URMILA VAIJNATH KOLHE Vs THE STATE OF MAH AND ORS

{3} WP No.6908/2012 Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act,

2000 .

3. Petitioner was appointed in respondent No.4 College as a Lecturer in Hindi, vide appointment order dated 11-06-1999 referring to that the post is a reserved post. Subsequently, the petitioner was issued another order dated 20-12-1999. Petitioner's appointment was granted ad-hoc approval by Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University, Nanded. It appears that around 2011, services of the petitioner were in peril for non submission of validity certificate of her claimed caste compelling her to approach this Court under Writ Petition No.3728 of 2011 seeking protection of service till decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee in respect of her pending claim. The petition came to be disposed of on 25-07-2011 with a direction to the Caste Scrutiny Committee to decide the claim of petitioner within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of said order, with protection to services of the petitioner till such decision.

4. Before the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Vigilance Cell

3

{4} WP No.6908/2012 submitted its report, after requiring extensions for submission of the same, under letter dated 07-05-2012. Subsequently, the Caste Scrutiny Committee issued show cause notice to the petitioner and the matter was heard.

5. Before the Caste Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner had placed reliance on as many as 24 documents viz., her caste certificate dated 19-11-2008, extract of admission register of primary school showing her date of birth as 02-01-1975 and her caste as 'Lingayat Beda Jangam' dated 02-07-1980, extract of admission register of the petitioner dated 07-07-1981, first page of her service book, certificate dated 28-05-2008 issued by Gram Sevak, Chincholi, even dated certificate of Gram Panchayat pursuant to birth date register-all showing her caste as Beda Jangam, caste certificates of her cousin Sachin and uncle Shivkumar showing their caste as Beda Jangam, affidavit of her uncle dated 25-08-2004, affidavit of genealogy dated 25-05-2009, Caste certificate issued by Tahsildar to her father dated 01-03-1975 and his service book extract, both showing his caste to be Jangam (OBC) and the Khasara Pahani Patrak of 1954-55 of her

4

{5} WP No.6908/2012 grant father Anappa.

6. On consideration of aforesaid documents, the Caste Scrutiny Committee, on its analysis, had inferred that the petitioner has failed to substantiate her claim with any document prior to 10-08-1950 showing her nexus with Beda Jangam caste. The Caste Scrutiny Committee has come to a firm conclusion, having regard to the documents placed on record by the petitioner as well as the Vigilance Cell report and on hearing the petitioner, that she does not belong to Beda Jangam Scheduled Caste and as such rendered the impugned decision.

7. Petitioner contends that the Committee's decision is arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal and is also vitiated for non observance of principles of natural justice and deserves to be set aside. The petitioner attempts to capitalize on the error appearing in making reference to her caste as Rajput Bhamta instead of Beda Jangam at one place in the findings and contends that her claim is considered by applying parameters of Rajput Bhamta (Vimukta Jatis) and as such contends that the Committee has looked at her claim from altogether irrelevant angle. The petitioner contends that

5

{6} WP No.6908/2012 the Committee has been in error in discarding voluminous evidence placed on record, same being record after 10-08-1950 and as such would not have a much probative value. The Committee has erroneously declined to rely on other documents and evidence also for the same reason.

8. On perusal of the documents, it appears that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has considered that caste of the members in the family of the petitioner has been recorded differently from time to time. While her own brother's school admission registers show him to be "Hindu", her father and uncle's caste certificates show them to be Jangam (OBC) as well as in their service book record, their caste is shown as Jangam. The oldest document on record produced by the petitioner, in respect of Khasara Pahani Patrak is hardly of any assistance to the petitioner as the same does not show caste of her grand father as Beda Jangam. This being the position in respect of the older record of the forebears and close relatives of the petitioner and her cousins, the subsequent record of petitioner's brothers and cousins showing them to be belonging to Beda Jangam caste to a substantial extent discredits and

6

{7} WP No.6908/2012 diminishes the probative value of these documents. The Caste Scrutiny Committee has looked at the evidence produced by the petitioner circumspectively and has reached to a plausible conclusion. The Caste Scrutiny Committee has also dwelt on the credibility of the certificate issued to Sachin Vaijinath Kolle, taking into account the genealogy, which is now being sought to be explained stating that it was obtained under misrepresentation.

