Chhaburao David Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

20wp2254-16.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 2254 OF 2016

¶4

Chhaburao s/o David Kamble… Petitioner
Age 52 years, Occu: Service,
R/o Padali, Tq. Pathardi,
District Ahmednagar
At present r/o Manokamna
Society 1-8, Third Floor, 302,
Gautam Nagar, Panjarpola,
Chembur, Mumbai.

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶7

2. The Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1, Nashik Division, Nashi.

¶8

3.The Assistant Engineer,…Respondents.
Road and Traffic Department,
Dhumra-Jantu Sayantra Office,
Sudam Kalu Ahere Marg,
Worli, Mumbai 400 030

¶9

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Murge Estling S.
AGP for Respondents 1 and 2- State: Mr. V. M. Kangne
Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. A. K. Tiwari

¶10

CORAM: R. M. BORDE &
K. L. WADANE, JJ.
 DATE:6th June, 2016

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Borde, J.):

¶12

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and the

¶14

1/8

¶15

20wp2254-16.odt

¶16

petition is heard for final disposal by the consent of
learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶17

3. The petitioner claims to be belonging to 'Mahar'
caste, which is included in the Scheduled Caste
category. Since the petitioner is employed as labour in
the Government Department, the caste certificate issued
to him has been referred to the Scrutiny Committee for
verification. The Scrutiny Committee, after following
the procedure prescribed in law, verified the caste
certificate and declared it as invalid vide its
judgment and order dated 17.12.2015.

¶18

4. The petitioner places reliance on the school
record of himself as well as birth and death register
of the year 1942, wherein the entry in respect of death
of his grandfather is recorded. The birth and death
register of the year 1942 records caste of his
grandfather as 'Mahar' Scheduled Caste. There is no
adverse entry in respect of caste of the petitioner in
any documentary record. It is also not a matter of
dispute that the caste certificate issued in favour of
the brother of the petitioner by name Anna David Kamble

¶19

has been validated by the Scrutiny Committee and the
validity certificate in that regard has been issued on

¶20

2/8

¶21

20wp2254-16.odt

¶22

01.02.2012. The Scrutiny Committee has turned down the
caste validation claim of the petitioner mainly on the
ground that vigilance cell has reported that the
petitioner appears to be observing Christan faith and
that final rites of his mother and grandfather were
performed in accordance with Christan faith.

¶23

5. The petitioner himself claims that he belongs to

¶24

Mahar caste and that there is no evidence in respect of
conversion of the petitioner and adoption of
Christianism and there is also no evidence to come to
conclusion that old order i.e. 'Mahar' community has
ostracized the petitioner as its member or that
outcasted or ex-communicated him.

¶25

6. In this regard, reliance can be placed on the
judgment in the matter of Chaturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani
Vs. Moreshwar Parashram and others, reported in AIR
1954 SC 236. In pararagraphs 48 and 49 of the judgment,
the Supreme Court has observed as follows:

¶26

"(48) Conversion brings many complexities in
its train, for it imports a complex composite
composed of many ingredients. Religious,
beliefs, spiritual experience and emotion and
intellectual conviction mingle with more
material considerations such as severance of

¶27

3/8

¶28

family and social ties and the casting off or
retention of old customs and observances.

¶29

The exact proportions of the mixture
vary from person to person. At one extreme
there is bigoted fanaticism bitterly hostile
towards the old order and at the other an easy
going laxness and tolerance which makes the
conversion only nominal. There is no clearcut
dividing line and it is not a matter which can
be viewed from only one angle.

¶30

(49) Looked at from the secular point of view,
there are three factors which have to be
considered: (1) the reactions of the old body,
(2) the intentions of the individual himself
and (3) the rules of the new order. If the old
order is tolerant of the new faith and sees no
reason to outcaste or excommunicate the convert
and the individual himself desires and intends
to retain his old social and political ties,
the conversion is only nominal for all
practical purposes and when we have to consider
the legal and political rights of the old body
the views of the new faith hardly matter.

¶31

The new body is free to ostracise and
outcaste the convert from its fold if he does
not adhere to its tenets, but it can hardly
claim the right to interfere in matters which
concern the political rights of the old body
when neither the old body nor the convert is
seeking either legal or political favours from

¶32

4/8

¶33

20wp2254-16.odt

¶34

the new as opposed to purely spiritual
advantage.

