Dismissed

Deepak Shivaji Koli v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Jul 2014WP/11402/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order declaring the petitioner ineligible for Scheduled Tribe status as Mahadeo Koli. The High Bench held that school records of the petitioner's father and relatives disproved the claim, and the petitioner failed to prove affinity with the Scheduled Tribe category.

What did the court decide?

null

Deepak Shivaji Koli Vs State of Maharashtra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1/5

¶2

11402.12wp.sxw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 11402 OF 2012

¶5

Deepak Shivaji Koli. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents.

¶6

R.K.Mendadkar for the petitioner.

¶7

Ms.J.B.Kurup, BPanel AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶8

Mrs.M.R.Bhoir for respondent No.3.

¶9

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ. RESERVED ON : 11^th July 2014. PRONOUNCED ON : 18^th July 2014.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

The petitioner challenges the order dated 15^th October 2012 passed by respondent No.2 Committee whereby the respondent No.2 invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner. The petitioner claims to be belonging to the Mahadeo Koli, Scheduled Tribe. In support of the caste claim the petitioner submitted various documents which are mentioned in para2 of the impugned order. The Committee under a tabular format described the school record of the relatives of the petitioner from his paternal side, which is reproduced as under:

¶12

2/5

¶13

11402.12wp.sxw

¶14

Sr. No.	Reg. No./ Book No.	Name of the pupil	Caste/sub caste	Date of Birth & admission	Relation with the applicant
1.	119/4	Shivaji Pandu Koli	Hindu Maratha	30/6/38 & 17/8/45	Father
2.	107/4	Sitaram Bapu Koli	Marathi (Koli)	23/6/32 & 13/1/38	paternal relative
3.	179/4	Parsharam Shankar Koli	Hindu (Maratha)	1/10/41 & 2/1/48	paternal relative
4.	40/6	Shivaji Pandu Koli	Hindu Koli	30/6/38 & 1/8/48	Father
5.	70/6	Shidram Pandu Koli	Hindu Koli	15/9/43 & 30/11/49	Real uncle
6.	87/6	Kalavati Namdeo Koli	Hindu Koli	1/9/43 & 9/3/50	paternal relative
7.	200/6	Tanaji Pandurang Koli	Hindu Koli	15/3/47 & 16/3/53	paternal relative
8.	245/6	Rangarao Shankar Koli	Hindu Koli	1/6/48 & 10/6/54	paternal relative
9.	262/6	Pandurang Ramu Koli	Hindu Koli	3/4/42 & 2/7/54	paternal relative

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's old record of preconstitution period was furnished. The documentary evidence and vigilance cell report supports the contention of the petitioner that he belongs to Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe. It is submitted that a proper opportunity was not provided by the Committee to the petitioner on the allegation that he produced fake school records which, according to the petitioner, has caused prejudice to his interest. In the submission of the learned counsel, the Committee fell in error in rejecting the caste claim of the petitioner.

¶16

11402.12wp.sxw

¶17

3/5

¶18

The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed their affidavitinreply. The learned A.G.P. placed reliance on the contentions raised in the affidavitinreply. It is submitted that the old record in respect of the petitioner's relatives is contrary to the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner's near relatives including his father were Hindu Maratha or Hindu Koli. This record was of the years 1938 to 1954. It has come on record that a letter dated 11^th August 2009 was issued by the Head Master, Zilla Parishad Primary School, Mungi, taluka Shevgaon, district Ahmednagar wherein it has been clearly stated that the extract of the school admission register, issued in respect of Abaji Limbaji Koli, is not from the school record of the said school. It is further stated that the said school has not issued the general admission extract and the signature on the said extract is not of the Head Master of that school. In other words, learned A.G.P. submits that the petitioner's claim is based on unauthentic and fake records.

¶19

On behalf of respondent No.3, the Administrative Officer working in the office of the City Engineer of respondent No.3 has filed an affidavitinreply. Respondent No.3 in the affidavitinreply has contended as under:

¶20

“3. I say that present petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed with costs as, petitioner came with unclean hands and suppressed the material fact that his appointment is on adhoc basis and which is discontinued after a period of 6 months and treated as new appointment after continuation of the service.

¶21

11402.12wp.sxw

¶22

4/5

¶23

I say and submit that petitioner hereinabove is appointed by these respondent as a Jr.Engineer (Civil) As per appointment order the petitioner is appointed on the post of the reserve category candidate and he was directed to produce caste validity certificate within 6 months from the appointment. In case he failed to produce caste validity certificate then he will be given one day break in his service and thereafter he will be appointed on temporary basis further period of 6 months subject to production of Caste Validity Certificate.”

¶24

We have perused the record placed before us. The records in respect of the petitioner's relatives including his father show that they did not belong to Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe. The school record of the petitioner's father, produced on record of the Committee, mentions that he belongs to Hindu Maratha caste. The other near relatives of the petitioner's paternal side were Hindu Koli. The Head Master of the Zilla Parishad Primary School, Mungi, taluka Shevgaon, district Ahmednagar has communicated that the extract of the school admission register, issued in respect of Abaji Limbaji Koli is not from the school record of the said school. The said school authority did not issue the general admission extract and the signature on the said extract is not of the Head Master of that school. Apart from this deficiency, the other documents placed on the record of the Committee do not support the contention and claim of the petitioner that he belongs to Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner has failed to prove affinity test as Mahadeo Koli, Scheduled Tribe. The remark of the Research Officer has been taken into

¶25

5/5 11402.12wp.sxw

¶26

consideration by the Committee. The Committee has gone into the entire record and has reached a proper conclusion holding that the petitioner does not belong to Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe.

¶27

We do not find any error or perversity in the view adopted by the Committee. There is no merit in this petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

¶28

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

¶29

Sanjay Nanoskar, P.S..

Deepak Shivaji Koli v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Shivaji Koli v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.E. Anthony Since Deceased L/R Shri v.a.Thomas Vs the Union of India and Ors.

M.M.V. Anthony and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mr. Ratnasen Kisan Pawar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Shivaji Sambhaji Kadam Vs Shrimant Babaso Galve and Ors.

Mr. Shivaji Sambhaji Kadam Vs Shrimant Babaso Galve and Ors.

Vishwas Pandurang Ugale Vs the Dept of Co-Operation, through Principal Secretary and Anr.