Dismissed

Shri Murlidhar Ramkrishna Gathe v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Jan 2007WP/2748/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the rejection of a caste certificate, the Bombay High Court upheld the Scrutiny Committee's order. The court found the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding Thakur S.T. status, noting his school records did not mention it and his claimed traits lacked affinity. The writ was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was discharged with no order as to costs; the petitioner's claim for Thakur S.T. status was upheld as rejected.

Shri Murlidhar Ramkrishna Gathe Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 ((-1-))

¶2

hvn

¶3

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO. 2748 OF 2000

¶5

 Shri. Murlidhar Ramkrishna Gathe,
 C/o. Dy. Transport Commissioner
 and Controller, Govt. Transport
 Services, Sir Pochkhanwala Road,
 Worli, Mumbai 400 025. ... Petitioner

¶6

 Versus

¶7

 1. State of Maharashtra through its
 Secretary, Tribal Development Deptt.
 Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.

¶8

 2. Chairman,
 Committee for Scrutiny and
 Verification of Tribe Claims,
 Maharashtra State, Nagpur.

¶9

 3. Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate,
 Jalgaon (Jamod), District Buldhana.

¶10

 4. Dy. Transport Commissioner and
 Controlller, Govt. Transport Services,
 Sir Pochkhanwala Road,
 Worli, Mumbai 400 025. ... Respondents

¶11

 Mr. R.K. Mendadkar for Petitioner.

¶12

 Mr. V.A. Gangal, Special Counsel with Mr. R.D.
 Rane, Government Pleader for R. Nos. 1 to 4.

¶13

CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&
R.V. MORE,JJ.
DATED: JANUARY 18, 2007

¶14

Oral Judgment : (Per F.I. Rebello,J.):

¶15

 . The Petitioner was employed in the office of the
 Respondent No. 4 against a reserved post on the
 basis that he belongs to Thakur S.T. which is a
 notified scheduled tribe. The caste certificate was
 sent for verification to the relevant committee.

¶16

 ((-2-))

¶17

 The committee on considering the record held that
 the Petitioner did not belong to Thakur S.T. The
 Petitioner aggrieved by the said order, preferred a
 petition before this court being Writ Petition No.
 6359 of 1999. After hearing the parties, this court
 was pleased to dispose of the same by order dated
 14.2.2000. We may refer to paragraph 6 of the order
 which reads as under :

¶18

 "In view of the above, the Scrutiny
 Committee will look into the record afresh
 and decide as to whether the petitioner
 belongs to this particular Scheduled Tribe
 on the basis of the documents he has
 produced. It will be open to the petitioner
 to produce whatever additional material he
 wants to produce before the Committee,
 whereafter the Committee on hearing the
 petitioner will pass a speaking order.
 ......"

¶19

 . Subsequent to this order on remand, the
 Petitioner pursuant to direction to appear for
 hearing on 6.5.2000, submitted his representation
 dated 6.5.2000. The Petitioner also pointed out to
 the Committee that this court had directed the
 committee to decide whether the Petitioner belongs
 to Thakur S.T. on the basis of the documents which

¶20

 ((-3-))

¶21

 the Petitioner may produce. The Petitioner produced
 several documents. The committee thereafter met and
 considered the documents given by the Petitioner
 herein. The committee noted that from the documents
 it was not possible to hold as to whether the
 Petitioner or his father belongs to Thakur S.T. and
 as such in the absence of any conclusive documentary
 evidence, the affinity test was required to be
 considered. The order of the Committee then notes
 that during the time of hearing, the candidate had
 furnished the information on the traits and
 characteristics as mentioned on Page No. 5 being
 points 1 to 8. The committee on considering the
 said material held that the information furnished by
 the candidate, does not show any affinity towards
 Thakur S.T. and in the light of that rejected the
 Petitioners’ caste claim as belonging to Thakur S.T.
 It is this order which is the subject matter of the
 present petition.

¶22

 2. At the hearing of this Petition, on behalf of
 the Petitioners, it is firstly submitted that the
 Committee did not take into consideration the
 direction No. 5 of Para 13 in the judgment of the
 Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil and another Versus
Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others,
(1994) 6 Supreme Court Cases 241 which reads as
 under :

¶23

 ((-4-))

¶24

 " Each Directorate should constitute a
 vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy
 Superintendent of Police in over-all charge
 and such number of Police Inspectors to
 investigate into the social status claims.
 The Inspector would go to the local place of
 residence and original place from which the
 candidate hails and usually resides, or in
 case of migration to the town or city, the
 place from which he originally hailed from.
 The vigilance officer should personally
 verify and collect all the facts of the
 social status claimed by the candidate or
 the parent or guardian, as the case may;
 be, He should also examine the school
 records, birth registration, if any. He
 should also examine the parent, guardian or
 the candidate in relation to their caste

¶25

 etc. or such other person who have
 knowledge of the social status of the
 candidate and then submit a report to the
 Directorate together with all particulars as
 envisaged in the pro forma, in particular,
 of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their
 peculiar anthropological and ethnological
 traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of
 marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial

¶26

 ((-5-))

¶27

 of dead bodies etc. by the cases or tribes

¶28

 or tribal communities concerned etc."

