Allowed

Priyanka B Alasaheb Rathod alias Priyanka Ramkisan Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Rural Development Dept., and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Aug 2013WP/4028/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order by the Caste Scrutiny Committee that rejected the petitioner's caste certificate application because she had contested a general ward election. Relying on the Supreme Court, the Court held that backward class members can contest general wards and ordered the Committee to reconsider the application on merits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned letter dated 18.4.2013 is quashed; the Caste Scrutiny Committee is directed to consider the application on merits without coercive steps against the petitioner.

Priyanka B Alasaheb Rathod alias Priyanka Ramkisan… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2013)

wp4028.13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.4028 OF 2013

¶7

Priyanka Balasaheb Rathod ....Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents

¶8

Mr.R.K.Mendadkar for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr.A.I.Patel AGP for the respondent/State.

¶10

CORAM : V.M.KANADE & K.R.SHRIRAM,JJ

¶11

DATE : 1^st August, 2013.

¶12

P.C. :-

¶13

1 Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned AGP for the State.

¶14

2 The petitioner is aggrieved by the letter dated 18^th April 2013 issued by the respondent no.4 Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1, Nashik invalidating the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to Laman Vimukt Jati. It is submitted that the said certificate has been rejected only on the ground that while contesting the election of Gram Panchayat General Election under

¶15

wp4028.13

¶16

¶17

backward class of village Pimparkhed, Tal-Nandgaon, Dist Nashik, she was belonged to general category. It is submitted that there is no impediment in law for the backward category candidates from contesting the election from a general category and therefore, the impugned order has been passed without application of mind.

¶18

3 Brief facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as

¶19

under :-

¶20

The election of Khed Gram Panchayat was held in September-2012. The petitioner contested the election for the post reserved for general though she was backward class. On 5.10.2012 the petitioner submitted a proposal for verification of caste certificate to respondent no.4 Scrutiny Committee. The respondent no.5 in the meantime, gave a direction to hold the election for the post of Sarpanch & Upasarpanch by his order dated 11.10.2012. The said election was to be held on 22.10.2012. On that date returning officer declared the post of Sarpanch to be reserved for the category of backward class. The petitioner submitted a nomination. However, an objection was taken by one of the candidate on the ground that the petitioner has not obtained caste certificate. The said objection was rejected and the petitioner's nomination was declared to be valid. In the meantime, the Vigilence Cell issued a letter asking the petitioner to submit her documents and thereafter the impugned

¶21

wp4028.13

¶22

¶23

order was passed on 18.4.2013. Perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that there is non application of mind on the part of the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The application filed by the petitioner seeking the cast certificate has been rejected only on the ground that the petitioner having contested the election of Pimparkhed Gram Panchayat for the ward reserved for general women, it was not open for her to apply for caste certificate. The Apex Court in the case of Bihari Lal Rada Vs. Anil Jain (Tinu) & Ors. reported in 2009(4) SCC 1 in paragraph-43 has observed as under :-

¶24

“In our view, wherever the office of the President of a municipality is required to be filled in by a member belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or Backward Class as the case may be, it would be enough if one belongs to one of those categories irrespective of the fact whether they have been elected from a general ward or a reserved ward. Likewise, the office of the President of a municipality if not reserved or meant for general category, all the candidates irrespective of their caste, class or community and irrespective of the fact whether they have been elected from a reserved ward or a general ward are entitled to seek election and contest to the office of the President of the municipality.”

¶25

4 It is a well settled position in law that the person belonging to backward class SC & ST can contest any election even from general category and as such therefore, the observation of the Caste Scrutiny Committee is illegal and on that ground alone the impugned letter dated 18.4.2013 has to be quashed and set aside. We therefore, set aside the said impugned letter and direct the Caste

¶26

wp4028.13

¶27

¶28

Scrutiny Committee to consider the application filed by the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law.

¶29

5 With this direction, the petition is disposed of. No coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner till the Caste Scrutiny Committee decides the application.

¶30

(K.R.SHRIRAM,J) (V.M.KANADE,J)

Priyanka B Alasaheb Rathod alias Priyanka Ramkisan Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Rural Development Dept., and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka B Alasaheb Rathod alias Priyanka Ramkisan Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Rural Development Dept., 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. Vs the Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.

Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. Vs the Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.

Times Global Broadcasting Co. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Parshuram Babaram Sawant

Smt. Shraddha Vinod Deo Vs the State of Maharashtra , through Principal Secretary

The Hoticultural Deputy Director,Ratnagiri and Anr. Vs Narayan Govind Antarkar

Amrishchandra Agarwal Vs Anthony John Pereira and Ors.