Dismissed

Gangadhar Papanna Allamwar v. the St Certificate Verification Committee Aurangabad.

Bombay HC17 Jul 2013RA/152/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a review application filed by an individual seeking Scheduled Tribe status. The Court held that evidence presented by a Vigilance Cell showing insertions and fabrications in school admission registers destroyed the credibility of the record, defeating the claim of a conflict of evidence.

What did the court decide?

Review application rejected; Rule discharged with costs.

Gangadhar Papanna Allamwar Vs the St… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.152 OF 2010
IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 3319 OF 2009
Gangadhar s/o. Papanna Allamwar
Age 39 years, Occ Service,
R/o. Banda Galli, Degloor,
Tq. Degloor, District Nanded.
At present Deogad, District Sindudurg,
through Power of Attorney Holder
Shri Gangadhar s/o. Sayanna Muddamwar,
Age 31 years, Occ. Agri,
R/o. Degloor, Tq. Degloor,
District Nanded.

¶6

.. PETITIONER/S

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1] The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad. Through its Dy. Director (R), Aurangabad.

¶9

2] The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sindhudurg, Dist. Sindhudurg.

¶10

3] The Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Sindhudurg (Adm.). Dist. Sindhudurg.

¶11

4] The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samit Malwan, Dist. Sindhudurg.

¶12

.. RESPONDENT/S

¶13

 Mr.S.M. Vibhute , Advocate for petitioner.
 Mr.K.G. Patil, AGP for respondent Nos.4 and 6.
 Mr. P.S. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.1.

¶14

¶15

CORAM :- A.H. JOSHI &
 SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ.

¶16

DATE :- 17th July, 2013.

¶17

ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER A.H. JOSHI, J] :-

¶18

1]Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith

¶19

and is heard with consent of the parties.

¶20

2]We had directed the Committee to make

¶21

available the record of the scrutiny of
petitioner's Tribe Claim. It was accordingly
produced at the time of hearing.

¶22

3]Petitioner claims that he belongs to
“Mannerwarlu” Scheduled Tribe. He had secured a
certificate to that effect. The Scrutiny
Committee invalidated it. Petitioner challenged

¶23

the judgment and order passed by the Scrutiny
Committee thereby invalidating petitioner's claim
that he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe
Mannerwarlu.

¶24

4]This court had decided Writ Petition No.

¶25

¶26

3319 of 2009,vide judgment and order dated

¶27

15.7.2009 ( Coram : V.C. Daga and A.V. Potdar,JJ).

¶28

The Division Bench concurred with the
findings given by the Scrutiny Committee that the
petitioner had failed to prove the tribe claim
during the hearing before the Scrutiny Committee.

¶29

5]In this review application, the

¶30

petitioner has raised certain grounds, and has

¶31

urged those during oral arguments. Those are :-

¶32

“(I)It is argued that the applicant
had placed on record a copy of the extract
of Accession Register of the school
pertaining to Entry No. 48/1490, issued to
the applicant by the Head Master and
Certified true copy signed by the Block
Education Officer in which applicant's caste
is described as “Munerwarlu”.

¶33

(II)The Scrutiny Committee had

¶34

relied upon record collected by the Vigilance
Cell. It pertained to the birth record of

¶35

the applicant and his cousin. The copies of

¶36

admission register relied upon by the
Vigilance Cell and which were before the

¶37

¶38

Scrutiny Committee described the applicant's tribe to be, “Munarlu”(“ eujyq “) and the caste of Saylu Laxman Allamwar, the uncle of the applicant to be “Munerwar”(“ equsjokj “) and the reliance by the Committee is erroneous.”

¶39

6]It is evident that copy of school record

¶40

about accession pertaining to the petitioner
produced by the Vigilance Cell and another
produced by the petitioner do differ on the point
of description of Tribe. Therefore, in the course

¶41

of hearing of this Review Application, this court
had queried the applicant, as to whether the
applicant can swear if he has seen the original
school record pertaining to the admission of the
applicant to vouch that the caste of the applicant

¶42

mentioned in the accession register is
“Munerwarlu” as is represented in the copy relied
upon by the petitioner.