9. As far as the allegations with respect to non application of mind, since at one place reference to petitioner's caste comes to Rajput Bhamta, is concerned, the same is hardly of any significance, for, all over in the order, reference to petitioner's claimed caste has been referred as Beda Jangam and reference to Rajput Bhamta appears to be inadvertent.

10. Petitioner's contention in respect that there was an attempt of adjournment on 11-07-2012, through her mother as well as about her presence before Committee on 20^thJuly, 2012, are not being substantiated by the petitioner. In such a case, the plea of non observance of principles of natural justice would hardly be available to the petitioner.

7

{8} WP No.6908/2012

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the petition, places reliance on various decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts, inter alia, AIR 1995 Supreme Court 94 (1) in case of

"Kumari Madhuri Patil & another V/s Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others" and contends that since the Vigilance Cell report was in her favour, pursuant to observations in paragraph No.7 of the judgment, no further action ought to have been taken. Paragraph No.7 of the judgment is reproduced herein below:-

"7. In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged n para 6 be followed."

However, said paragraph No.7 may not assist the petitioner to take her case forward. In the present case it can hardly be said that Vigilance Cell Report is in favour of the petitioner. After going through the report, it cannot be said that the same carries her case further, for the same is in respect of documents referred to in the committee's decision. As a matter of fact it appears that the petitioner herself alleges malafides against the management of college and claims that their attitude is vindictive.

8

{9} WP No.6908/2012

12. The petitioner has also placed reliance on decision of this Court reported in 2004 (4) ALL MR 815 in "Prabhu Narayan Survase V/s State of Maharashtra and others". Said decision has been rendered in respect of claim to tribe. Said observations would not strictly govern the case of the petitioner. The petitioner further tries to assail the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee on the dictum that documentary evidence produced is not liable to be rejected, mainly on the ground it is of recent origin without considering its probative value and on that the committee has to find out correctness or otherwise of the documents.

13. As referred to herein above, the Committee has given adequate reasons as to why the documents, in respect of generation of the petitioner lose out on their probative value, especially having regard to older documents showing earlier generation's caste to be Jangam, which falls under the category of Other Backward Classes and as such run against the claim of the petitioner. In the face of such contradictory evidence being on record, the subsequent record loses out on credibility and probative value.

9

{10} WP No.6908/2012

14. Beda Jangam caste has been notified as Scheduled Caste on 10-08-1950 and there is absolutely no record proximal to such period showing any connection of petitioner's forebears to Beda Jangam caste. The nearest record to said date is of 1972/1975 which shows petitioner's earlier generation to be belonging to Jangam (OBC) and the record of the petitioner's generation, beginning in 1976 shows petitioner's brother to be Hindu, whereas her father's caste certificate shows him to be Jangam.

15. In this scenario, as referred to in the decision relied on by the petitioner herself, the finding of fact on the question as to whether a person belongs to certain tribe or not by the Committee after considering the evidence and giving reasons, cannot be reversed for the reason that another view is possible.

16. Having regard to the evidence and consideration of the same by the Committee, merely for petitioner feels that another view is possible, would hardly be a ground available for us to interfere with the findings arrived at by the Committee. The

10

{11} WP No.6908/2012 petition as such is rejected, leaving it open for the petitioner to independently take up remedy for protection of her employment. We have thus considered the petition only to the extent of relief claimed by the petitioner in respect of invalidation of her claim of belonging to Beda Jangam Scheduled Caste. We grant leave and liberty to the petitioner to prosecute the remedy as may be available in law for protection of her employment. Rule stands discharged with no order as to costs.

[SUNIL P.DESHMUKH, J.] [R.M.BORDE, J.]

drp/A13/wp6908-13

11