1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6551 OF 2006 Miss Mayura D/o Mohan Mawalge, Age-17 years, i.e. MINOR, (Through her natural guardian and mother: Smt. Neelima w/o Late Mohan Mawalge, Age-41 Years, Occu:Nil, R/o-303, Vithai Complex Plot No.21, Section No.44A Seawood, Darave, New Mumbai 400 706 ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, (Through Its Secretary, Tribe Dev. Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32), 2) The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, (Through Its Member-Secretary), 3) The Director of Medical Education & Drugs, M.S. Mumbai, 4) Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Medical College, (Through its Dean), Sion, Mumbai, 5) The District Supply Officer, Parbhani. ...RESPONDENTS. 2 ... Shri.S.B. Talekar Advocate for Petitioner. Smt.Y.M. Kshirsagar, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Shri. P.S. Patil Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. ORDER RESERVED ON : 6TH AUGUST, 2010. ORDER PRONONUCED ON : 13TH AUGUST, 2010. ORDER [PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.] : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The Petitioner claims to be belonging to "Koli Mahadeo", Scheduled Tribe. The Petition was filed on 4th September, 2006. At that time the Petitioner contended in the Petition that she was studying in First MBBS Course in Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Medical College, Sion, Mumbai. Her caste certificate was referred to the Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee through the Principal, Rajarshi Shahu Maharaj Mahavidyalaya, Latur for 3 verification purposes on 16th May, 2005. 3. The Petitioner's caste claim was verified and by an order dated 21st July 2006, the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim of the Petitioner. 4. The learned counsel Shri. Talekar submits that the Scrutiny Committee erred in rejecting the caste claim of the Petitioner. The documents placed on record by the Petitioner were not considered. It was submitted that the caste claim of the Petitioner's father namely, Dr. Mohan Yadavrao Mawalge was upheld by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad by an order dated 20th August, 1993 and based on the same, certificate of validity was issued in favour of the father of the Petitioner on 30th May, 1998. Both these orders are placed on record. The counsel therefore, submits that as Petitioner's father secured a certificate of validity, which is the best piece of evidence in favour of the Petitioner, 4 therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the reported Judgment in the case of Gayatrilaxmi Bapurao Nagpure vs. State of Maharashtra and others, A.I.R. 1996 Supreme Court, 1338. 5. Learned counsel Shri. Talekar also placed on record copy of Order passed by the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.578 of 2007 dated 29th October, 2007 and copy of Order dated 28th March 2008, passed in Writ Petition No.2487 of 2008 by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND, N.V. DABHOLKAR, JJ.). Based on the Order passed in Writ Petition No.2487 of 2008, the counsel submits that the issue in respect of the caste claim of the Petitioner's brother Madhav is again raised in the High Court and is subject matter of consideration of this Court. 6. Shri. Patil, learned counsel appearing 5 for the Scrutiny Committee submitted that the claim of sister of Petitioner namely, Nanda Yadavrao Shankhpale and brother Madhav Yadavrao Shankhpale in respect of their tribe claim was subject matter of Judgment and Order dated 5th April 2007, delivered by the Division Bench of this Court (CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & R.M. BORDE, JJ.) in batch of Petitions, bearing Writ Petition No.3443 of 1990( Nanda D/o Yadavrao Shankhpale vs. The State of Maharashtra and others), Writ Petition No.2641 of 1992 (Madhav S/o Yadavrao Shankhpale vs. The State of Maharashtra and others), Writ Petition No.2818 of 2004 (Madhav S/o Yadavrao Shankhpale vs. The State of Maharashtra and others). The counsel submitted that the issue in respect of caste verification of Petitioner's father was also dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court, therefore, in the light of the Judgment delivered by this Court and the Apex Court, the Petitioner is not entitled to be belonging to "Mahadeo Koli" Scheduled Tribe. 6 Learned counsel Shri. Patil placed reliance on the following Judgments, in support of his submissions that while evaluating the tribe claim, the validity granted to a relative would only have persuasive and corroborative value and would not mechanically lead the scrutiny committee to decide the validity: (1) Kumari Aparna Shrikant Bhaye vs. State of Maharashtra & others, 1991 (3) Bom. C.R. 137 (Supreme Court), (2) Prajakta Vijay Varsolkar vs. State of Maharashtra & others, 2008 (Supp.) Bom. C.R. 367, (3) Raju Ramsingh Vasave vs. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar and others, 2009 (1) Mh. L.J. 1, (4) Order dated 3rd July, 2003 passed in Writ Petition No.2773 of 1990 by the Division Bench of this Court (CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE AND P.V. KAKADE, JJ.) 7 (5) Order dated 27th August, 2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 7934 of 2006 by the Division Bench of this Court (CORAM: P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ.), (6) Order dated 21st January, 2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 2320 of 2006 by the Division Bench of this Court (CORAM: P.V. HARDAS AND S.P. KUKDAY, JJ.), (7) Order dated 23RD January, 2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 3557 of 2007 by the Division Bench of this Court (CORAM: P.V. HARDAS AND S.P. KUKDAY, JJ.). 