Allowed

Salomi Vijaykumar Trubhuvan through Guardian Vijaykumar Sukdeo Ttribhuvan v. Divisional Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Nashik

Bombay HC24 Jun 2016WP/4007/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court welcomed a writ petition challenging an order invalidating a Scheduled Caste certificate. The bench held the committee erred in relying on irrelevant factors like name and photos without proof of conversion. The order was quashed, and the committee was directed to issue a new certificate within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; respondent directed to issue caste validation certificate within four weeks.

Salomi Vijaykumar Trubhuvan through Guardian Vijaykumar… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wp4007-15.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 4007 OF 2015

¶4

Miss Salomi d/o Vijaykumar
Tribhuvan, Age 17 years, Occu;
Education. Since minor,
through natural guardian-
father Vijaykumar Sukdeo
Tribhuvan, Age 48 years,
Occu: Business, R/o Astagaon,
Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Divisional Caste Certificate …Respondent
Verification Committee No.1,
Nashik Division, Nashik,
Through its Research Officer
and Member Secretary

¶8

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Chandrakant K. Shinde
AGP for the Respondent State: Mr. A. R. Kale

¶9

CORAM: R. M. BORDE &
K. L. WADANE, JJ.
 DATE:24th June, 2016

¶10

JUDGMENT (Per Wadane, J.):

¶11

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶12

2. By consent of the parties, taken up for final
hearing. We have heard the learned counsel for the
respective parties.

¶13

3. By the present petition, the petitioner has

¶14

challenged the order passed by the respondent
Divisional Caste Certificate Verification Committee on
10th February, 2015 by which the caste claim of the

¶15

wp4007-15.odt

¶16

petitioner is invalidated.

¶17

4. The petitioner, who is a minor girl, has filed the petition through her father contending inter alia that she is taking education, studying in 12^th Standard and she belongs to Mahar, Scheduled Caste. The Deputy Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer No.1, Ahmednagar had issued Caste certificate in favour of the petitioner on 24^th July, 2013. The petitioner further states that there are entries of Mahar caste in

¶18

the school record of the petitioner as well as school
record and revenue record of her father to support her
caste claim.

¶19

5. The caste claim/certificate of the petitioner
was referred to the respondent committee. The committee
referred an application to the Vigilance Cell for
conducting school enquiry, home enquiry and other
enquiries. The Vigilance Cell submitted its report to
the Respondent Committee upon conducting enquiry.
Relying upon the findings of the vigilance cell,

¶20

the respondent Committee has invalidated the caste
claim of the petitioner mainly on the following
grounds:

¶21

(1) Name of the petitioner 'Salomi' appears to be

¶22

2/9

¶23

wp4007-15.odt

¶24

name, normally of a Christian person.

¶25

(2) Names of close relatives of the petitioner were like persons from Christian community.

¶26

(3) Last rites of grandfather and cousin grandfather of the petitioner were performed as per Christian faith.

¶27

(4) Photographs of Yeshu Christ were seen inside
the house and on the entry door of the house of
the petitioner.

¶28

6. On scrutiny of the reasons recorded by the
respondent Committee, it appears that the respondent
Committee has taken into consideration irrelevant
aspects to determine the caste claim of the petitioner.
On scrutiny of the documents produced by the petitioner
before the respondent Committee, it appears that
various schoolleaving certificates, caste certificates,
revenue record like 7x12 extracts, Mutation entires

¶29

etc. are placed on record. Caste certificate dated
22.02.1996 shows that grandfather of the petitioner

¶30

belongs to Hindu Mahar caste. There is no reason to
disbelieve the school record particularly, when the
entries in the school record are too old. The

¶31

3/9

¶32

wp4007-15.odt

¶33

petitioner submits that she was admitted in 4th Standard
in 1995 in Z.P. School Nimgaon. In the school leaving
certificate issued by the School, her caste is recorded
as Hindu Mahar. The petitioner submits that one Sukhdeo
Dada Tribhuvan is her real grandfather and school
record shows his caste as Mahar and it is old entry
recorded in the year 1964-65. So also the extract of
school register i.e. general register of school shows
the name of grandfather at Sr. No. 1519 and his caste
is recorded as Mahar. So, looking to the entire
material on record, we are are of the opinion that
documentary evidence produced in support of the caste
claim of the petitioner are sufficient to hold that
petitioner is belonging to Mahar caste.

¶34

7. It appears that, the respondent Committee has
taken into consideration the irrelevant factor while
determining the caste claim of the petitioner. There
is no evidence/material on record to conclude that
the petitioner has adopted Christian religion and she
does not belong to Hindu religion, Mahar caste.

