Dismissed

Satish Ramchandra Salunke v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Jan 2012WP/3952/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Caste Scrutiny Committee's order rejecting a petitioner's claim to Scheduled Tribe status. The court upheld the Committee's finding that the petitioner failed to prove tribal affiliation and confirmed that action under the Caste Certificate Act for falsification was justified.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected. Prayer for staying the order was also rejected.

Satish Ramchandra Salunke Vs the State of Mah… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

WP No. 3952/09

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3952 OF 2009

¶5

Satish s/o. Ramchandra Salunke, Age 34 years, Occu. Service, Presently working as Senior Tax Assistant, Customs Department, Mumbai. ....Petitioner.

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶8

The Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Nandurbar Division, Nandurbar.

¶9

The Commissioner of Customs (General), New Customs House, Bellard Estate, Mumbai - 400 021.

¶10

The Executive Magistrate, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon.

¶11

....Respondents.

¶12

Mr. S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. D.R. Korde, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 4. Mr. A.V. Salve, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

¶13

Mrs. Kalpalata Patil-Bharaswadkar, Advocate for respondent No. 3.

¶14

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T. V. NALAWADE, JJ.

¶15

WP No. 3952/09

¶16

¶17

RESERVED ON : 16th January, 2012. PRONOUNCED ON : 20th January,2012.

¶18

ORDER : [PER T. V. NALAWADE, J. ]

¶19

The petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order made by Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar Division, Nandurbar [hereinafter referred to as the "Committee" for short]. The Committee has held that the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to "Tokare Koli", a Scheduled Tribe, is invalid. The Committee has further directed to take action against the petitioner under sections 10 (1) and 13 (1) of Maharashtra Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Categories (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001) [hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for short]. The original record was called and this Court has heard both the sides.

¶20

The record shows that on the basis of caste certificate dated 26.4.1989 allegedly issued by Executive Magistrate, Jalgaon, the petitioner secured job in Customs Department on 12.10.1995. The department made enquiry with Executive Magistrate, Jalgaon regarding issuance of caste certificate and ultimately by letter dated 12.8.2005 the Office of Executive

¶21

WP No. 3952/09

¶22

¶23

Magistrate informed that no such caste certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner by the office. In view of this letter, Customs Department gave show cause notice to the petitioner for taking action as the job was secured on the basis of this false, forged certificate. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1497/2006 to challenge the show cause notice. This Court (Coram : N. V. Dabholkar and M.G. Gaikwad, JJ.) allowed the petition and directed the Customs Department to refer the matter to the Committee for verification of the caste. The case reported as 2004 (4) Mh.L.J. 784 [Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.] was relied upon for giving decision. The said case is in respect of "Halba" tribe and the certificate was issued by authority of Madhya Pradesh.

¶24

Before the Committee, the petitioner supplied the information in forms "E" and "F". The petitioner relied on documents like caste validity certificate issued to his two relatives like Dnyaneshwar Salunke and Manohar Salunke. Caste verification certificates and affidavits of these two persons are filed in the original proceeding. The matter was referred to Vigilance Cell and the Vigilance Cell has made enquiry in respect of these two persons. The Vigilance Cell's Committee visited the office of Executive Magistrate to ascertain as to whether there is

¶25

WP No. 3952/09

¶26

¶27

record to show that the certificate is issued by the office of Executive Magistrate. No such record was available in the office of Executive Magistrate, Jalgaon. The Vigilance Cell's Committee visited the schools of grandfather and father of the petitioner. The school record in respect of the petitioner is also collected.

¶28

The record shows that in the school of the grandfather of petitioner the caste was given as "Hindu-Koli" on 5.7.1917. The birth certificate in respect of father of petitioner shows that the father was born in 1947 and information was given that the father was of "Koli" caste. The father of petitioner was admitted in school in 1954 and there also the caste was given as "Hindu-Koli". The petitioner was admitted in school in 1980 and in that school the caste of the petitioner was given as "Suryawanshi Koli". The caste was further described as "Other Backward Class". The caste of the real brother of petitioner viz. Ravindra is shown as "HinduKoli" S.T., when Ravindra was admitted in school in 1981.

¶29

The Vigilance Cell has also verified and collected record in respect of other relatives of petitioner on cousin side. The record of Pradeep, Majoj and Vijaya shows that their caste was recorded in 1983, 1987 and 2002, respectively as "Tokare Koli" in school record. During enquiry the two so called relatives

¶30

WP No. 3952/09

¶31

¶32

Dnyaneshwar and Manohar informed that they were also related to the petitioner from cousin side. Information in respect of one Pradip Sapkal, who is related on mother's side of petitioner, was also collected and they informed that they belong to "Tokare Koli" Tribe.

¶33

The copy of report of Vigilance Cell was supplied to petitioner. The petitioner filed reply and he took stand that by mistake, wrong caste was informed to school in the cases of grandfather, father and petitioner. After receipt of the explanation, personal hearing was given to the petitioner and his statement was recorded. During enquiry the Committee collected information regarding traits and characteristics of the caste of petitioner. The Committee has observed that the petitioner has failed to establish his relations with the aforesaid persons. The Committee has observed that the traits and characteristics given by the petitioner do not tally with the traits and characteristics of Tribe "Tokare Koli".

