Allowed

Saish S/O Rupeshkumar Rajwade v. the State of Maharashtra , Dept. of Tribal Development and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Oct 2024WP/12827/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Competent Committee's order denying his claim for a Thakur Scheduled Tribe certificate. The High Court allowed the petition, relying on family tree evidence and earlier judgments granting certificates to relatives.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order dated 03.09.2024 and directed the Committee to issue a Thakur Scheduled Tribe validity certificate within 30 days.

Saish S/O Rupeshkumar Rajwade vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AS:50173-DB

¶2

Saish Rajwade 14-12-2024216-wp-12827-2024.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.12827 OF 2024

¶5

Saish s/o Rupeshkumar Rajwade ...Petitioner Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra And Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Adv. S. Y. Jinturkar for the Petitioners. Adv. S. B. Kalel, AGP for the Respondent State.

¶8

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &

¶9

ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

¶10

RESERVED ON : 25^th NOVEMBER, 2024 PRONOUNCED ON : 20^th DECEMBER, 2024

¶11

ORDER (Per Ashwin D. Bhobe, J.) :-

¶12

By this Petition, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the Competent Committee, Nashik in case No. 3/516/Edu/112023/314164, thereby invalidating the claim of the Petitioner of belonging to a "Thakur' Scheduled Tribe category.

¶13

The learned AGP has strenuously defended the impugned

¶14

order. He relies upon the reasons set out therein and contends that this Petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶15

1 of 5

¶16

Harish

¶17

Saish Rajwade 14-12-2024216-wp-12827-2024.odt

¶18

Petitioner has referred to a list of 12 validity holders from his paternal side, at Exhibit C-Colly Pages Nos. 36-53 in the petition paper book. The relation of the Petitioner with these validity holders from the paternal side is not disputed by the Committee. Petitioner has produced family tree at page No. 155 of the petition paper book. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner during the course of argument has tendered a

¶19

clear typed copy of the family tree for convenience, the same is transcribed here in below :-

¶20

dq’kkck ¼eqG iq#”k½
xaxkjke jaxq
ckGk
y{e.k xksfoank
dsnk
jaxkukFk fuack vk..kk ukenso eYgkjh fuackth
ccu j?kqukFk d”.kk¼oS/k½ ‘kkarkjke ¼larrh ukgh½ ¼larrh ukgh½ larks”k txnh’k jkgwy olar txUukFk lqHkk”k Hkkmjko fo’oukFk t;ar¼oS/k½ fot; dYiuk xaxkjke fo’kky lat; fiz; a dk ¼oS/k½ ¼oS/k½ rstl t;s’k e.kky fd’kksj fdj.k ‘kSyk
¼oS/k½ ¼oS/k½ gsear oSHko v{k;
pSrU; iz.kkyh efu”k osfndk dfiy lq;ksx
tqbZ¼oS/k½ ‘k”Vh iyk{k pSrU; veksy n’kZu t; vk|Jh Jko.kh jktsanz fot; fdj.k lqyHkk¼oS/k½ jktsanz Jhdkar vf/kjk nSfod rq”kkj jktJh efu”kk foykl fuys’k ¼oS/k½ ¼oS/k½ ;qd ‘kS;Z lk{kh¼oS/k½ le/nh Jh;k nsoka’kh
xk;=h¼oS/k½
xkxhZ
izHkkdj /keZjkt¼oS/k½ Hkkmlkgsc¼oS/k½ vfuy lqfuy¼oS/k½ lat;¼oS/k½ jktsanz
psru¼oS/k½ eukst
#is’kdqekj jkts’k ;qojkt /kuat; vadys’k fiz;adk lqo.kkZ fuys’k fufyek x.ks’k jkgqy
¼oS/k½ ¼oS/k½ ¼oS/k½ ¼oS/k½ ¼oS/k½ ¼oS/k½ ¼oS/k½
f{kfrt vfpZr ‘k`.kq;k ;qxa/kj jktohj
oSfnd #nzka’k izHkkl vfOnrk
lkbZ’k fogax
izR;q{kk banzfuy
jkto/kZu nsoJh

¶21

2 of 5

¶22

Harish

¶23

Saish Rajwade 14-12-2024216-wp-12827-2024.odt

¶24

We have perused the family tree. Out of the 12 validity certificates received by the persons set out in paragraph No. 5 of the memo of the Petition, Yuvraj Bhausaheb Rajwade has been granted validity certificate by the order dated 04.10.2017 passed by this Court in WP No. 3453 of 2013. Yuvraj Bhausaheb Rajwade is the paternal side relative of the Petitioner.