¶35

8. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that
the view taken by the Scrutiny Committee is absolutely
inconsistent with the law laid down by the High Court

¶36

4/9

¶37

wp4007-15.odt

¶38

as well as the Supreme Court. It is contended that
there is no evidence coming forth in respect of
adoption of Christianity either by the father of the
petitioner or her family. The petitioner has not
relinquished Hindu religion and has not adopted
Christian religion at any point of time. On the other
hand no record is placed before the committee to

¶39

conclude that the family of the petitioner has been
excommunicated and they have snapped ties with
Hinduism. Conversion, if any, is only nominal and for
all practical purposes the family belongs to Hindu
religion. It is further pointed out that the
disadvantages which are peculiar to Scheduled Caste,
which is sadly a feature of Hindu religion, continue

¶40

and the family faces such disadvantages and
difficulties faced by the lower castes from amongst
Hindus.

¶41

9. In this context reliance can be placed on a
judgment in the matter of C.M. Arumugam v. S. Rajgopal
and others reported in (1976) 1 SCC 863. In paragraph
no. 12 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has observed
thus :

¶42

12.It seems that the correct test
for determining this question is

¶43

5/9

¶44

wp4007-15.odt

¶45

the one pointed out by this Court
in Chatturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani v.
Moreshwar Prasahram. Bose, J.,
speaking on behalf of the Court in
this case pointed out that when a
question arises whether conversion
operates as a breakaway from the
caste , what we have to determine
are the social and political
consequences of such conversion and
that, we feel, must be decided in a
common sense practical way rather
than on theoretical and theocratic
grounds. The learned Judge then
proceeded to add :

¶46

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.

¶47

What is, therefore, material to
consider is how the caste looks at
the question of conversion. Does
it outcaste or excommunicate the
convert or does it still treat him
as continuing within its fold
despite his conversion: If the
convert desires and intends to
continue as a member of the caste
and the caste also continues to
treathimasamember,
notwithstanding pointed out by this
Court, “the views of the new faith

¶48

6/9

¶49

wp4007-15.odt

¶50

hardly matter.” This was the
principle on which it was decided
by the Court in Chatturbhuj
Vithaldas Jasni's case (supra) that
Gangaram Thaware, whose nomination
as a scheduled caste candidate was
rejected by the Returning Officer,
continued to be a Mahar, which was
specified as a scheduled caste,
despite his conversion to the
Mahanubhav faith.”

¶51

As laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of K.P. Manu, Chairman Scrutiny Committee for

¶52

Verification of Community Certificate, reported in AIR
2015 Supreme Court 1402, three things need to be
established by a person who claims to be a beneficiary
of a caste certificate – (i) There must be absolutely
clearcut proof that he belongs to the caste that has
been recognised by the Constitution (Scheduled Caste)
Order 1950; (ii) There has been reconversion to
original religion to which the parents and earlier
generations had belong; and (iii) there has to be a
evidence establishing acceptance by the community.

¶53

While considering somewhat similar facts/

¶54

situation like one in the present matter, the Supreme
Court, in the case of M. Chandra Vs. M. Thangamuthu,
reported in (2010) 9 SCC 712, observed that in order to
claim benefits of reservation under the Constitution

¶55

7/9

¶56

wp4007-15.odt

¶57

(Scheduled Caste) Order, 1950, a person must establish
that the caste to which he belongs is notified in the
Presidential Order and he is not professing a religion
different from the Hindu, the Sikh or the Buddhist.

¶58

12. If findings of the Committee are carefully
perused, the finding of facts recorded by the Committee
that the petitioner is Christian by religion is without
any basis and the said finding is perverse, unjust,
inasmuch as, there is no documentary evidence on record
which would suggest that the petitioner professes
Christianity by way of conversion. The Committee has
not kept in view the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in the aforementioned authoritative pronouncement
and proceeded to invalidate the claim of the petitioner
only on the basis of Vigilance Cell's report.

¶59

13. In the instant matter, since there is no evidence
in respect of conversion, there arises no question of
reconversion to the original religion. There is
sufficient evidence placed on record to demonstrate
that petitioner belongs to Mahar caste and that the
people of the community accept petitioner as a member
of Mahar caste.

¶60

The Scrutiny Committee has overlooked the basic

¶61

8/9

¶62

wp4007-15.odt

¶63

principles while declining to grant validation
certificate in favour of petitioner. The order passed

¶64

by the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the caste

¶65

certificate issued to petitioner is erroneous and
deserves to be quashed and set aside and the same is

¶66

accordingly quashed and set aside. The respondent
Committee is directed to issue caste validation

¶67

certificate in favour of petitioner certifying that she
belongs to Mahar Scheduled Caste, in the prescribed
proforma, as expeditiously as possible, preferably
within a period of four weeks from today.

¶68

15. Rule made absolute accordingly. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as
to costs.

¶69

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

¶70

JPC

¶71

9/9

Salomi Vijaykumar Trubhuvan through Guardian Vijaykumar Sukdeo Ttribhuvan v. Divisional Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Nashik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salomi Vijaykumar Trubhuvan through Guardian Vijaykumar Sukdeo Ttribhuvan v. Divisional Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Nashik

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

Dinesh Anandrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ganesh Haribhau Khandve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gni Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Khushbirsing Basatsing Bindra Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Baburao Bapurao Iylane Vs Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation, Latur and Anr.

Devidas Shrawan Wani and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Manojkumar Indrasing Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others