Disposed

Yashsingh Kishansingh Chamargore v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC14 Aug 2018WP/9503/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench allowed a related petition invalidating the petitioner's caste claim. This bench followed that course, directing issuance of a Thakur (S.T.) validity certificate to the petitioner contingent on the outcome of a show cause notice to his father's certificate.

What did the court decide?

Direction to issue validity certificate to the petitioner, subject to scrutiny/enquiry regarding the father's certificate.

Yashsingh Kishansingh Chamargore Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 wp 9503.18

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 9503 OF 2018

¶4

Yashsingh Kishansingh Chamargore .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶7

Shri U. R. Awate, Advocate i/by Talekar and Associates, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶8

Shri P. S. Patil, Addl.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶9

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ. DATE : 14TH AUGUST, 2018.

¶10

FINAL ORDER :

¶11

. The caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to Thakur (Scheduled Tribe) is invalidated. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the voluminous documents that is the school record of the father, uncle, paternal aunt recording the caste as Thakur has not been considered. The father of the petitioner Shri Kishansingh Chamargore has been issued with validity certificate of Thakur (S.T.). The paternal aunt has been issued with the validity certificate of Thakur (S.T.) All these entries were considered at the time the validities in favour of these persons were issued. Even paternal uncle is issued with the validity certificate. The learned counsel further submits

¶12

2 wp 9503.18

¶13

that, by common judgment the caste claim of the petitioner and one Kunal Umraosingh has been invalidated. Kunal Umraosingh filed writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 9066 of 2018 at the Principal seat at Bombay. The Division Bench allowed the said writ petition under order dated 13^th August, 2018 and directed the Committee to issue validity certificate to said Kunal.

¶14

Mr. Patil, the learned Additional Government Pleader submits that, initial entry in the school record of the petitioner's father, paternal aunt and uncle was Rajput. The same is converted into Thakur subsequently. Even school record of the near relative of the petitioner shows entries as Rajput or Rajput Bhamta. The validities issued to the father, uncle and aunt of the petitioner are by suppression of the original entries in their school record. Show cause notices are issued to the validity holders relied by the petitioner as to why their validity certificates should not be cancelled.

¶15

We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for respective parties.

¶16

It appears that, under common judgment dated 10.08.2018 the Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner and one Kunal Umraosingh Chamargore. Said Kunal Chamargore had approached this High Court at its principal seat

¶17

3 wp 9503.18

¶18

at Bombay by filing Writ Petition No. 9066 of 2018. The Division Bench of this Court at its principal seat at Bombay under its judgment and order dated 13^th August, 2018 has set aside the judgment dated 10.08.2018 and directed the Committee to issue validity certificate to Kunal Umraosingh Chamargore subject to any scrutiny or enquiry in relation to certificate of validity issued to his father.

¶19

5. We follow the same course.

¶20

The respondent No. 2/Committee shall issue validity certificate to the petitioner of Thakur (Scheduled Tribe). The same would be subject to the show cause notice issued by the Committee to the father of the petitioner namely Kishansingh Chamargore as to why the validity certificate should not be cancelled. In case the validity certificate issued to the father of the petitioner is cancelled, then the said order would also decide the fate of the petitioner as well and in that event the petitioner would not be entitled to claim equity, nor shall be entitled to protect his admission.

¶21

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶22

[SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

¶23

bsb/Aug. 18

¶24

4 wp 9503.18

Yashsingh Kishansingh Chamargore v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yashsingh Kishansingh Chamargore 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tamire Millat Urdu Primary School Malkapur District Buldhana through Mohammed Haroon Shaikh Yasin Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ramrao Suresh Phalke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Lalit Dajbhau Sonawane and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rutvik Sanjay Thakkarwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sham Gangadhar Jayewar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vyankatesh Kashinath Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others