1 aswp-5064-11 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5064 OF 2011 Ms. Ritu Sham Wani and anr. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents Mr. Abhijeet Desai with Ms. Vrushali Maindad for petitioners. Ms. S.S. Bhende, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3 and 5. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. NOVEMBER 09, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Bhende, the learned AGP appears for the respondent nos.1 to 3 and 5. Respondent Nos.4 and 6 are the formal parties. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent no.2 – Caste Scrutiny Committee at Pune on 9/6/20111, thereby invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner no.1 that she belongs to “Rajput Bhamta” - Vimukta Jatis – A. 2 aswp-5064-11 3. The Deputy Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Pune had issued a caste certificate dated 27/8/2002 in favour of the petitioner no.1 stating that she belongs to the “Rajput Bhamta” caste listed at Sr. No.10 in Vimukta Jatis -A and on the basis of the said certificate, the petitioner no.1 came to be admitted to the first year of the Bachelor of Engineering Degree Course in the academic year 2010-2011. However, while she was studying in the 11th standard at Nausaraji Wadia College, Pune in the academic year 2006-07, the caste certificate was subjected to scrutiny by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the proceedings were pending. Hence, the admission granted to the first year of Bachelor of Engineering was subject to the outcome of the pending caste verification proceedings before the respondent no.2-Committee. After considering the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner (in all 16 documents), the Committee, by the impugned order, held that the petitioner no.1 does not belong to the “Rajput Bhamta” caste which is listed at Sr.No.10 – Vimukta Jatis -A and directed to confiscate the caste certificate dated 27/8/2002. 4. Amongst the other documents, the petitioner had relied upon the caste validity certificate issued to her uncle (father’s brother) – Shri Ganesh Shivlal Wani on 12/6/2007. She also relied upon similar certificate issued in favour of her uncle’s daughter i.e. the daughter of Shri Ganesh Shivlal Wani and by placing reliance on the GR dated 22/8/2007, she urged the Committee to validate her claim of belonging to “Rajput Bhamta” caste. The Committee did not accept the said submissions and it relied upon the decision of this court (Aurangabad Bench) in Writ Petition No. 3 aswp-5064-11 4060 of 2008 and more particularly the following observations: “We have also perused the Rules framed under the Act. Under the Rules also no power is conferred on the Government to issue any G.R. which would bind the Committee or which would compel the Committee to consider the said G.R. The Government Resolution, therefore, is not be binding on the Committee nor will the Committee in exercise of its discretion be found to follow the same.” The Committee further proceeded to rely upon the decision dated 29/8/2008 of the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 7555 of 2008 and more particularly para 20 therein which reads as under:- “We do not mean to suggest that an opinion formed by the Committee as regards the caste of the near relative of the applicant would be wholly irrelevant, but at the same time it must be pointed out that only because by mistake or otherwise, a member of his family had been declared to be belonging to a member of the Scheduled Tribe, the same by itself would not be conclusive in nature so as to bind another Committee while examining the case of other members of the family at some details. If it is found that in granting a certificate in favour of a member of a family, vital evidences had been ignored, it would be open to the Committee to 4 aswp-5064-11 arrive at a different finding.” 5. In the instant case,we must also note that at Sr.Nos.13 and 14, two documents, namely, the school leaving certificate of Shri Dongarsing Bapu Wani and the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Jat, Dist. Sangli in favour of Bapu Kalu Bhamta on 10/10/2006 have the highest probatory value so as to consider the evidence to decide the petitioner no.1’s caste claim. There is no dispute that Rajput Bhamta caste was added in the Vimukta Jatis list by the State Government on 21/11/1961 for the first time and, therefore, any document which pertains to the period prior to 21/11/1961 could have the highest probatory value to rely upon as the evidence in support of the social claim. Shri Dongarsing Bapu Wani was admittedly the brother of the petitioner’s grandfather (father’s father) and Shri Bapu Kalu Bhamta was the great-grandfather of the petitioner no.1. Shri Dongarsing Bapu Wani was admitted in the Zilla Parishad Primary School at Yelavi, Dist. Sangli on 5/3/1934 and he was born at Belgaum on 9/2/1928. His caste shown in the school leaving certificate was “Bhamta”. Similarly, Shri Bapu Kalu Bhamta was sentenced between the period from 1941 to 1950 and the Tahsildar, Jat, Dist. Sangli had issued the certificate, in which the caste of the convict was shown as “Bhamta”. Admittedly, the caste “Bhamta” is different from the caste “Rajput Bhamta” and the caste “Bhamta” is listed at Sr.No.3 in the list of Vimukta Jatis – A whereas caste “Rajput Bhamta” is listed at Sr.No.10 in the list of Vimukta Jatis-A. These two documents, in our opinion, are the main evidence in support of the social status of the petitioner no.1 and even if the Committee has discarded 5 aswp-5064-11 her case of belonging to “Rajput Bhamta”, these documents proved that she belongs to the caste “Bhamta” which is also a Vimukta Jati – A. While rejecting the petitioner no.1’s claim of belonging to “Rajput Bhamta” caste, the Committee could have accepted her social status as belonging to the “Bhamta” caste. However, this has not been done. 6. We, therefore, hold that the petitioner no.1 belongs to the “Bhamta” caste which is listed in Vimukta Jatis – A at Sr.No.3 and direct the respondent no.2-Committee to issue a validity certificate to the same effect. Consequently, the petitioner no.1’s admission to the Bachelor of Engineering Course from Vimukta Jatis – A shall stand protected. 7. The Petition is disposed in terms of the above directions. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)