WP 6194/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.6194 OF 2007 AND WRIT PETITION NO.6344 OF 2007 AND WRIT PETITION NO.6760 OF 2007 ----- WRIT PETITION NO.6194 OF 2007 Prakash s/o Motiram Piratwad] R/o N-11,B-17/2 TV Center, ]PETITIONER. Arrangeable ] VERSUS 1 The State of Maharashtra ] Through its Chief Secretary ]RESPONDENTS. Government of Maharashtra, ] Mantralaya, Mumbai & others.] ----- Mr.S.R.Barlinge, Advocate, holding for Mr.D.N.Suryawanshi, Advocate,for the petitioner. Mr.U.K.Patil,Asstt.Govt.Pleader,for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr.M.S.Deshmukh,Advocate, for respondent No.3. ----- AND WRIT PETITION NO.6344 OF 2007 Prakash s/o Motiram Piratwad] R/o N-11,B-17/2 TV Center, ]PETITIONER. Aurangabad ] VERSUS WP 6194/2007 - 2 - 1 The State of Maharashtra ] Through its Chief Secretary ]RESPONDENTS. Government of Maharashtra, ] Mantralaya, Mumbai & others.] ----- Mr.S.R.Barlinge, Advocate, holding for Mr.D.N.Suryawanshi, Advocate,for the petitioner. Mr.U.K.Patil,Asstt.Govt.Pleader,for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr.M.S.Deshmukh,Advocate, for respondent No.3. ----- AND WRIT PETITION NO.6760 OF 2007 Shaikh Naim Shaikh Lal ] R/o Paltan, Hingoli, ]PETITIONER. Tq.& Dist. Hingoli. ] VERSUS 1 State of Maharashtra ] Through its Secretary ]RESPONDENTS. (Revenue and Forest) ] Mantralaya, Mumbai & others.] ----- Mr.P.S.Agrawal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.U.K.Patil,Asstt.Govt.Pleader,for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr.S.R.Barlinge, Advocate, holding for Mr.D.N.Suryawanshi, Advocate,for respondent No.3 ----- Coram : Naresh H. Patil and N.D.Deshpande, JJ. Date : 17th June, 2009. WP 6194/2007 - 3 - ORAL ORDER : [ Per – Naresh H. Patil, J. ] Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2 The learned counsel Shri.S.R.Barlinge appearing on behalf of petitioner Prakash Motiram Piratwad submitted that the petitioner has submitted documentary evidence in support of his caste claim that he belongs to “Mannerwarlu” Scheduled Tribe. The affinity test, ethnic linkages report is also in favour of the petitioner. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee (for short “Scrutiny Committee”) failed to appreciate the evidence led by petitioner and did not dilate much on the affinity test report, which has caused prejudice to the petitioner’s case. According to counsel, though in the documentary record submitted before the Scrutiny Committee by the petitioner, “Mannerwar” appears to be the caste of his son, daughter, real sisters and father, the same being synonymous with “Mannerwarlu” Scheduled Tribe, the WP 6194/2007 - 4 - Scrutiny Committee ought to have considered and granted caste validity certificate to the petitioner’s caste claim as “Mannerwarlu”. According to petitioner, the Scrutiny Committee, therefore, erred in rejecting the caste claim of petitioner. 3 According to counsel for petitioner, the petitioner was issued caste certificate as “Mannerwarlu” in the year 1974, he joined as Junior Clerk in the Government service in the year 1977 and has reached to the rank of Deputy Collector as on today. 4 The learned counsel Shri.M.S.Deshmukh, appearing for Scrutiny Committee, submitted that there is sufficient record submitted by petitioner himself which goes contrary to the petitioner’s case. There is contra evidence which has to be read against the petitioner. By pointing out specific documents, it was urged by the counsel WP 6194/2007 - 5 - that in Hakka Nondani Patrak the petitioner’s father’s caste was mentioned as “Munurwar”. The petitioner’s real son has got validity certificate as “Mannerwar”. Petitioner’s sisters’ record also shows that they belong to “Munnarwar” caste. “Munnarwar” is recognized as a Special Backward Category of the State of Maharashtra. 5 As regards appreciation of affinity test report, the counsel for Scrutiny Committee submitted that normally the Scrutiny Committee deals with affinity test report little elaborately by considering the ethnic linkages emerging out of the facts of each case. In this case, the observations made by the Committee are sufficient enough to discard the caste claim of petitioner. 6 We have even heard the submissions of learned counsel Shri.P.S.Agrawal, appearing on behalf of petitioner in Writ Petition No.6760 of 2007, who has termed himself as a complainant in WP 6194/2007 - 6 - this case. The counsel submitted that in the case of son of petitioner, the petitioner himself has filed an affidavit stating that he (petitioner) belongs to “Mannerwar” caste and his son be granted caste certificate as belonging to “Mannerwar”. The counsel further submitted that by Exhibit “D” in Writ Petition No.6760 of 2007, which is a report written by petitioner himself personally to Collector, Hingoli, the petitioner informed that his case be considered as belonging to “Mannerwar” a Special Backward Category. The counsel, therefore, submitted that the petitioner miserably failed to lead and adduce evidence in support of his caste claim. 7 We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for respective parties in all these three writ petitions, which are being heard together. 8 We find that the documents produced by the WP 6194/2007 - 7 - petitioner at Serial Nos.5 to 10 require more attention, which reads thus : “5 Xerox copy of the Birth Date and Caste certificate issued by H.M. Of the applicant, the caste is mentioned as Munnurwar (Page No.15, 104, 379). 6 Xerox copy of Admission Registration Extract of applicant’s Real Sister Punyarati Motiram, issued by ZP Central Primary School, Tamsa, Tq.Hadgaon, Dist. Nanded, vide admission registration No. 68/169, date of admission 29/6/1957, the caste is mentioned as Munarwar (Page No. 16). 