¶29

 . Secondly it is submitted that considering the
 Judgment of the Supreme Court in the State of
Maharashtra and Others Versus Ravi Prakash
Babulalsingh Parmar and Anr. in Civil Appeal No.
789 of 2005, 2006 AIR SCW 6093, the Petitioner ought
 to have been given opportunity of leading oral
 evidence. The failure to do so, has resulted in
 miscarriage of justice and consequently the order of
 the Committee is liable to be set aside.

¶30

 . Thirdly, it is submitted that there was
 overwhelming documentary evidence to show right from
 the time of his great grand father that the
 Petitioner belongs to Thakur S.T. which the
 committee has not taken into consideration.

¶31

 . Lastly it is submitted that the Committee has not
 given any reason as to why the information given by
 the Petitioner is not related to Thakur S.T. It was
 also pointed out that the Committee has misdirected
 itself in examining as to whether the Petitioner
 belongs to Ka-Thakur/Ma-Thakur. It was not the case
 of the Petitioner that he belongs to the said S.T.

¶32

 . On behalf of the Respondents, reply has been

¶33

 ((-6-))

¶34

 filed by Shri. Janubhau Punaji Puram, working as a
 Senior Research Officer in the office of the Caste
 Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur.

¶35

 . We may now consider the arguments advanced on
 behalf of the Petitioner.

¶36

 3. It is the case of the Petitioner that the
 Committee did not consider the judgment in Kum.
 Madhuri Patil (supra) and more specifically
 Direction No. 5 of Para 13, where it was directed
 that the Vigilance Cell as set out therein should
 conduct an enquiry. The Petitioner has not
 approached this court for the first time. He had
 earlier approached this court challenging the order
 of the committee in Writ Petition No. 6359 of 1999.

¶37

 That was not his grievance then. The learned Bench
 of this court after hearing the counsel for the
 parties, was pleased to set aside the order and
 remanded the matter back to the committee for
 disposal in terms of the said order. The Petitioner
 thereafter made representation on 6.5.2000 and
 forwarded various documents. It was not the

¶38

 grievance of the Petitioner before the committee

¶39

 that vigilance enquiry ought to be conducted or that
 the request to conduct vigilance enquiry was

¶40

 rejected. This court considering the contentions
 advanced had remanded the matter back to the

¶41

 ((-7-))

¶42

 committee. Considering the terms of the remand
 order, it would not have been open to the committee,
 a quasi judicial body to act contrary to the order
 of this court. The committee was bound to follow
 the order of this court which the committee has
 done. Apart from that, the Petitioner was given a
 full opportunity of producing his documents. The
 committee also gave opportunity to the Petitioner to
 produce relevant material as to traits,
 characteristics, ethnic linkage and affinity test to
 Thakur S.T. It is not the case of the Petitioner
 that he had given any information other than that is
 set out in the order of the committee. The only
 grievance of the Petitioner is that the committee
 has not given reasons as to why the information
 given is not associated with Thakur S.T.

¶43

 . We called on the learned counsel for the
 Petitioner to show from the Petition any averment by
 the Petitioner contending that what was reproduced
 in the order are affinities to Thakur S.T. There
 are no such pleadings. In our opinion, therefore,
 the contention as now being urged is merely an
 afterthought. The Petitioner was allowed to lead
 evidence both documentary and oral. The Petitioner
 furnished information, as to his Tribal traits and
 characteristics and the same was recorded. The
 Committee recorded a finding that the material

¶44

 ((-8-))

¶45

 produced does not show affinity towards Thakur S.T.
 Reply has been filed by Senior Research Officer in
 the office of the Caste Scrutiny Committee.
 Reference is made to the documents produced by the
 Petitioner before the committee being school leaving
 certificate No. 14671. Column No. 2 in that
 certificate reads as under:

¶46

 "Caste and /sub-Caste only in the case of
 pupil belonging to Backward Classes and
 category among backward classes (e.g.
 S.C./S.T. etc)."

