1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6806 OF 2008 Ramchandra Namdeo Waghmare .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondents Shri R. K. Mendadkar, for the petitioner Smt. Jyoti Pawar, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 CORAM: J. N. PATEL, & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. Dated: 23rd April, 2009 J U D G E M E N T (Per Mridula Bhatkar, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 14.7.2008 passed by the Respondent No.2 - the Scheduled Tribes Certificate Scrutiny committee, Pune Division, ( Scrutiny Committee), invalidating the caste certificate of the 2 petitioner. 2. Factual Matrix : The petitioner belongs to Mahadeo Koli which is a Scheduled Tribe under the Presidential Notification of 1950 issued under Article 341(1) of the Constitution of India. At present, the petitioner is working as Junior Engineer. Earlier, he was working on the post of Sub divisional Officer, Irrigation Dept. It is contended that the petitioner was granted caste certificate declaring him as Mahadeo Koli (Scheduled Tribe) by the Executive Magistrate, Solapur on 22.7.1978. On the basis of said Caste Certificate, the petitioner joined the service in the category of Scheduled Tribe on 10th May, 1982 as Junior Engineer. 3. Caste certificate of the petitioner was forwarded to the Respondent No. 2 committee by the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, ZP, Sangli, for verification on 29.6.2007. The petitioner produced about 10 documents in support of his claim as Mahadeo Koli (ST). The committee called upon the report of the Vigilance cell. The Police inspector of the vigilance cell obtained six documents in respect of blood relatives of the petitioner from paternal side and the report was submitted to the Committee. The 3 committee kept hearing on 10.7.2008 and the petitioner was heard on the issue. The petitioner had placed reliance on the documents, especially the birth records of his grandfather, uncle and father disclosing their caste as Mahaeo Koli. However, the committee did not accept the said documents as true and credible and, therefore, invalidated the caste certificate of the petitioner by its order dated 14.7.2008. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has preferred this petition. 4. Submissions : Learned Advocate Shri Mendadkar, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner was not properly appreciated by the scrutiny committee. He has further submitted that the petitioner and his relatives from the paternal side belong to Hindu Mahadeo Koli which is scheduled Tribe. In the birth record of some of the relatives of the petitioner, caste is written as Koli. It is submitted that in the earlier days, there was no practice of writing specific caste – i.e. Mahadeo Koli but it is generally written as “Koli”. The learned counsel has further submitted that the committee ought to have considered the extracts of the primary school admission registers issued by the Head Mistress, Z.P. 4 Prathamik Shala, Tihre in which his real cousin brother is shown as Hindu Mahadeo Koli. So also, caste of his other relative whose name is appearing as Waghmare, is shown as Hindu Mahadeo Koli. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, on the point of custom, characteristics and traits of the petitioner, has submitted that the statement of father of the petitioner was recorded by the Vigilance cell on 12.6.2008, in which his father could not state properly about the customs, traits and characteristics due to his old age. He has further submitted that the order given by the Scrutiny Committee is not based on sound reasoning and, therefore, is illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. The additional affidavit was filed by the petitioner contending that the petitioner could not produce the entries from birth record (birth extract) of his grandfather/father before the committee. However, now he could lay hand on such birth extract. The petitioner has acquired the certified copies of such entries from the Office of Tahsildar, Akkalkot, Dist. Solapur. He relied on the birth entires of his great grandfather, grandfather and uncle as per genealogy tree. The learned counsel has submitted that the said documents could not be produced before the Scrutiny Committee 5 as they were not available with the petitioner and hence, the mater be remanded to the Scrutiny committee. 6. Consideration : On perusal of the order under challenge, it is found that the Committee has dealt with all the documents produced by the petitioner. The petitioners father Namdeo Apparao Waghmare has adopted surname as Namdeo Apparao Patil. His caste at the time of School admission shown as Hindu Koli. Similarly, in respect of his paternal uncles Nivarutti Chandram Waghmare, Phulaji Manjunath Patil, their caste is shown as Hindu Koli (in the extract of Primary School admission registers). It is pertinent to note that the petitioner's caste and the caste of some relatives of th petitioner whose surname is appearing as Waghmare is shown as Hindu Mahadeo Koli in the school register. However, these entries are not of before 1950, when First Presidential Order, 1950 was issued. Thus, the committee has taken into account all these documents and has rightly held that on the ground of affinity test, the case of the petitioner can not stand. 7. Vigilance cell has tried to collect information 6 regarding traits, characteristics and customs of the petitioners and has submitted the report that the caste of the father of the petitioner and his real uncle and other relatives is Koli. It is to be noted that at the time of recording statement on 12.6.2008, the petitioner’s father has made statement that he was not aware about the peculiar customs amongst Mahadeo Koli (ST)- i.e. Waghwar, Gavbaras, satbaras, Padkai. The information furnished by the petitioner himself about the customs, deities by sending letter is treated by the committee as bookish knowledge. It is necessary to mention here that the person who has to prove caste claim, has to prove it on the basis of information about the customs actually practiced and followed and rituals performed or observed in the family. The claim in respect of traits, characteristics of particular caste cannot be said to be proved only because the petitioner has academically well versed with the information about the rituals and customs followed and observed in that particular community. Having mere knowledge and having practiced, performed or observed are two different things. The very purpose of vigilance cell is to dig out the reality about such practice and performance by the family of the petitioner, so that the the real information in respect of traits, customs, spirituals of the petitioner 7 is surfaced. The submissions of the learned counsels for the petitioner that father of the petitioner being an old person could not make any statement in respect of peculiar customs, cannot be accepted. On the contrary, old persons in the family are the best source of of such information as they try to preserve the roots of their caste and community. 8. It is the duty of petitioner to produce the best evidence and make the documents available to the Committee to arrive at correct conclusion. The documents in respect of birth entries of the great grandfather, grandfather and father of the petitioner are certified copies issued by the Tahsildar. They are not the authenticated photocopies of the extract of the birth registers. Such certified copies issued by the Tahsildar cannot be considered as true and authenticated record of the birth entries in respect of great grandfather, grandfather and father of the petitioner while deciding the correctness of the order of the caste scrutiny committee. 9. In view of this circumstance mentioned above, the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee cannot be said to be 8 illegal or incorrect. It need not be interfered with. Apart from this, this Court not being a Court of appeal is not expected to re- appreciate the evidence once again unless any perversity is shown. No such thing is brought to our notice. The view taken by the Scrutiny committee is reasonable and possible view based on the evidence on record. In the result, the petition stands dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (J. N. PATEL, J.) jpc/-