7 Xerox copy of Admission Registration Extract of applicant’s Real Sister Tarabai Motiram Piratwad, issued by ZP Central Primary School, Tamsa, Tq.Hadgaon, Dist. Nanded, vide admission registration No.100/210, date of admission 19/7/1958, the caste is mentioned as Munarwar (Page No.17). 8 Xerox copy of the Hakka Nondani Patrak, the Caste of the Applicant’s father Motiram Laxman is mentioned as Munurwar (Page No.18). 9 Xerox copy of the Caste Certificate of the applicant’s Real Brother, Piratwad Subhash Motiram, as belonging to Mannerwarlu, Scheduled Tribe granted by Taluka Magistrate, Hadgaon, vide bearing No.1981/A/Misc/ws/13, dated 2/2/1981 (Page No.19). WP 6194/2007 - 8 - 10 Xerox copy of Validity Certificate of applicant’s Son, Amit Prakashrao Piratwad, the Caste Mannerwar, is validated by VJNT OBC & SBC Caste Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad, vide bearing No.C/Sec./01/XII/129/CVN/99-00, dated 9/5/2000 (Page No.33, 89, 109, 389).” 9 The documents mentioned at Sr.Nos.16 and 17 onwards are stated to be the validity certificates of the relatives of the petitioner. It is curious to note that the petitioner has not submitted genealogy in support of his caste claim that which of the relatives have been granted caste validity certificates and how far they are close in relation to the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the relations are distant one, but their validity certificates are required to be considered in petitioner’s favour. 10 We find that the petitioner’s son got a validity certificate as “Mannerwar” which is a Special Backward Category. The petitioner’s other record shows that in Hakka Nondani Patrak WP 6194/2007 - 9 - petitioner’s caste was mentioned as “Mannerwar”. The petitioner’s sisters’ record also goes contrary to the petitioner’s case. The other record which was produced does not support the petitioner’s caste claim. 11 Now, turning to the issue raised by learned counsel Shri.Barlinge, appearing for petitioner, that the Scrutiny Committee ought to have dealt with the affinity test report in detail, we find that, in the facts of the case, it is a clear case where there is sufficient evidence against the petitioner to show that he does not belong to “Mannerwarlu” Scheduled Tribe. There is contra evidence which goes against the petitioner. The documentary evidence in respect of petitioner’s close relatives like son and sisters shows that they are belonging to “Mannerwar” and not “Mannerwarlu”. The Scrutiny Committee has observed that the affinity test report does not support the petitioner’s caste claim. WP 6194/2007 - 10 - 12 We do not find any glaring or serious error in the view adopted by Scrutiny Committee. The burden is on the petitioner to prove his caste claim. The record produced before us is clear enough to hold that the petitioner has failed to establish his caste claim as “Mannerwarlu”. 13 In view of the facts of the case no interference in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is warranted. There is no merit in both the petitions and they deserve to be dismissed. 14 The learned counsel Shri.P.S.Agrawal, appearing on behalf of petitioner Shaikh Naim Shaikh Lal in Writ Petition No.6770 of 2007, submitted that in spite of petitioner’s caste claim being invalidated, the State Government is trying to give benefit of Government Resolution dated 15th June, 2006 on the pretext that “Mannerwar” caste was included in Special Backward Category on 15th WP 6194/2007 - 11 - June, 1995 and the petitioner joined service prior to the year 1995. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that in view of provisions of Sections 10 and 11 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of)Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (for short “the Act of 2000”), it is binding on the State Government to take suitable action against the petitioner in accordance with law. 15 The learned counsel Shri.M.S.Deshmukkh appearing on behalf of Scrutiny Committee places reliance on a reported judgment in the case of Sunil Ingle Vs. Zilla Parishad [2009(2) ALL MR 867] in support of his submission that the Government Resolution dated 15th June, 1995 is held to be invalid and it cannot be enforced. 16 On this issue, the learned counsel WP 6194/2007 - 12 - Shri.Barlinge, appearing on behalf of petitioner Prakash Piratwad, has placed reliance on a reported judgment of Apex Court in the case of Raju Ramsingh Vasave vs. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar [2009(1) Mh.L.J. 1], in support of his submission that in view of this judgment, from the open category petitioner’s services could be protected. 17 We find that the State would apply the law equally to all its citizens. The view adopted by Supreme Court and this Court is reflected in the judgments cited (supra). We, therefore, direct the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Government of Maharashtra, to take appropriate action strictly in accordance with law as regards the services of the petitioner, within eight weeks from today. The learned Assistant Government Patil Shri.U.K.Patil would place the decision taken by the State Government in the proceedings, before this Court. Authenticated copy duly signed by Sheristedar of this Court be provided to learned WP 6194/2007 - 13 - Asstt.Govt.Pleader. 18 With these observations, we dismiss the Writ Petitions No.6194 of 2007 and 6344 of 2007 filed by petitioner Prakash Piratwad and dispose of the Writ Petition No.6760 of 2007 filed by petitioner Shaikh Naim Shaikh Lal. [ N.D.Deshpande,J.] [ Naresh H. Patil,J.] pcr/o/wp6194.07