The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a Scheduled Tribe certificate claim by the Verification Committee, upholding the committee's findings regarding recent documents and earlier records indicating a different caste.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp3223-2005.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3223/2005
Ranjeeta d/o Fulchand Thakur Age 26 years, Occ-student R/o Padampura, Aurangabad Dist.Aurangabad
V/s
[Copy to be served on the Govt. Pleader, High Court Bench at Aurangabad]
2
wp3223-2005.odt
Shri A.S.Golegaonkar,Adv.for petr. Shri S.S.Tope,AGP for State Shri P.S.Patil,Adv.for R.2.
CORAM : S.S.SHINDE & V.K.JADHAV,JJ.
DATE : 15/04/2014
ORAL ORDER :
This Petition takes exception to the decision of the respondent no.2 the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate verification Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, thereby invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner. The petitioner herein claims to be from Thakur Scheduled Tribe. On 25/6/92 the respondent no.3 issued caste certificate in favour of petitioner that she belongs to Thakur Scheduled Tribe. On 15/2/96, the caste certificate was referred to the committee. However, the committee invalidated the tribe claim of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.2521/1997 before the High Court. The High Court by judgment and order dated 5/12/2003 quashed and set aside the decision of the committee and remanded the matter back to the committee for fresh consideration.
2] The committee by the impugned decision dated 30/11/2004 invalidated the tribe claim of the petitioner. Hence this Petition.
wp3223-2005.odt
3
3] The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent committee has not considered the documents placed on record by the petitioner wherein the Tribe is mentioned as Thakur. It is submitted that the committee only relying upon the documents in respect of the brother of the petitioner held that since the enquiry conducted by the vigilance officer in school record of the brother of the petitioner, the caste is mentioned as Thakur Rajput. It is submitted that the committee should have considered the documents placed on record in its entirety and then should have rendered the impugned decision. It is further submitted that the petitioner did not get proper opportunity to contest the vigilance cell report. It is further submitted that the committee did not consider the contention of the petitioner that the paternal aunt’s son has been granted validity certificate and therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for verification of her tribe claim. It is submitted that affinity test is not binding and it is only for the purpose of corroboration to the documentary evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the pleadings in the petition, annextures thereto and would submit that the petition deserves to be allowed.
4] The learned counsel appearing for the respondent committee invited our attention to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of committee and submits that the respondent committee has assigned cogent reasons for invalidating tribe claim of the
4 wp3223-2005.odt
petitioner, therefore, this Court may not interfere in the impugned decision. The learned AGP appearing for the State also adopted the same arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the scrutiny committee.
5] We have given careful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, with the able assistance perused the grounds taken in the petition, annextures thereto, the reasons assigned by the respondent committee in the impugned decision and we are of the opinion that the decision of the committee needs no interference for the reasons set out herein below.
6] The respondent committee did consider as many as 9 documents pertaining to the school , college and other record of the petitioner. Upon considering the said documents, the committee found that all these documents are of recent origin and none of the documents was subjected to the verification of the tribe claim before the committee. The respondent committee also considered the documents pertaining to the petitioner’s relatives. The committee in the impugned decision observed that the vigilance cell visited the school of the brother of the petitioner and found that in admission register extract of the petitioner’s brother, Thakur Rajput is mentioned. The committee further observed that the school leaving certificate and admission register extract of the petitioner’s brother is the oldest document in the documents which
5
wp3223-2005.odt
are on record. The committee also observed that in fact the petitioner herself should have placed on record said documents.
7] The committee has also observed that in the documents submitted by the petitioner, the word “Thakur” is written in different handwriting and different ink. In this behalf, the counsel for the petitioner pressed into service reported judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sayanna V/s Sate of Maharashtra and others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 268 and submitted that merely some “word” is added in the document would not automatically reach to the conclusion that the said addition of the “word” or “interpolation” in the record is made by the petitioner. In our opinion, even if the said aspect is kept aside and to that extent the committee’s findings are quashed and set aside, nevertheless, the documents produced by the petitioner on record and also the vigilance cell report unequivocally indicate that the petitioner has not placed on record the documents which would carry more probative value or any other documents which would enable the committee to validate tribe claim of the petitioner. As already observed, the committee upon considering the school record of the brother of the petitioner which pertains to the year 1979 found that in caste column of his school record “Thakur Rajput” is mentioned. Therefore, in our considered view, the view taken by the scrutiny committee appears to be reasonable, plausible and in consonance with the documents placed on record. While considering contentions raised by the petitioner in writ jurisdiction, we cannot
6 wp3223-2005.odt
sit in appeal over the decision of the committee and reappreciate the evidence. Therefore, in our considered view, the view taken by the respondent committee needs no interference. The Writ Petition sans merit. Hence dismissed.
[V.K.JADHAV,J.]
[S.S.SHINDE,J.]
umg/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petitioner is entitled to a Scheduled Tribe certificate of Thakur caste.
Whether the decision of the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee invalidating the petitioner's tribe claim requires judicial interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sayanna v. State of Maharashtra and othersReferred¶30
Sayanna V/s Sate of Maharashtra and others (2009) 10 SCC 268 · Who else cites this
Ranjeeta d/o Fulchand Thakur
The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary Tribal Development Department
The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad Division
The Executive Magistrate Aurangabad
The Collector, Collectorate Aurangabad
S.S. Shinde
V.K. Jadhav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
