Tarachand v. Joint Commissioner And Vice Chairman, Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioners in these writ petitions challenged three orders issued by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur Division, Nagpur:

• Order dated 28-5-2009 in W.P. No. 2876/2009;
• Order dated 26-9-2008 in W.P. No. 3373/2009; and
• Order dated 24-3-2008 in W.P. No. 3657/2008.

The ground of challenge was that a member of the Committee, Shri K.M. Pathak (Research Officer), was not qualified to be a member because he did not possess the required qualification.

The Court referred to an earlier proceeding — Writ Petition No. 3118 of 2009 [2010 (5) Mh.L.J 281] — in which an order dated 8-7-2010 had set aside a Scrutiny Committee order on the same ground and remanded the matter for fresh decision after noting that Shri K.M. Pathak did not possess the degree of M.A. in Sociology or Anthropology as required by the Supreme Court's judgment in Kumari Mathuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the orders of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee could be sustained where a member of the Committee (Shri K.M. Pathak) did not possess the qualification of M.A. in Sociology or Anthropology as required by the governing precedent.
2. What is the appropriate remedy if it is found that an unqualified person participated in the Committee's decision (i.e., whether the impugned orders should be set aside and the matters remanded for fresh consideration).

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

• The petitioners challenged the impugned orders on the ground that Shri K.M. Pathak, a member of the Scrutiny Committee, was not qualified to be on the Committee because he did not possess the required academic qualification.

Respondent's Position

• In the earlier proceeding (W.P. No. 3118/2009), Mrs. B.H. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents, did not dispute that Shri K.M. Pathak lacked the requisite qualification of an M.A. in Sociology or Anthropology as required under the Supreme Court's judgment in Kumari Mathuri Patil.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court noted that the challenge in the present petitions was identical in substance to the challenge adjudicated in W.P. No. 3118/2009. In that earlier order the Additional Government Pleader had conceded (or did not dispute) that Shri K.M. Pathak, the Research Officer associated with the Committee, did not possess the M.A. in Sociology or Anthropology required under the Supreme Court's decision in Kumari Mathuri Patil. On that basis the earlier order set aside the Committee's decision and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

Applying the same reasoning, the Court here set aside the impugned orders in the three writ petitions presently before it because the presence and participation of an unqualified member (Shri K.M. Pathak) vitiated the Committee's earlier decisions. The Court therefore remanded the matters to the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee for fresh decision in accordance with law.

The Court further directed the Scrutiny Committee to endeavour to decide the caste claims expeditiously and preferably within eight months from the date of receipt of the order, kept all contentions of the parties open, and admonished the petitioners to cooperate and not seek frivolous adjournments.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee for fresh decision in accordance with law.

Implications:

• The Scrutiny Committee is directed to decide the petitioners' caste claims as expeditiously as possible and preferably within eight months from receipt of the order.
• All contentions of the parties remain open for consideration by the Committee on remand.
• The petitioners are required to cooperate with the Committee and not pursue frivolous adjournments.
• The writ petitions are disposed of and the Rule is made absolute in terms of the order, with no order as to costs.
• No broader or new legal principle was announced by this order; the decision applies the existing principle (as articulated in Kumari Mathuri Patil and the earlier W.P. No. 3118/2009 order) to set aside the impugned administrative determinations and remand them for lawful reconsideration.