¶25

Though there are 12 validity holders from the paternal side including Yuvraj Bhausaheb Rajwade (first cousin brother of Petitioner’s father), who has been granted a validity certificate, the Committee has rejected the claim of the present Petitioner.

¶26

When the Committee did not find the Petitioner's relationship with several validity holders disputable, the law laid down by this Court in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 Nagpur, [2010(6) Mh.L.J.401: AIR 2010(6) Bom.R.21] , should have been followed by the Committee. It is also not the case that any of the validity holders has been issued with a show cause notice and the claim has been subsequently invalidated by recalling the earlier order of the Committee. No such instances are pointed out before us.

¶27

3 of 5

¶28

Harish

¶29

Saish Rajwade 14-12-2024216-wp-12827-2024.odt

¶30

Therefore, we are intrigued as to what could be the foundation for the Committee to refuse validity certificate to the present Petitioner, when 12 paternal relatives have such validity certificates. The Committee also could not have ignored that Yuvraj Bhausaheb Rajwade, was also granted a validity certificate, by this Court in WP No.3453 of 2013.

¶31

The learned Advocate for the Petitioner has rightly submitted that such approach of the Committee needs to be deprecated since this not only causes serious prejudice and manifest inconvenience to the litigants, but it also results in unnecessary litigation being generated.

¶32

This Court vide judgment dated 09.12.2024 in the case of Kalpana d/o Nimbaji Desai vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr in WP No. 17828 of 2024 has granted validity certificate to the Petitioner therein by name Kalpana, who finds place in the afore- referred family tree. In the said judgment this Court has considered the 24 validity holders from the paternal side and the biological brothers of the Petitioner Kalpana, who have been granted validity certificates.

¶33

4 of 5

¶34

Harish

¶35

Saish Rajwade 14-12-2024216-wp-12827-2024.odt

¶36

Names of Yuvraj Bhausaheb Rajwade and Kalpana d/o Nimbaji Desai are found in the family tree relied by the Petitioner. No dispute is raised with regards to the said family tree.

¶37

We have perused our judgment dated 04.10.2024 delivered in WP No. 3453 of 2014 (Yuvraj s/o Bhausahb Rajwade vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.) as well as the judgment dated 09.12.2024 in WP No. 17828 of 2024 in the case of Kalpana d/o Nimbaji Desai vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. We have analyzed the relationship of the Petitioner with those appearing in the genealogy tree. Even the Committee has not disputed the relationship of the present Petitioner Saish with the paternal relatives.

¶38

In view of the above and considering the judgments of this Court granting validity certificate and the validity certificates of the 24 other paternal relatives of the Petitioner, this Writ Petition is allowed .

¶39

The impugned order dated 03.09.2024 is quashed and set aside. The Committee shall issue a 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe validity certificate within a period of 30 days from today.

¶40

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶41

Signed by: Harish V. Chaudhari Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Harish Date: 20/12/2024 15:27:11

¶42

5 of 5

Saish S/O Rupeshkumar Rajwade v. the State of Maharashtra , Dept. of Tribal Development and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saish S/O Rupeshkumar Rajwade v. the State of Maharashtra , Dept. of Tribal Development and Ors.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Uttam Rajaram Kamble vs the Food Corporation of India

Shama Parveen Abdul Bashir vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Trhough the Municipal Commissioner

Akshay Sukhadeo Takale vs the Chief Executive Officer and Anr.

Sushil Kumar Srivastava vs State of Maharashtra

Harsharaj Madhukar Jadhav vs Jt. Commissioner M.C.G.M. a and C Dept

Usha Nivrutti Kuchekar and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. the Secretary School Education Dept and Anr.