Quashed

Khurche Rajendra Dashrath v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Mar 2014WP/5631/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay quashed an order invalidating a Scheduled Tribe certificate and remanded it for reconsideration, directing the Scrutiny Committee to evaluate kinship certificates and apply correct legal standards.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of 31 May 2013 quashed and set aside; matter remanded to Scrutiny Committee for reconsideration within four months.

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

¶1

dss

¶2

wp 5631.13(908)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.5631 OF 2013

¶5

Khurche Rajendra Dashrath ] aged 2 yrs, r/o. At Post Musalgaon ] Tal. Sinnar, Dist. Nashik ] .. Petitioner vs. 1] State of Maharashtra ] through its Secretary, Tribal ] Development Department ] Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. ]

¶6

2] Scheduled Tribe Certificate ] Scrutiny Committee, Nasik Division ] Nasik, through its member Secretary] having its office at Adivasi Vikas ] Bhavan, Old Agra Road, Nasik ] Dist. Nasik. ]

¶7

3] Kalwan Education Society's Arts ] Commerce, and Science College, ] Kalwan through its Principal ] Kalwan, Dist. Nasik ]

¶8

4] Secretary, Higher and Technical ] Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 ] .. Respondents

¶9

Mr.C.K. Bhangoji I/b Mr. R.K. Mendadkar and Helen Koli- Mandlik for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. A.B. Vagyani, Addl. GP for Respondent Nos.1,2& 4. Mr. Sachin Gite for Respondent No.3.

¶11

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND M. S. SONAK, JJ.

¶12

DATE: March 06, 2014

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER ANOOP V. MOHTA,J]:-

¶14

1] Rule, returnable forthwith.

1/6

dss

wp 5631.13(908)

Learned counsel for the Respondents-state waives service.

¶19

Heard finally, by consent of the parties.

¶20

2] The Petitioner has challenged order passed by the Respondent-Scrutiny Committee dated 31^st May 2013, whereby his caste is invalidated (Mahadeo Koli, Scheduled Tribe).

¶21

3] By over looking the father's certificate referring to the same caste, though a Full Bench decision of this Court in case Shilpa Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra & ors¹ raised and referred, where the crucial affinity test is also additional factor which required to be considered in favour of such claimants. The basic requirement is to assess and evaluate all the material documents on record including the caste certificates of the relatives and specially of parents/ father / grandfather and of elderly persons. Those documents referred cannot be overlooked only on the ground of partially failure in crucial affinity test.

¶22

4] The burden, though lies upon the Petitioner/Claimant to justify the case, but at the same stroke the Scrutiny Committee being a statutory committee which required to decide the rights of the parties, cannot overlook the basic requirement of law of assessing

¶23

1 2009 (4) ALL MR 127

2/6

dss

wp 5631.13(908)

the evidence specially when, any decision on caste/caste certificate is nothing, but a decision for the Claimant, as well as, for future generation to come. The serious consideration is always necessary, basically at this stage, by the Scrutiny Committee.

¶28

5] In view of decision in Writ Petition No. 7343 of 2013 (Madhuri Nitin Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) along with two other connected matters on 26 February 2014, by a common reasoned Judgment/order disposed of similarly situated Petitions with regard to the “Thakur” Scheduled Tribes claims and therefore, for the same reasons, as the facts and issues are similar i.e. “non-consideration of documents and evidence”, and wrong applications of law by the Scrutiny Committee on “affinity test/issue” “the area restriction-removal” and “the caste certificates of relatives” based upon similar wrongly framed issues, as the same goes to the root of the matter. Strikingly, inspite of reasoned judgment/order passed by this Court in favour of the Petitioners directing the Scrutiny Committee to grant the certificate as claimed, the Scrutiny Committee in question overlooked the same and invalidated the caste of the Petitioners.

¶29

6] Therefore, by keeping all points open, we are inclined to quash and set aside the order dated 31^st May 2013 and direct the

3/6

dss

wp 5631.13(908)

Respondent-Caste Scrutiny Committee to re-consider the same, in accordance with law, so expressed.

¶34

7] The Petitioner is already terminated based upon the impugned order. Therefore, we are inclined to observe that the Scrutiny Committee to take decision as early as possible and preferably within four months.

¶35

8] Accordingly, we pass following order:

¶36

(a) The impugned order dated 31^st May 2013 is quashed and set aside;

¶37

(b) The matter is remanded back the Scrutiny Committee, for reconsideration;

¶38

(c) The Respondent- Scrutiny Committee to reconsider the case in accordance with law by giving an opportunity to all the parties;

¶39

(d) The liberty is granted to the Petitioner/parties to apply before the Scrutiny Committee for filing additional evidence, oral as well as, documentary

4/6

dss

wp 5631.13(908)

material;

(e) The Petitioner/parties to appear before the concerned Scrutiny Committee, on 26^th March 2014. Thereafter, the Committee to fix the date and schedule of hearing accordingly with an endeavour to dispose of the matter as early as possible and preferably within four months from the date of receipt of this Order;

¶45

(f) The liberty is granted to the Petitioner to apply for reinstatement, if order is passed in his favour;

¶46

(g) In case, Scrutiny Committee passes an adverse order against the Petitioner/Claimant, the same should not be given effect to and/or acted upon for four weeks thereafter from the date of communication of the order;

¶47

(h) Rule made absolute in the above terms;

¶48

(i) All the parties to co-operate;

5/6

dss

wp 5631.13(908)

(j) There shall be no order as to costs;

¶53

(k) The interim protection, if any, granted by this Court in Writ Petition/ Civil Application to continue until the decision and four weeks thereafter. No question of claiming any equities;

¶54

(l) The parties to act upon the authenticated copy of this order.

¶55

(M. S. SONAK, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

¶56

Sherla

¶57

6/6

Khurche Rajendra Dashrath v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khurche Rajendra Dashrath 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Murlidhar Thakur and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Welfare Dept and Anr.

Ravindra Pralhadrao Khare Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Idea Cellulare Limited Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Sidram Nilappa Koli Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Mrs. Pushpa Ramesh Tagare and Ors. Vs Mr. Rajiv Madhav Madane and Anr.

Gyanaodaya Shikshan Prasarak Samittee and Anr. Vs the Deputy Director of Education and Ors.