¶35

On the other hand, if the convert has
shown by his conduct and dealings that his
break from the old order is so complete and
final that he no longer regards himself as a
member of the old body and there is no
reconversion and readmittance to the old fold,
it would be wrong to hold that he can
nevertheless claim temporal privileges and
political advantages which are special to the
old order."

¶36

7. There is absolutely no material available to
conclude that either the petitioner or his forefathers
have relinquished the Hindu faith and have adopted
Christianism. There is also no evidence to suggest that
the petitioner or his family have been outcast or ex-
communicated and that they have snapped ties with
Hinduism. Conversion, if any, is only nominal and for
all practical purposes the family belongs to Hindu
Religion. Apart from this, the disadvantages which are
peculiar to Scheduled Caste, which is sadly a feature

¶37

of Hindu Religion, continue and the familyfaces such
disadvantages and difficulties faced by the lower casts
from amongst Hindus.

¶38

8. Apart from this, there is no reason for the

¶39

5/8

¶40

20wp2254-16.odt

¶41

scrutiny committee to disbelieve the validation
certificate issued in favour of the brother of the
petitioner. On the contrary the Scrutiny committee
ought to have issued validity certificate in favour of
the petitioner on the strength of the documentary
evidence in the form of validity certificate issued to
his brother. In this context, reference can be made to
the judgment in the matter of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale
Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee
No.1 & others reported in 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401, wherein
the Division Bench of this Court has observed as
follows:

¶42

“9. In the present case, we find that the
committee has disbelieved the petitioner's
case that she belongs to Kanjar Bhat after
calling the school leaving certificate of
petitioner's father and noticing that the
original caste written on it was 'Thakur' and
that was subsequently changed to Kanjar Bhat.
The committee observed that the caste has been
changed without complying with the procedure
prescribed by Section 48(e) and 132(3) of
Mumbai Primary Education Act. In fact, the
caste has been changed on the basis of the
affidavit. From the findings of the committee
it appears that the committee has observed
that the change of caste has been done

¶43

6/8

¶44

20wp2254-16.odt

¶45

illegally. Obviously, the committee which
decided the caste claim of the petitioner's
sister did not hold the same view, otherwise
it would have refused to grant validity. In
the circumstances, we are of the view that the
committee which has expressed a doubt about
the validity of caste claim of the petitioner
and has described it as a mistake in its
order, ought not to have arrived at a
different conclusion. The matters pertaining
to validity of caste have a great impact on
the candidate as well as on the future
generations in many matters varying from
marriage to education and enjoyment, and
therefore where a committee has given a
finding about the validity of the caste of a
candidate another committee ought not to
refuse the same status to a blood relative who
applies. A merely different view on the same
facts would not entitle the committee dealing
with the subsequent caste claim to reject it.
There is, however, no doubt as observed by us
earlier that if a committee is of the view
that the earlier certificate is obtained by
fraud it would not be bound to follow the
earlier caste validity certificate and is
entitled to refuse the caste claim and also in
addition initiate proceedings for cancellation
of the earlier order. In this view of the
matter, we are of the view that the petition
must succeed. Rule is made absolute in above
terms. The Caste Scrutiny Committee is

¶46

7/8

¶47

20wp2254-16.odt

¶48

directed to furnish the caste validity
certificate to the petitioner.”

¶49

9. In view of the decision in the matter of Apoorva d/o
Vinay Nichale (supra) as well as for the reasons
recorded herein above, the writ petition deserves to be
allowed and the same is accordingly allowed.

¶50

10. The order passed by the Scrutiny Committee

¶51

invalidating the caste certificate issued to the
petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. The
scrutiny committee is directed to issue validity
certificate to the effect that the petitioner belongs
to 'Mahar' Schedule Caste, as early as possible and
preferably within a period of one month from today.

¶52

11. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

¶53

12. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶54

(K. L. WADANE, J.) (R. M. BORDE, J. )

¶55

True Copy

¶56

(J. P. Chavan)
P. A. to the
Honourable Judge.

¶57

8/8

Chhaburao David Kamble v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhaburao David Kamble v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Vishal Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Dhule through Its President Arun Bhila Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs Sharad Madanrao Patil

Ashok Anaji Wakchaure. Vs 1. the State of Maharashtra.

Laxman Babarao Mamde Vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee through Its Member Secretary and Others

Shriram Pralhadrao Deshmukh Vs the State Election Commission of Maharashtra and Others

Jaymangal Bhanudas Jadhav and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others