Partly allowed

Snehal Vishavjit Khadke v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Sept 2012WP/6525/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partly allowed the writ petition challenging the invalidation of the petitioner's Scheduled Caste certificate. The Committee erred in rejecting validity certificates issued to relatives without verifying the underlying records or making fresh inquiries. The decision was quashed, and the Committee directed to decide the claim afresh within three months.

What did the court decide?

The decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 6.7.2012 was quashed. The Committee is directed to decide the claim within three months after the petitioner submits additional documents.

Snehal Vishavjit Khadke Vs the State of Mah… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

W.P. No. 6525/12

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.6525 OF 2012

¶5

Snehal d/o. Vishavjit Khadke Age : 19 yrs, Occ : Student, R/o 302, Nikhil Vision, Near Hotel Shantai, Jalna Road Beed,Tq. & Dist.Beed. .. PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1] The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

¶8

2] The Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad, Division Aurangabad Tq. & Dist.Aurangabad.

¶9

3] The Directorate of Medical Education and Research Mumbai. .. RESPONDENTS

¶10

Mr. Vivek Dhage, Advocate for petitioner. Mr.V.H.Dighe,A.G.P. for Respondent State

¶11

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T.V.NALAWADE,JJ. DATE : 14TH SEPTEMBER 2012.

¶12

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

¶13

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Petition is heard finally by consent of parties.

¶14

W.P. No. 6525/12

¶15

¶16

The petition is filed to challenge the order made by Caste Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad, by which the caste claim of the petitioner is invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. In this proceedings, some documents which were not produced before the Caste Scrutiny Committee came to be produced for the petitioner. This Court has heard both the sides.

¶17

The petitioner claims that she belongs to 'Hindu-Khatik' caste a Scheduled Caste. For taking admission in a Dental College from Scheduled Caste Category, she had applied to the Committee for issuing validity certificate. The Committee considered the documents produced by the petitioner and the report submitted by Vigilance Cell. The Committee held that the Vigilance Cell Report and the documents produced by the petitioner are not sufficient for issuing validity certificate. The caste certificate issued by Sub Divisional Officer, Solapur, Maharashtra, is declared as invalid by the Committee. The Committee has observed that though the validity certificates issued to the real brother, cousin and uncle are produced by the claimant, the record on the basis of which these validity certificates are issued is not produced before the Committee and so the record of validity certificates produced is of no use for consideration of the claim of the petitioner.

¶18

W.P. No. 6525/12

¶19

¶20

This Court has gone through the order made by the Committee. Report of Vigilance Cell shows that the Vigilance Cell made necessary inquiry at the native place of the claimant viz. Solapur. Some statements were recorded by Vigilance Cell and some record produced by her father was considered. This report is not against the petitioner. In the present proceedings, a copy of the report submitted by the Vigilance Cell in respect of brother of the petitioner is produced and that report also shows that after making inquiry and after going through the record, the Vigilance Cell found that the brother of the petitioner belongs to 'Khatik' caste, a Scheduled Caste. In the order itself, the Committee has mentioned that the record like certificate issued by Primary School of the petitioner, certificate issued to brother of petitioner by his school, certificate issued to uncle by his school, validity certificate issued to cousin of father of petitioner, validity certificate issued to a son of cousin of father of petitioner and validity certificate issued to one Vaishali Khadke, who is cousin sister of father of petitioner was produced before the Committee.

¶21

There is nothing on record to show that the claim of any member of the family of the petitioner was rejected in the past by any Caste Scrutiny Committee. The reason given by the Committee

¶22

W.P. No. 6525/12

¶23

¶24

for not considering the validity certificates issued to relatives of the father of the petitioner that the record considered by those Committees is not produced by the petitioner, is not convincing in nature. The Committee is expected to verify the record which is produced by the petitioner and also make more inquiry through Vigilance Cell. Though it is true that some validity certificates are issued by other Committees, the Committee could have asked the petitioner to produce the record which was considered by the previous Committees while issuing validity certificate in favour of the relatives of the petitioner. Considering the purpose behind the constitution of the Committee, it can be said that the Committee is expected to show some initiative. By showing some initiative and by calling atleast the orders made by the other Committees, the Committee can ascertain as to whether the claim of a person like petitioner is true or false. If other Committee has already issued validity certificate to some relatives like brother, that circumstance cannot be lightly ignored by observing that the record considered by the other Committee is not produced.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court holds that the decision of the Committee needs to be set aside and an opportunity needs to be given to the petitioner to produce the record in relation to the validity certificates issued to her relatives. So the

W.P. No. 6525/12

order.

O R D E R

(i) The petition is partly allowed.

¶31

(ii) The decision of the respondent No. 2 - Caste Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad dated 6.7.2012 is quashed and set aside.

¶32

(iii) The respondent No. 2 - Caste Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad is directed to decide claim of petitioner within three months. The Petitioner is entitled to submit additional documents before the Committee. The Committee is to consider afresh the evidence on record, hear the petitioner and pass final order.

¶33

(iv) Petitioner to appear before the Committee on 8^th October 2012 at 11 a.m. All issues are kept open. Rule is made absolute in above terms.

¶34

[T.V.NALAWADE,J.]

¶35

[NARESH H.PATIL,J.]

¶36

ssc/

Snehal Vishavjit Khadke v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Snehal Vishavjit Khadke 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vasant Rohidas Patil Died Thr Lrs Nirmala Vasant Patil and Ors. Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer(General) Dhule and Ors.

Bhagwat Gunderao Musane Vs the President Kisan Shikshan Prasarak Mandals Vidyavardhini Primary School Udgir and Ors.

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Nagpur Thr Standing Counsel of Union of India High Court Vs M/S Dhoot Transmission Pvt. Ltd. Aurangabad Thr Gen Manager

Dilip Namdeo Wani and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Indus Towers Limited Pune and Ors. Vs the Commissioner Nanded Waghala Municipal Corporation Nanded and Anr.

Vaibhav Vivek Swami Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.