". That as such, we to 'Thakur' caste which is "Scheduled Tribe". That as such, we set aside the order dated 13.12.2012 and validate the set aside the order dated 13.12.2012 and validate the

* 5/5 * 11-WP-7020-2016.doc certificate of the Petitioner which shows his caste as 'Thakur' certificate of the Petitioner which shows his caste as 'Thakur' registered as ''Scheduled Tribe" in the Constitution (Scheduled registered as ''Scheduled Tribe" in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. Hence, the following order: Tribes) Order, 1950. Hence, the following order: I) I) The Petition is allowed. The impugned The Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.12.2012 is quashed and set aside. order dated 13.12.2012 is quashed and set aside. II) II) It is held and declared that the It is held and declared that the Petitioner belongs to 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe. Petitioner belongs to 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe. III) III) The Respondent No.2-The Scheduled The Respondent No.

2-The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee is directed Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue a Caste Validity Certificate to the to issue a Caste Validity Certificate to the Petitioner certifying that the Petitioner belongs Petitioner certifying that the Petitioner belongs to "Thakur Scheduled Tribe" within a period of to "Thakur Scheduled Tribe" within a period of four weeks from today.

four weeks from today.

IV) IV) Needless to state that, all consequential Needless to state that, all consequential actions to follow.

actions to follow.

Rule made absolute accordingly.

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (B.R.GAVAI, J) (B.R.GAVAI, J)