1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1994 OF 1994 Mohan Mahadeo Dhumal ) Post Hol, Taluka Phaltan, ) District Satara. ) .. Petitioner V/s 1. The Chairman ) Committee for Scrutiny and ) Verification of Tribal Claims, ) Tribal Research and Training ) Institute, Maharashtra State. ) 2. The Director ) Social Welfare, Cultural Affairs, ) Sports and Tourism Department, ) Government of Maharashtra, ) Mantralaya, Bombay-400 032. ) 3. The Executive Engineer, ) P.W. Department, Satara, ) District Satara. ) 4. The State of Maharashtra ) .. Respondents Mr.K.H. Chopda for the petitioner. Mr.C.R. Sonawane, A.G.P. for the respondents. CORAM : S.B. MHASE & D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 4TH JULY 2007 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 9TH JULY 2007 JUDGMENT JUDGMENT JUDGMENT: (Per D.G. Karnik, J.) 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the 2 order dated 5th March 1994 passed by the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims (for short "the Scrutiny Committee") rejecting the petitioner’s claim that he belongs to Mahadeo Koli - a Scheduled Tribe declared as such under the Presidential Order. 2. The petitioner was born on 1st June 1968 and appeared for S.S.C. examination in March 1986. The school leaving certificate of the petitioner shows his caste to be Hindu Koli. The petitioner, however, obtained a caste certificate from the Tahsildar, Phaltan on 30th September 1985 that he belonged to "Hindu Mahadeo Koli", which is a Scheduled Tribe. In the year 1989 or thereabout on the basis of the said certificate, the petitioner was appointed in government service as a peon in a seat reserved for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. As per the Government Resolution dated 23rd January 1985, the claim of the petitioner under the caste/tribes on the basis of a certificate issued by the Tahsildar was sent for scrutiny to the Scrutiny Committee. By an order dated 5th March 1994, the Scrutiny Committee held that the petitioner does not belong to "Mahadeo Koli Tribe", but belongs to a Koli caste, which is purely a non-tribal group categorised as other backward class. In this view of the matter, the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decision of the Scrutiny Committee was erroneous and perverse. The Scrutiny Committee has not taken into consideration the relevant material produced before it and has not given proper importance and weight to the entries made in the school register in respect of the petitioner’s cousins. Learned counsel invited our attention to the school leaving certificate dated 13th August 1968 issued to Chandrakant Ganpat Dhumal, who is alleged to be paternal cousin brother of the petitioner. The said school leaving certificate shows that Chandrakant Ganpat Dhumal was born on 11th June 1950 and his caste was recorded in the school as Hindu Mahadeo Koli. Counsel also invited our attention to the school leaving certificate of Prakash Ganpat Dhumal, who is brother of Chandrakant Ganpat Dhumal and alleged to be cousin brother of the petitioner. The school leaving certificate shows his date to be 1st July 1947 and his caste is shown as Hindu Mahadeo Koli. Our attention was also invited to the caste certificate of Shankar Yadu Dhumal, who is alleged to be another paternal cousin of the petitioner. The said caste certificate dated 29th June 1991 issued by the Executive Magistrate, Phaltan shows the caste of Shankar Yadu Dhumal to be Hindu Mahadeo Koli. Similarly, our attention was also invited to school leaving certificates of Dilip Digambar Dhumal 4 and Baban Baburao Dhumal, wherein their caste is shown Hindu Mahadeo Koli. It is submitted that they are also paternal cousin brothers of the petitioner. 4. Relying on the copies of the certificates annexed to the petition and referred to by us in the earlier paragraph, learned counsel submitted that the Scrutiny Committee did not attach proper importance to the said certificates and wrongly rejected the claim of the petitioner. 5. From the decision of Scrutiny Committee, it appears that the petitioner’s claim that he belongs to Hindu Mahadeo Koli was not sent to the Vigilance Cell for verification. In Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, reported in AIR 1995 Commissioner, Tribal Development, reported in AIR 1995 Commissioner, Tribal Development, reported in AIR 1995 SC 94 SC 94 SC 94. The Supreme Court has laid down the procedure to be followed for issuance of social status certificates and their scrutiny. In para 13 of the decision, the Supreme Court has said about appointment of Vigilance Cell consisting of a senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in overall charge and required number of number of police inspectors to investigate into the social status claim. The procedure to be followed by the Vigilance Cell is also laid down. No doubt, the petitioner’s claim was considered by the Scrutiny Committee in February/March 1994, i.e. prior to the 5 decision of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). However, since the claim is regarding the social status of the petitioner, we feel it appropriate that the claim should be investigated afresh by the current Scrutiny Committee in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). This is especially necessary because the petitioner has produced on record certificates issued to the persons who allegedly are his cousin brothers whose castes have been shown to be Mahadeo Koli. The Scrutiny Committee would be required to examine whether the said persons are really the cousin brothers and whether the claim made by those cousin brothers that they belong to Mahadeo Koli tribe has been verified and accepted by an appropriately constituted Scrutiny Committee. 6. In the circumstances, we allow the writ petition partly and direct that the caste claim of the petitioner be sent back for verification by the Scrutiny Committee as it exists today in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra). The Scrutiny Committee shall give opportunity to the petitioner of being heard in the matter and decide the matter expeditiously. 7. Rule is made absolute to the extent indicated 6 above. (D.G. KARNIK, J.) (S.B. MHASE, J.)