ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Sunil B. Shukre, J.)
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.
3. The order impugned by this petition is the one which is passed by the respondent No.3, Scrutiny Committee at Nagpur on 19.9.2018. The effect of the order impugned herein is that the claim of the petitioner as he belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe has been invalidated by respondent No.3.
4. According to Shri M.V. Bute, learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order is arbitrary and perverse for the reason that it does not consider the validity granted to two of the cousins of the petitioner, namely, Rupali Prabhakar Barapatre and Monali Prabhakar Barapatre by the competent Authority. He also points out that there are old documents dating back to the year 1963 or 1965 which disclose that the paternal cousin of the petitioner and the petitioner himself did belong to Halba caste or tribe and if these documents are considered in the light of the validity granted to Rupali and Monali the inevitable conclusion would be that the claim of the petitioner is valid and ought not to have been rejected by the respondent No.3.
5. Smt. Ketki Joshi, learned A.G.P. for respondent No.3 as well as Smt. Mugdha Chandurkar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 both
2
in unison have submitted their argument only disagreeing with the submissions made across the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner. They point out that an in-depth inquiry was conducted by the Vigilance Officer and a detailed verification report was submitted by him. They further submit that this report disclosed that there were several relatives from the paternal side of the petitioner who were shown as belonging to Koshti caste in very old documents, all of them pre-constitutional documents starting from such year as 1911 through the years of 1919, 1913, 1937 to the year 1941. They also point out from the impugned order that there were two relatives admittedly from the paternal side and whose names appear in the family tree submitted by the petitioner himself who claimed as belonging to Koshti caste and the validity has also been granted to these two relatives to the effect that their Koshti caste is a specially backward class declared on 15.6.1995 by the State of Maharashtra. According to them, this overwhelming evidence, not disputed in any manner by the petitioner, would falsify his claim of he belonging to Halba scheduled tribe.
6. On going through the impugned order which discusses in detail various documents including the validity granted to Rupali and Monali, we find great substance in the argument of learned A.G.P. for the respondent No.3 and learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and no merit in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner.
3
7. There is no doubt that Rupali and Monali have been granted validity certificates as they belonging to Halba scheduled tribe respectively by Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Scrutiny Committee at Nagpur in the year 1993 and 1994. Ordinarily grant of such validity certificates to the members of the family of the petitioner could have been seen as giving overwhelming support to the claim of the petitioner. But, the scenario is not so simple as it has been tried to be made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Although learned counsel for the petitioner did not submit argument in respect of two of the relatives of the petitioner who have accepted the validity certificates given to them as they belonging to Koshti caste, a caste which falls within the category of special backward class, the impugned order discusses this issue at length and, therefore, we would say, such discussion would certainly enlighten us sufficiently in order to adjudicate upon the issue raised in this petition in an appropriate manner.
8. These two relatives, whose names appear in the family tree submitted by the petitioner himself are Suresh Mahadev Barapatre and Purushottam Sitaram Barapatre. These two persons have been granted certificates of validity in the year 2016 as each of them belonging to Koshti caste, a specially backward class declared to be so by the State of Maharashtra. Such validity conferred upon these two relatives of the petitioner has been accepted by them.
4
9. Now, here is the situation where the members of the family of the petitioner have made conflicting claims as regards their social status. One set of relatives claims that they belong to Halba scheduled tribe, other set of relatives proclaim themselves as belonging to Koshti caste, a caste falling within the category of special backward class. So, in such a case, a veritable doubt would arise about the side to which the claim of the petitioner as regards his social status would fall. The petitioner would want us to believe that his social status goes towards the side of the stand of Rupali and Monali and the respondents would like to emphasise that the social status of the petitioner cannot be distinguished from that of Suresh and Purushottam. The resolution of the dilemma will be possible by looking for some other material as for example, pre-constitutional documents if available on record and also the relevant facts and circumstances showing affinity of petitioner with customs and traditions of Halba tribe.
10. The petitioner has not placed on record any relevant facts and circumstances, as could be seen from the detailed discussion made in the impugned order, in order to show that he has an affinity to the well known attributes, characteristics and customs of Halba scheduled tribe. As regards pre-constitutional documents, we must say, the petitioner also woefully lacked on this front. There is not a single pre-constitutional document which is adduced in evidence or placed on record by the
5
petitioner in order to support his claim that he belongs not to Koshti caste but to Halba community or tribe. On the contrary whatever documents which were placed on record or which were collected during the course of the inquiry by the Vigilance Officer almost unanimously show that all the relatives of the petitioner belong to Koshti caste. These documents are of such years as 1911, 1930, 1999, 1919, 1937, 1941 and 1950-52. These documents have been appropriately considered by the Scrutiny Committee and together with validity declaring social status of two relatives of the petitioner, namely, Suresh and Purushottam as being that of Koshti caste, the Scrutiny Committee found that no reliance could be placed upon the validity given to Rupali and Monali by the competent Authority and in our opinion rightly so. The documents made available for scrutiny by the petitioner have indeed assisted the Committee as well as this Court in resolving the dilemma arising from conflicting nature of social status assigned to two different sets of relatives of the petitioner and the resolution has, unfortunately, gone against the petitioner.
11. In the result, we find that no fault could be found with the impugned order and it cannot be held to be either arbitrary or perverse, much less illegal. There is no merit in the petition.
12. The petition stands dismissed. No costs.
13. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner makes a request for keeping in abeyance the effect and operation of the order for
6
a period of two weeks in order to enable the petitioner to approach the Hon'ble Apex Court to raise a challenge to this order.
14. The request is strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
15. Learned A.G.P. submits that an appropriate order may be passed in the matter.
16. Considering the fact that interim stay is already in operation since 6thNovember, 2018 and also the fact that the issue involved in this petition on it's attaining finality would have an enormous impact on the service career the petitioner, we are of the opinion that it would be in the fitness of things that the interim relief is granted for a limited period of time and accordingly, we direct that the effect and operation of this order shall stand stayed for a period of two weeks from the date of order.
JUDGE JUDGE
okMksns
7