¶47

 In the document produced front of that column no
 caste/sub caste is shown. This document would show
 that the Petitioner joined Shri. Arjan Khimji
 National High School, Khamgaon on 22.6.1979 and left
 the school on 30.4.1983 after having completed the
 course of S.S.C. Examination.

¶48

 . The Petitioner in the information sought for did
 not disclose that he belonged to Thakur S.T. On the
 other hand, the document in our opinion, would
 disclose that the Petitioner did not make any claim
 that be belongs to Thakur S.T. or any other
 backward caste. In the local surroundings where the
 Petitioner’s caste or tribe would be known, it would
 lead to an inescapable conclusion that the

¶49

 ((-9-))

¶50

 Petitioner did not belong to the backward class.
 This court has judicially recognised, that the word
 or surname "Thakur" is shared by both forward and
 backward communities. The burden of proving that
 the person belongs to a S.T./S.C./O.B.C. lies
 heavily on the person seeking the certificate. The
 role of the Vigilance Committee is to conduct an
 enquiry to ascertain and verify the material
 produced by the candidate including as to traits and
 characteristics claimed. If the material and
 information on traits, characteristics , customs,
 deities and other information did not relate to
 Thakur S.T. further verification of that material
 normally would be uncalled for. The law as declared
 in Madhuri Patil (supra) would require verification
 of the information given. If that information was
 associated with the Thakur S.T. then to rule out
 the information given was based on bookish
 knowledge, the vigilance enquiry is required to be
 conducted to establish that the evidence produced is

¶51

 genuine. Once the committee with whom are
 associated experts, conversant with the

¶52

 anthropological and ethnological traits and other
 characteristics of the community, rule out the
 association of the Petitioner to that community, the
 burden is on the Petitioner to establish otherwise.
 That burden has not been discharged. There is not
 even a specific challenge to those specific findings

¶53

 ((-10-))

¶54

 of the committee except a bald assertion that the
 committee was wrong. We are therefore, clearly of
 the opinion that considering the order of remand,
 the committee could not have done that exercise.
 The argument could have been countenanced if at the
 hearing on remand any additional information linking
 the Petitioner to the Thakur S.T. was produced
 which was not verified. The opinion of the
 committee on tribal traits and characteristics,
 coupled with the documentary evidence considered,
 would disclose that the order on that count does not
 suffer from any illegality.

¶55

 4. The next contention is about the Petitioner not
 being given an opportunity to lead oral evidence as
 explained in the case of Raviprakash Parmar (supra).
 We are really not impressed with that argument. The
 Petitioner was given opportunity to produce
 documentary evidence. It was always open to the
 Petitioner to produce any other evidence that the
 Petitioner wanted to. The committee itself examined
 the Petitioner at the hearing as to his traits and
 characteristics. It is not for the committee to
 call on the Petitioner to lead evidence. The burden
 was on the Petitioner if he so desires to seek such
 opportunity. The Judgment in Raviprakash Parmar
 (supra) is in the context that where from the
 documentary evidence, it is not possible to hold as

¶56

 ((-11-))

¶57

 to whether the candidate belongs to Thakur S.T. an

¶58

 opportunity can be given to the Petitioner to lead
 oral evidence. The Petitioner was examined by the
 committee. The Petitioner did not seek any further
 opportunity to lead evidence What evidence to lead
 or not to lead is on the candidate. The Petitioner
 did not seek any opportunity to lead oral evidence.
 In our opinion, the ratio of that judgment, also
 would not be applicable to the facts of the present
 case.

¶59

 5. The third submission was that the documentary
 evidence on record by itself was sufficient to hold
 that the Petitioner belongs to Thakur S.T. We have
 noted earlier and we may repeat that the documents
 on which the Petitioner relied upon and which are
 annexed to this petition did not indicate that the
 Petitioner belongs to Thakur S.T. These documents
 either showed that the Petitioner is Thakur or Hindu
 Thakur. That by itself would not mean that the
 Petitioner belongs to Thakur S.T. On the contrary,
 as noted earlier, the school leaving certificate
 issued on 30.4.1983 and obtained in the vigilance
 enquiry would clearly go against the Petitioner. It
 is not possible to accept that the Petitioner who
 had joined a secondary school, if he genuinely
 belonged to S.T. would omit to give such vital
 information about his status as Thakur S.T. while

¶60

 ((-12-))

¶61

 giving details which were required to be given.

