Partly allowed

Sumit Bhaurao Salunke v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC6 Jan 2022WP/133/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Bench invalidated a casting doubt on the petitioner's caste claim, upholding the petitioner's claim for a validity certificate as belonging to the 'Thakar' Scheduled Tribe despite insufficient contra entries in paternal records.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Committee to issue a validity certificate to the petitioner as 'Thakar' (Scheduled Tribe), subject to the pending proceedings with the validity holders.

Sumit Bhaurao Salunke Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

1 wp 133.22

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 133 OF 2022

¶4

Sumit Bhaurao Salunke .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and another.. Respondents

¶7

Shri Sushant C. Yeramwar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri P. S. Patil, Addl.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶8

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND S. G. DIGE, JJ. DATE : 06TH JANUARY, 2022.

¶9

FINAL ORDER :

¶10

. The caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to ‘Thakar’ (Scheduled Tribe) is invalidated.

¶11

The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, the pre constitutional documents of the grandfather, cousin grandfathers, great grandfathers show the caste recorded as Thakar. The oldest document is of the year 1903. The same is in Urdu language. Marathi translation is placed on record. The learned counsel submits that, validity certificate is issued to the cousin uncle of the petitioner namely Balaji Pandurang and cousin brother namely Divakar Sidheshwar. The learned advocate submits that, contra entries in respect of the cousin aunts of the petitioner are of recent period. The entry in the record of the father and the cousin aunts of the petitioner records

¶12

2 wp 133.22

¶13

caste as Thakar. All these entries were subject matter of consideration earlier also when validities are issued to the paternal relatives.

¶14

Mr. Patil, the learned Additional Government Pleader submits that, while validity was issued to cousin uncle and cousin brother of the petitioner, the contra entries in the school record of the paternal aunts of the petitioner were suppressed by the validity holders. In absence of the contra entries, the validities were issued. According to the learned Addl. G. P. there are about seven to eight contra entries of the paternal aunts of the petitioner. In view of the fact that, there are contra entries of Thakur and Maratha caste, the claim is rightly invalidated. In addition to it, the learned Addl. G. P. submits that, the petitioner has failed in the affinity test also. Show cause notices are issued to the validity holders relied by the petitioner.

¶15

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

¶16

It appears that, the old entry from the year 1903 in the school record of the petitioner’s cousin grandfather appears consistently. In case of paternal aunts of the petitioner the caste is recorded as Maratha. In the record of paternal uncles of the petitioner caste is recorded as Thakar. There are many preconstitutional documents recording caste as Thakar. There is not a single document of pre-constitutional period recording caste as

¶17

3 wp 133.22

¶18

Maratha in any of the paternal relatives of the petitioner. The cousin uncle of the petitioner and cousin brother of the petitioner are issued with the validity certificates.

¶19

In the light of the above, we pass following order.

¶20

The Committee shall issue validity certificate to the petitioner of Thakar (Scheduled Tribe). Said validity shall be subject to the decision that would be taken by the Committee in the proceedings reopened of the validity holders relied by the petitioner.

¶21

The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶22

[S. G. DIGE, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

¶23

bsb/Jan.22

Sumit Bhaurao Salunke v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Bhaurao Salunke v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Sidheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Maniknagar through Its Labour Officer Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Sanjeev Asaram Sulane Vs District Collector and Another

Anil Prabhakar Aundhekar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bharti Sanjay Amale Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Shaikh Aqeel Shaikh Jafar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sujit Govindrao Mardode Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others