Ku. Pallavi Rajratan Jambhule v. The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Chief Secretary, Mumbai And ORS.

1/3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO.2215 OF 2025 KU. PALLAVI RAJRATAN JAMBHULE VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. CHIEF SECRETARY, MUMBAI AND ORS. ______________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders.

Mr. N.D. Jambhule, Advocate for the petitioner/s Mr. N.S. Rao, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 6/State -------------------------------

CORAM

: ANIL S. KILOR AND AJIT B. KADETHANKAR , JJ.

DATE :

21.08.2025 1.

Heard.

2.

The limited issue involved in the present petition is whether the petitioner's ordinary place of residence is at Bhagwanpur, Tahsil Umred, District Nagpur, or at Wadhona, Post Bhisi, Tahsil Chimur, District Chandrapur. 3.

The present issue has arisen from the impugned action of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Chandrapur (for short, 'the Committee'), in returning the petitioner's caste claim on the ground that, during the Vigilance Cell enquiry, it was found that the petitioner's ordinary place of residence is Bhagwanpur, Tahsil Umred, District Nagpur.

4.

Contrary to this, the Vigilance Cell report supplied by the Committee to the petitioner indicates, at Sr. No. 5 in the column relating to "ordinary place of residence", that the petitioner's residence is shown as Wadhona, Post Bhisi,

2/3 Tahsil Chimur, District Chandrapur.

5.

The report further reveals, under Column 14, that the Vigilance Cell recorded the statement of the petitioner's father, wherein he stated that their ordinary place of residence is Wadhona, Post Bhisi, Tahsil Chimur, District Chandrapur.

6.

Thus, the findings recorded by the Committee to return back the caste claim of the petitioner itself is contrary to the Vigilance Cell report supplied to the petitioner.

7.

In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the impugned order needs to be quashed and set aside and the matter needs to be remanded back to the Committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner on its own merits. Accordingly, we pass the following order:

(i) The writ petition is partly allowed.

(ii) The impugned order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Chandrapur, returning back the caste claim of the petitioner, is hereby quashed and set aside.

(iii) The claim of the petitioner is remitted to the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Chandrapur, for fresh consideration on its own merits.

8.

Since the petitioner is in service, it is expected that

3/3 the Committee shall decide the claim of the petitioner expeditiously.

(AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)