Dismissed

Rajendra Jeetsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Department of Tribal Development, Mumbai and Another

Bombay HC25 Aug 2014WP/1739/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the Scrutiny Committee's order invalidating the petitioner's claim to Chattri Scheduled Tribe status. The High Court found no error in rejecting the claim due to lack of affinity and consistent documentary evidence showing the petitioner's Rajput caste.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Rajendra Jeetsingh Rathod Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

WP1739-14

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1739/2014

¶5

(RAJENDRA JEETSINGH RATHOD VERSUS STATE OF MAH. & ANOTHER)

¶6

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders

¶9

¶10

Shri R.V. Shiralkar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri M.K. Pathan, A.G.P. for the R-1. Shri A.L. Deshpande, counsel for the R-2.

¶11

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND

¶12

P.R. BORA, JJ.

¶13

DATE : AUGUST 25, 2014.

¶14

By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order of the respondent no.2-Scrutiny Committee dated 03.01.2014 invalidating the claim of the petitioner of belonging to 'Chattri' Scheduled Tribe.

¶15

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the impugned order dated 03.01.2014 as also the other documents annexed to the petition, it appears that the Scrutiny Committee has rightly appreciated the material on record to hold that the petitioner has failed to establish that he belongs to 'Chattri' Scheduled Tribe. Though the petitioner has placed great reliance on the entry in the caste column of the document pertaining to the great grandfather of the petitioner of the year 1921 in which the caste of the great grandfather of the petitioner was recorded as 'Chattri', the Scrutiny Committee rightly did not give much weightage to the document as the Scrutiny Committee had found that in five documents pertaining to the years 1947 to 1958, the caste of the nearest relatives of the petitioner was recorded as 'Rajput'. In the school admission register extract, the caste of the petitioner himself was also recorded as 'Rajput' on

¶16

WP1739-14

¶17

¶18

01.12.1958. The Scrutiny Committee also found that the petitioner did not establish any affinity or an ethnic linkage towards 'Chattri' Scheduled Tribe. Also, a statement was made by the real paternal aunt of the petitioner before the Vigilance Cell that the petitioner belongs to Caste 'Rajput'. In the facts of the case, specially when the caste of the petitioner was recorded as 'Rajput' in the year 1958 and the caste of his near relatives was also recorded as 'Rajput', the Scrutiny Committee rightly found that the petitioner did not establish his claim to 'Chattri' Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner had also not established his affinity to 'Chattri' Scheduled Tribe and considering the Vigilance Report and half a dozen documents which showed that the petitioner belongs to 'Rajput' caste, the Scrutiny Committee rightly rejected the caste claim of the petitioner. We find no error in the order of the Scrutiny Committee so as to interfere with the same in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.

¶19

In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed

¶20

with no order as to costs.

¶21

JUDGE JUDGE

¶22

APTE

Rajendra Jeetsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Department of Tribal Development, Mumbai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Jeetsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Department of Tribal Development, Mumbai and Another

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

Ramprasad S/O Thanulal Lilhare, and 6 Others Vs Divisional Commissioner Nagpur Division Nagpur and 9 Others

Mangesh Madhaorao Thute Vs the Branch Manager, Icici Bank Ltd., Nagpur and Another

Sant Tukaram High School and Junior College, Gondia, through Its President Vs Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gondia, and Another

Resham S/O Dadaji Randive Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary, Ruler Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Amreen Urdu Minorities Education Society, through Its President Ghulam Arif Ghulam Mustuafa, Akola Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Department of School Education and Sports, and 5 Others

Shri Ritesh Rajaram Tembhurkar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Mumbai and 5 Others