7. For ascertaining and appreciating the case of the Petitioner herein, it is very much necessary to look into the Judgment and Order delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in the batch of Writ Petitions as mentioned above. While dealing with the caste claim of father of the Petitioner, namely, Yadav Mahadu Mawalge, in 8 Para 22 the Division Bench observed that: "22. The original service book of Shri. Yadav Mahadu Mawalge, father of the Petitioner, is produced before us. We have perused the same. The earlier Division Bench also considered the entries in this service book while considering the tribe claim of Rajesh Yadavrao Shankpale in Writ Petition No. 912 of 1988. We find that against the caste column entry of "Mahadeo Koli" is encircled and it is written as "Koli Mahadev". Against the column of tribe earlier there was entry as "Other Backward Class" and it is encircled and written as "Scheduled Tribe". There is endorsement made "21/8" by the Chief Officer Municipal Council to the effect that entry of the caste was taken as per his application and certificate dated 8-1-1983 issued by the 9 Taluka Executive Magistrate Biloli. The caste certificate of the Petitioner's father was not verified by any competent Scrutiny Committee or forum. We have perused the entries and from the manner in which the entries are made and their appearance we find that they do not inspire full confidence of the Court to place heavy reliance on them." 8. From the record made available to this Court by the Registry of this Court, it transpires that Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. CC 7025/2008 was preferred by Madhav Yadavrao Shankhpale before the Apex Court against the Judgment and Order delivered by the Division Bench of this Court on 5th April, 2007 in batch of Writ Petitions, cited supra. On 12th May, 2008, the Apex Court passed following Order: 10 " Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The special leave petition is dismissed on the ground of delay." 9. Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. CC 12065/2007 was preferred by Nanda Yadavrao Shankhpale before the Apex Court against the Judgment and Order delivered by the Division Bench of this Court on 5th April, 2007 in batch of Writ Petitions, cited supra. On 5th September, 2008, the Apex Court passed following Order: " Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a review petition before the High Court. In case such; a petition is filed, the same shall be considered on its own 11 merits. The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of." 10. We find that Review Petition was filed by Nanda d/o Yadavrao Shankhpale on 5th August 2009, in this Court, but so far the Review Petitioner did not take effective steps to invite orders on the said Review Petition. 11. Madhav Yadavrao Shankhpale filed one more Petition bearing Writ Petition (Civil) No.578 of 2007 in the Apex Court. We have perused the proceedings in Writ Petition No.2487 of 2008 filed by Madhav Yadavrao Shankhpale in this Court. In Para 27 of the said Petition, the Petitioner therein reproduced the prayer clauses of the Writ Petition filed in the Apex Court bearing Writ Petition (Civil) No.578 of 2007, which reads as under: " a) allow this petition under 12 article 32 of the Constitution of India and grant Certiorari relief that the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1956, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976, being ultra vires of the Constitution of India, 1950 as violative Articles 14 and 16(4) of the Constitution of India and for further writ or direction to declare that the law laid down in the case of Kumar Madhuri Patil & Anr. vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribe Development and Ors. Reported in AIR 1955 S.C. 94 as per incurium and for issue of a Writ Mandamus to amend section 41 of the State Re-organisation Act, 1956. b) pass such further other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." 13 12. From the Judgment and Order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in earlier batch of Petitions concerning close relatives of the Petitioner and the Orders passed by the Apex Court and in the facts of the case, we find that the Petitioner does not have any case to claim validity in her favour. The Petitioner failed to lead any cogent and reliable evidence to substantiate her caste claim. The major reliance of the Petitioner was on the validity certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner's father. But the same was issued on the basis of the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner. The statutory committee did not have any opportunity to deal with the caste claim of the Petitioner's father. Apart from the same, the manner in which the service record of Petitioner's father was maintained, was considered by this Court in earlier batch of Petitions. The pendency of Writ Petition No.2487 of 2008 filed by Madhav Yadavrao Shankhpale has no bearing on the Petitioner Miss Mayura Mohan Mawalge and in the facts of the case 14 the Petitioner has failed to establish her caste claim. The Petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/AUG10/wp6551.06