¶43

In response to the query put by the

¶44

court, Learned Advocate for the applicant had

¶45

taken instructions and sought time to file an
affidavit to that effect.

¶46

¶47

7]Accordingly, an affidavit sworn by the

¶48

applicant is filed before this court. In the
affidavit, petitioner has stated that in the
original record pertaining to the school in
relation to Entry No. 48/1490, pertaining to the
applicant's accession his tribe is mentioned as
“Manerwarlu”.

¶49

8]Upon considering the version contained in
petitioner's affidavit, this court had directed

¶50

the learned Assistant Government Pleader to secure
the original register concerned and produce it on
next date.

¶51

9]Today, during the course of hearing,
learned AGP has tendered original register.

¶52

10]We have perused the original register
and, particularly, Entry NO. 48/1490, pertaining
to the petitioner – Allamwar Gangadhar Papanna.
The register was offered for perusal to learned
Advocate for the petitioner as well as to the
Advocate for the Committee.

¶53

¶54

11]Learned Advocate for the petitioner

¶55

maintains that the entry supports the petitioner's
version and vouches for his submission and the
affidavit too.

¶56

12]We have perused the register and entry

¶57

concerned. Said entry No. 48/1490 contains description/narration “Mannerwarlu” (“ eusjokjyw “). The “LU” (“ yw “)is seen in the space below the word “Maanerwar” (“ ekusjokj “). It prima facie appears from the mode of writing that what was originally written, was Maanerwar (“ ekusjokj “), and later “LU” (“ yw “) is an insertion.

¶58

13]Learned Special Counsel appearing for the
Committee had also pointed out from the register
that there are many other entries pertaining to
other students in which there is either
overwriting, insertion or interpolation.

¶59

¶60

14]We have perused such suspicious entries

¶61

in said register flag-marked by learned Special

¶62

Counsel for Committee.

¶63

15]At this stage learned Advocate for the
petitioner urged that a finding as regards
over-writing or fabrication needs expert opinion
and the register be referred for opinion to an
expert.

¶64

16] We have considered the oral request of learned Advocate for the petitioner. We have ourselves discretely examined numerous entries made in said register. The insertion of letter “LU” (“ yw “) is vivid and is visible to the naked eyes. Filling of the columns in the register is

¶65

done in natural course. The letter “ yw “ would be written in continuity and entry in next column would be written in next line. Such is not the fact. Moreover, overwriting and insertion is seen as regards many more entries as regards the caste of the student concerned.

¶66

¶67

17]The credibility and worthiness of the
record as original record which constitutes
evidence of the entry made at the relevant time is
therefore so grossly lowered that it is lost.

¶68

18]In this background sole ground of review
that there is conflict of record loses its
foundation.

¶69

19]We are not persuaded and convinced as
regards the reasons in existence, if any, as to

¶70

grounds due to which grounds now pressed before us
could not be and were no resorted before the court
hearing the Writ Petition.

¶71

20]We do deprecate the tendency to wait till
the Hon'ble Judge who had decided the case to be
unavailable, and take out the Review Application
for hearing belatedly.

¶72

21]Considering all these facts, coupled
with, what has been discussed hereinabove, we are
satisfied that no case for review is made out.

¶73

¶74

22]The application failed to show any error

¶75

apparent on the face or injustice being
perpetrated. The application has no merit and
deserves to be dismissed.

¶76

23]It is made clear that we have not made
any observations on the applicant's prayer for
protection of employment, depending upon the
policy decision of the Government, if any.

¶77

At this stage, learned Advocate for
applicant states that he may move the Government
for such protection. We make no observation in
this regard and let said question to be governed
in accordance with law.

¶78

24]Review application is rejected. Rule is
discharged with costs.

¶79

grt/-.

Gangadhar Papanna Allamwar v. the St Certificate Verification Committee Aurangabad.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangadhar Papanna Allamwar v. the St Certificate Verification Committee Aurangabad.

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

Premila Kashinath Mathpati Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kavita Narayan Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Madhav Shankar Bashetti Vs Nanded Waghala City Municipal Corporation and Others

Dawalu Jatinga Tambre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sk. Salim Sk. Basha and Ors. Vs Mohammed Abdul Khaja Rahimoddin and Ors.

Bhagwan Dhondiram Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another