Dismissed

Atul Nagnath Swami v. the State of Mah. and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Jun 2015WP/2249/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Scrutiny Committee's order invalidating his caste claim as 'Malajangam' Scheduled Tribe. The Court found the petitioner failed to produce ancestral school or revenue records and dismissed the petition upholding the Committee's finding of want of evidence.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; rule discharged; civil application disposed of.

Atul Nagnath Swami Vs the State of Mah. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

( 1 ) wp2249.02

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2249 OF 2002

¶4

Atul Nagnath Swami,
Age-20 years, Occu-Student/Education,
R/o. Behind the House of Humnabade,
Azad Chowk, Latur,

¶5

...PETITIONER

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENTS

¶8

2. The SC, VJNT, OBC and Special BC Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Through its Member-SEcretary & Special District Social Welfare Officer Aurangabad.

¶9

Mr. U.R.Awate h/f Mr.S.B.Talekar, Advocate for the
petitioner.

¶10

Mr.S.K.Kadam, AGP for the R-1 to 3.

¶11

CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE &

¶12

A.M. BADAR,JJ.
DATED :25.06.2015

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER: A.M.BADAR, J.]

¶14

1.By this petition, petitioner is challenging the
order dated 16.03.2002 passed by respondent No.2-Scrutiny
Committee thereby invalidating the caste claim of the
petitioner for “Malajungam” Schedule Tribe.

¶15

2.Shri Awate, learned counsel holding for the
Shri. S.B.Talekar, advocate submitted that despite
issuing letters his client has not imparted instructions
to him. In fact the learned counsel for the petitioner
had previously availed one chance on 10.06.2005for
seeking instructions from his client. However, even today
he is short of instructions.

¶16

3.Mr. Kadam, learned AGP appearing for
respondent/State as well as the Scrutiny Committee
submitted that father of the petitioner is an educated
person serving as a teacher. The learned AGP further
contended that in service record of father of the
petitioner, his caste is shown as “Jangam”. According to
learned AGP, the Scrutiny has considered documents
tendered before it by the petitioner and observed that,
the documents of the petitioner as well as his brother
are of recent origin. According to the learned AGP, the
Scrutiny Committee after considering the entire evidence
on record has arrived at a finding that the petitioner
failed to established his claim for “Malajangam”
Scheduled Caste.

¶17

3.With the assistance of the learned AGA we have
carefully perused the record made available. It is not in

¶18

dispute that the father of the petitioner is serving as a
teacher and is an educated person. The Scrutiny Committee
its impugned order has observed that the petitioner has
furnished copy of the first page of service book of his
father Shri. Swami Nagnath Gurupad which shown his caste
as “Jangam”. The Scrutiny Committee further considered
the fact that the date of birth of the petitioner is
10.06.1982and other evidence relied by the petitioner to
substantiate his caste claim is his own school record
which is of recent origin. Similarly the Committee also
considered the fact that the other set of documents
relied by the petitioner consists of school record of his
brother Amol who is born on 12.10.1980. The Committee
found that both these sets of documents are of very
recent origin showing caste of the petitioner as
“Malajangam”. In the back drop of the fact that service
record of father of the petitioner was showing his caste
as “Jangam”, respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee has
rejected the documents of recent origin pertaining to
petitioner as well as his brother Amol. The Scrutiny
Committee further observed that though father of the
petitioner is an educated person, the documents showing
his caste recorded in school record as well as other
revenue record are not tendered before the Committee. It
is further observed that documents showing caste of
Uncle, Aunt and Grand-father of the petitioner are also

¶19

not tendered before it. The Scrutiny Committee with this
reasons come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not
adduced satisfactory evidence to establish his caste as
“Malajangam”.

¶20

4.It is well settled that burden of proof proving
that the person belongs to the caste claimed by him is on
such claimant. In the case in hand, the petitioner has
failed to produce necessary evidence in the form of
school record reflecting caste of his father so also the
revenue record such as extract of birth register of his
father for substantiating his claim for “Malajangam”
Scheduled Caste. The scope of Judicial review of such
order is very limited. Upon examining the order of the
Scrutiny Committee vis-a-vis the documents tendered by
the petitioner for establishing his caste claim, we are
of the considered that the Scrutiny Committee has rightly
arrived at finding that the petitioner has failed to
prove his caste claim for “Malajangam” Scheduled Caste.
Want of sufficient evidence is the finding recorded by
the Scrutiny Committee which in our opinion is not at all
perverse. Hence we found no substance in challenge to the
impugned order and such order. The writ petition is
therefore dismissed. Rule Discharged. No order as to
costs.

¶21

5.In view of disposal of writ petition, civil
application dose not survive & stands disposed of.

¶22

[A.M. BADAR,J.] [A.V. NIRGUDE,J.]

¶23

VishalK/wp2249.02

Atul Nagnath Swami v. the State of Mah. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atul Nagnath Swami v. the State of Mah. 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

Super and Stainless Hi Alloys Ltd, Nasik and Another Vs Sicom Ltd, Aurangabad and Others

Shaikh Kalim Mushtaque Vs Aurangabad Municipal Corporation Aurangabad

Abrar Ahemad Mohammad Ishaq Vs Aurangabad Munciipal Corporation, Aurangabad and Others

M/S. Sai Labour Contractor Vs the Union of India and Others

Ganesh Shankar Irmale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vijay Dattatray Karewad Vs State of Maha and Ors.