¶34

The record of the Committee shows that it is the Vigilance Cell which was required to collect the old record in respect of grandfather and father of the petitioner. The record in respect of school of the petitioner is also collected by the

¶35

WP No. 3952/09

¶36

¶37

Vigilance Cell. The petitioner relied only on some validity certificates issued to his so called relatives when he filled the forms "E" and "F". The caste certificate of which genuineness is disputed shows that it was obtained on the basis of affidavit of the petitioner and on the basis of one letter of organization. These circumstances show that right from the beginning the petitioner tried to suppress the material information with regard to the caste mentioned in the records of his grandfather, father and the petitioner while getting admission in the school. This record of ancestors is important as a person gets the caste from his forefathers and so due weight needs to be given to this old record. Thus, even if the possibility that a forged certificate was used by the petitioner to secure job is ignored, the other record and circumstances are against the petitioner's case. On facts it can be said that the view taken by the Committee is a possible view. It cannot be said that the Committee's appreciation of record is perverse.

¶38

The advocate of the Committee relied on the observations made by this Court [Coram : Naresh H. Patil & T.V. Nalawade, JJ.] in Writ Petition No. 5361/2007 [Subhash s/o. Lotan Koli Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.]. The observations are at paragraph No. 6, as follows :-

¶39

WP No. 3952/09

¶40

¶41

"6. In Maharashtra, as per Government Resolution dated 7.12.1994 caste "Koli" and sub-caste "Suryawanshi Koli" are declared as "Special Backward Class". By Government Resolution dated 15.6.1995 the State Government has declared that all other subcastes of "Koli" which are notified as scheduled tribes are also to be treated as "Special Backward Class". The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 shows that "Tokare Koli" community is declared as Scheduled Tribe. The Committee or the Court cannot presume or infer that the caste described as "Suryawanshi Koli" is included in Scheduled Tribe community "Tokare Koli" or it is a sub-caste of "Tokare Koli" - Tribe."

¶42

In the case reported as 2004 (4) ALL MR 815 [Prabhu s/o. Narayan Survase Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.], this Court has held that in such cases, the High Court cannot go beyond entry in the Presidential notification.

¶43

Section 8 of the Act provides that the burden of proof that the person belongs to such tribe etc. shall be on such claimant. In the present case, there is aforesaid record against the claimant and his own record also shows that his caste was shown as "Suryawanshi Koli" in the school, which is not declared as

¶44

WP No. 3952/09

¶45

¶46

Scheduled Tribe. In view of these circumstances, the burden was heavy on the petitioner to prove that he belongs to "Tokare Koli" a Scheduled Tribe.

¶47

In section 6 of the Act, it is made clear that the Committee should verify each and every caste certificate which comes before it before issuing validity certificate. The procedure followed by the Committee is laid down in Maharashtra Scheduled Tribe (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) certificate Rules, 2003. As more material may become available to the Committee, than was made available to the previous Committee when the validity certificate was issued in favour of relatives of claimant, the Committee is expected to verify each and every caste certificate independently. In view of this position, not much weight can be given to the so called validity certificates issued to some relatives on cousin side of the claimant. In any case, in the family tree given by the petitioner, these relatives were not mentioned and they appear to be distant relatives. The aforesaid circumstances show that there is clear possibility that caste certificate produced by the petitioner is a forged document. The circumstance that the petitioner suppressed material information from the Committee when he gave information in form "E" and "F" also needs to be kept in mind. In Rule 3 (3) of the aforesaid Rules,

¶48

WP No. 3952/09

¶49

¶50

the petitioner was expected to disclose such information.

¶51

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court holds that no case is made out for interference in the order made by the Committee. In respect of other part of the order of the Committee also, there is no possibility of interference. In the case reported as 2007 (4) Mh.L.J. SC 1 [Additional General Manager, Human

¶52

Resource, BHEL Ltd. Vs. Suresh Ramkrishna Burde] the Apex Court has discussed the effect of invalidation of caste and when the appointment is secured on the basis of false caste certificate. The provisions of section 10 (1) and section 13 (1) of the Act show that after invalidation of the caste claim and when there are aforesaid circumstances, the consequences mentioned in the provisions are bound to follow. So the petition stands rejected.

¶53

[ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.]

ssc/

P.T.O...

WP No. 3952/09

After pronouncement of order, Shri. Barlinge, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the judgment reported in 2012 AIR SCW 203 [Dattu Namdev Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.], the services of the petitioner be protected and the order be stayed for the period of four weeks. In the facts of the case, we are not inclined to grant interim relief. The prayer stands rejected.

¶59

[ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.]

Satish Ramchandra Salunke v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Ramchandra Salunke v. the State of Mah 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

Bajaj Auto Limited Vs Badri Sakharam Patil

Bajaj Auto Limited Vs Dattu Pralhadrao Sagar

Bajaj Auto Limited Vs Dattu Pralhadrao Sagar

Shankar Bhagwan Ambhore Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Mahesh Prakash Somwanshi Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Madanlal Lalchand Jain Vs the State of Mah and Anr.