¶62

 Another aspect of the matter as pointed out in the
 affidavit in reply of the Research Officer is that
 the Petitioner hails from Khamgaon in Buldhana
 District. It is pointed out that in Khamgaon,
 District Buldhana, there were no families of
 scheduled caste or scheduled tribes. Also before
 the area Restriction Removal Order of 1976 came into
 force, the tribe Thakur S.T. was restricted only to
 five districts namely in (a) Ahmednagar District in
 Akola, Rahuri and Sangamner Taluka, (b) in Kolaba
 District (now Raigad), Karjat, Khalapur, Pen, Panvel
 and Sudhagad Talukas and Matheran (c) In Nashik
 District Igatpuri, Nashik and Sinnar Talukas (d) In
 Thane District Thane, Kalyan, Murbad, Bhiwandi,
 Vasai, Wada, Shahapur, Palghar, Jawhar and Mokhada
 talukas. It is not the case of the Petitioner that
 his family migrated to Khamgaon from any of these
 areas. It is his contention that the family hails
 from Khamgaon. The reply filed also discloses
 following information about population of some of
 the scheduled tribes in the State as on 17.12.1981
 after the removal of area restrictions. We may
 reproduce the same.

¶63

 Population of Schedule Tribes in Maharashtra

¶64

 (As per 1971, 1981 census)

¶65

 ((-13-))

¶66

 (Population in Lakhs)

¶67

`---------------------------------------------------` `Sr.No. Scheduled Tribes Population` `1971 1981` `----------------------------------------------------`
`18. Gond, Rajgond, Arakh 3,31,798 11,62,735`
`19. Halba, Halbi. 7,205 2,42,819`
`27. Kolam, Mannervarlu 56,061 1,18,073`
`29. Koli Mahadeo, Dongar`
`Koli 3,39,855 7,47,448`
`35. Naikda, Nayaka. 9,315 35,053`
`44. Thakar, Thakur 1,78,805 3,23,191` `----------------------------------------------------`
`Total Maharashtra 29,54,249 57,72,038` `----------------------------------------------------`

¶68

 . From this it will be clear that the population of
 Thakur S.T. rose from 1,78,805 in the year 1971 to
 3,23,191 in the year 1981. This cannot be explained
 as a normal reproduction process leading to hte
 increase in the population of S.T. within 10 years.
 Scheduled Tribes by their very nature stay close to
 their original habitat unless have migrated for work
 or education which very few still do. This sudden
 spurt, can reasonably be explained, that persons who
 did not belong to Thakur S.T. because they also
 bore a surname Thakur made false claims as belonging
 to Thakur S.T. though they did not belong to Thakur
 S.T. We are clearly of the opinion that the
 omission by the Petitioner in not claiming that he
 belonged to Thakur S.T. in his school records would
 be a very strong factor against the Petitioner.
 There is otherwise no other material to hold that
 the Petitioner belongs to Thakur S.T. On that count

¶69

 also, that contention must be rejected.

¶70

 ((-14-))

¶71

 6. The last submission is that the Committee has
 not given any reason as to why the information given
 by the Petitioner does not show why he is not
 related to Thakur S.T. We had partly dealt with the
 argument earlier. In our opinion, the committee
 includes experts. We could have understood if the
 Petitioner in the Petition had made specific
 averments that information furnished are the traits
 and characteristics of Thakur S.T. alone. There is
 no such averments nor are these allegations of mala
 fides alleged against the Members of the committee.
 The committee considered the material produced
 recorded a finding that the Petitioner does not
 belong to Thakur S.T. There is no illegality in the
 findings recorded. Merely because the Committee
 also asked questions of the Petitioner, whether he
 belongs to Ma Thakur/Ka Thakur by itself can not
 result in holding that the committee addressed
 itself to a wrong question. The Committee was
 examining the Petitioners affinity towards Thakur
 S.T. and to avoid injustice, information was also
 sought, as to Ma-Thakur/Ka Thakur ST’s which are
 also included in the Presidential notification.
 That contention must also be rejected.

¶72

 7. In the light of the above, we find no merit in
 this petition and consequently rule discharged.
 There shall be no order as to costs.

¶73

 ((-15-))

¶74

 (R.V. MORE,J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J.)

Shri Murlidhar Ramkrishna Gathe v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Murlidhar Ramkrishna Gathe v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushilkumar Dharmaraj Navsare Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Premsingh Bava Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Indrayani Namdeo Gavande Vs the H.M. Nehru Primary Ashram School and Others

Vivek Dattatraya Shinde Vs the Election Commission and Ors.

Manik Laxman Shinde Vs the State Election Commission and Anr.

Katraj Cliff Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs Municipal Corporation for the City of Pune and Anr.