Allowed

Ku. Dipali Dushant Chaukhe v. the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur Thr. Member Secretary

Bombay HC11 Aug 2023WP/1089/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition challenging the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee's rejection of the petitioner's claim to belong to the Mana Scheduled Tribe. Relying on the affinity test and her aunt's valid certificate, the court set aside the adverse order and directed issuance of a validity certificate.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 06.10.2022 was set aside. It was declared that the petitioner belongs to the Manipuri Scheduled Tribe and was directed to issue a validity certificate within

Ku. Dipali Dushant Chaukhe Vs the Scheduled… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

903-WP-1089-2023(J).odt

¶2

1/4

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR .

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1089 of 2023

¶5

Ku. Dipali Dushant Chaukhe (Aged 18 years), Occupation: Student (Candidate-aspirant for Admission to Engineering Course) C/o Dushant Narayanrao Chaukhe, At Post-Ashish Nagar, Tukdoji Ward, Hinganghat, District Wardha-442301. (Mobile No.9322708480, Email:[email protected] ) ..... PETITIONER

¶6

...V E R S U S...

¶7

The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur through its Member Secretary, Giripeth, Nagpur-440 010, [email protected]

¶8

The Principal, Government College of Engineering, Aurangabad-431 005, email:[email protected]

¶9

The respondent nos.2 to 4 added as per Hon’ble Court’s order dated 07.08.2023 C.F.Petitioner

¶10

The State Common Entrance Test Cell, Maharashtra State, 8^th Floor, New Excelsior Building, A.K.Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001.(MS) email:[email protected]

¶11

The Registrar, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, University Campus, Near Soneri Mahal, Jaisingpura, Aurangabad-431004 (MS) email:[email protected] .. RESPONDENTS

¶12

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Shri N.D.Jambhule, Advocate for petitioner. Ms S.S.Jachak, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1 State.

¶13

CORAM :- A.S.CHANDURKAR AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ. DATE :- 11^th AUGUST, 2023

¶14

903-WP-1089-2023(J).odt

¶15

2/4

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)

¶17

Rule . Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

The challenge raised is to the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee dated 06.10.2022 invalidating the petitioner’s claim of belonging to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe. In support of such claim the petitioner has relied upon various pre-Constitution documents especially of the year 1925 pertaining to her forefathers and sought issuance of a validity certificate. The petitioner also relied upon the validity certificates granted to her father on 07.05.2009, her uncle on 21.04.2009 and her parental aunt-Sushila on 30.01.2020. Despite aforesaid, the Scrutiny Committee has refused to validate the petitioner’s claim.

¶19

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we have perused the record of the Scrutiny Committee that was made available. It is necessary to note that the petitioner’s parental aunt-Sushila was issued validity certificate after conducting a vigilance enquiry. The report dated 11.04.2019 submitted by the Vigilance Cell makes reference to a document

¶20

of 1925 pertaining to the petitioner’s great-grandfather-Govinda. It was noted that the same had entry ‘Mana’. Acting on this report, the Scrutiny Committee on 30.01.2020 passed a detailed order and upheld the claim of belonging to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe. It is pertinent to note here that one of

¶21

903-WP-1089-2023(J).odt

¶22

3/4

¶23

the members of the Scrutiny Committee Shri Ganesh Ivanate was also the member of the Scrutiny Committee as its Member Secretary when the impugned order came to be passed.

¶24

While perusing the report of the Vigilance Cell insofar as the petitioner is concerned, it can be seen that the Vigilance Cell has noted the document of 1925 of Govinda and has found the entry of ‘Mana’ therein. Coupled with aforesaid, there is validity certificate issued to the petitioner’s father-Dushant on 07.05.2009. Despite aforesaid material being available, the Scrutiny Committee has proceeded to invalidate the petitioner’s claim. It has sought to refer to subsequent entries post 1950 to invalidate such claim. When the document of 1925 was verified by the Vigilance Cell on two occasions and on the strength of that document the validity certificate was issued to petitioner’s paternal aunt-Sushila, we do not find any justifiable reason for the Scrutiny Committee to hold otherwise in the case of the petitioner. In view of the ratio of the decision in Apoorva Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others [2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401] , the petitioner is entitled to rely upon the validity certificate of her paternal aunt-Sushila. Importance to be given to the affinity test has

¶25

been clarified by the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti vs. State of Maharashtra and others [2023(2)Mh.L.J. 785]. The same cannot be treated

¶26

903-WP-1089-2023(J).odt

¶27

4/4

¶28

as litmus test. Considering over all material on record, the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee is not found to be sustainable. Accordingly the following order is passed:

¶29

(i) The order passed by the Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur, on 06.10.2022 is set aside.

¶30

(ii) It is declared that the petitioner has proved that she belongs to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe. Within a period of three weeks of receiving the copy of the judgment, the Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur shall issue validity certificate to the petitioner. Till the petitioner receives validity certificate, she can rely upon copy of this judgment to indicate that her claim of belonging to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe has been upheld.

¶31

Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No costs.

¶32

The authenticated copy of this judgment be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties.

¶33

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)

¶34

Andurkar..

Ku. Dipali Dushant Chaukhe v. the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur Thr. Member Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ku. Dipali Dushant Chaukhe v. the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur Thr. Member Secretary

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

Vaibhav Gopal Aher and Others Vs Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati

Vilas S/O Yashwant Chatur and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Chief Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Tulsabai Niranjan Gondane Vs Secretary, Deptt. of Higher and Technical Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai

Meghan S/O Jayant Patwardhan Vs State Bank of India, Thr. Its Regional Manager, Nagpur and Another

Dr. Anand S/O Bhalchandra Barate and Others Vs State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Mumbai and Ors.

Ku. Palak D/O Vinod Murai Vs the District Caste Certificate Verification Scrutiny Committee, Thr. President Member Secy.