Milind Bhimsing Shirsath Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. - (High Court of Bombay) (09 Mar 2020)
Mere different view on same facts would not entitle committee dealing with subsequent caste claim to reject it
By present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 the Petitioner seeks to challenge the order passed by Respondent no. 2 committee thereby invalidating the caste certificate of the Petitioner as belonging to Tokre Koli which is notified as Scheduled Tribe under SC/ST (Amendment) Act, 1976 for the second time.
Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner invites attention of present Court to the grounds taken in the petition and the fact that the validity certificate is granted in favour of Petitioner's real uncle and other close relatives on paternal side. In support of aforesaid contention that once the validity certificate is granted in favour of near relatives of the candidate, the cast validity certificate deserves to be issued in favour of the Petitioner, the learned counsel pressed into service the exposition of law in the case of Apoorva D/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 1.
In spite of placing on record overwhelming documents in the nature of validity certificates issued in favour of real uncle of the Petitioner, the documents showing Petitioner's father's tribe claim has been validated by the then Appellate Authority and also validity certificates issued in favour of close relatives of the Petitioner. It needs to be noted that in spite of two remand orders by this Court, Respondent No. 2-Committee by reiterating same reasons has discarded the tribe claim of the Petitioner.
The Petitioner has submitted all the validity certificates of his close relatives as well as copy of the said judgment in case of his father in support of his Tribe Claim as Tokare Koli. It appears that in spite of Tribe validity certificates on record the Scrutiny Committee negated the claim of the Petitioner on the ground that in the school record in the caste column the entry is made as Hindu Koli in case of father and uncle of the Petitioner.
This Court in the case of Apoorva D/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 1, held that the matters pertaining to validity of caste have a great impact on the candidate as well as on the future generations in many matters varying from marriage to education and enjoyment, and therefore where a committee has given a finding about the validity of the caste of a candidate, another committee ought not to refuse the same status to a blood relative who applies. A merely different view on the same facts would not entitle the committee dealing with the subsequent caste claim to reject it.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, and keeping in view the caste validity certificate issued in favour of real uncle of the Petitioner, so also the cast validity certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner's father by the then Appellate Authority and other caste validity certificates issued in favour of close relatives of the Petitioner, so also keeping in view exposition of law in the case of Apoorva D/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 1, present Court is of the considered view that petition deserved to be allowed. The Respondent No. 2-Committee is directed to furnish the caste validity certificate to the Petitioner. Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of.
Relevant : Apoorva D/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 1, MANU/MH/0868/2010
Tags : SCRUTINY COMMITTEE CASTE CERTIFICATE VALIDITY