WP No. 3520/09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3520 OF 2009 Satwaji Narsingrao Gedewad, R/o. Ashoknagar, Mukhed, Dist. Nanded. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, The Secretary, Department of Tribal Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, MS, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3. The Taluka Executive Magistrate, Mukhed, Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded. 4. The Principal, Vidya Vikas Adyapak Vidyalaya, Ajgaon, Tq. Savantwadi, Dist. Sindhudurg. 5. Maharashtra State Examination Board, Pune Through its Registrar. 6. The Collector, Collectorate, Nanded. ....Respondents. Mr. A.S. Gholegaonkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 6. Mr. S.S. Tope, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Mr. V.H. Solunke h/f. Mr. Anup Nikam, Advocate for respondent No. 5. WP No. 3520/09 2 CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T. V. NALAWADE, JJ. Reserved on : 16th September, 2011. Pronounced on : 21st September, 2011. ORDER : [ PER T. V. NALAWADE, J. ] 1. The petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to challenge the decision given by Caste Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad. The Caste Scrutiny Committee has rejected the claim of petitioner that he belongs to "Koli Mahadev", a Scheduled Tribe in Maharashtra. 2. The petitioner used a copy of caste certificate dated 23.7.1990 allegedly issued to him by Tahsildar, Mukhed, Dist. Nanded for getting admission to D. Ed. course from reserved category in the year 2000-2001. In the application submitted to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner gave the names of his parents and name of his brother as his relatives and he informed that they were illiterate and so there was no other record regarding his caste with him. He informed that he had obtained the caste certificate from the Tahsildar on the basis of certificates issued by Talathi, Police Patil etc. and on the basis of School Leaving Certificate of his school. The Caste Scrutiny Committee referred the matter to Vigilance Cell. The Vigilance Cell recorded statement of father of the petitioner and it made inquiry WP No. 3520/09 3 with Tahsildar, Mukhed and also with the school of the petitioner. The Vigilance Cell found that the Tahsildar had not issued the caste certificate bearing the number which is appearing on a copy produced by the petitioner for getting the admission. The original caste certificate was never produced by the petitioner before the Committee. The father of petitioner did not give the names of his relatives with whom the inquiry could be made by the Vigilance Cell. 3. On 21.12.2002 the Committee issued show cause notice to the petitioner and also to his father and it supplied copies of Vigilance Cell Report to them. This notice was not replied by the petitioner and his father. The Scrutiny Committee fixed some dates like 3.1.2003, 28.1.2003 and by sending notices to the petitioner and his father, they were called by the Committee for personal hearing. They did not turn up and so the Committee decided the matter on 3.3.2003. The Committee has considered the copy of caste certificate allegedly issued to relative of the petitioner, entry made in the school record of the petitioner that he belongs to "Koli Mahadev" caste (in the year 1985), information supplied by father of petitioner regarding the custom and practices etc. The Committee has observed that the petitioner and his family have not even basic knowledge of the WP No. 3520/09 4 traits, characteristics, customs and culture etc. of "Koli Mahadev" a Scheduled Tribe. The Committee has considered the circumstance that Tahsildar has not issued any caste certificate to the petitioner. The Committee has observed that not much weight can be given to the entry made in the school record in the year 1985 as it was made after the Presidential Order, after inclusion of the tribe in the Presidential Order. 4. The original record which was available to the Committee is seen by this Court and both the sides are heard. The record of this proceedings shows that the claimant was never diligent in the present proceedings also and due to his approach in the proceedings, the proceedings filed in the year 2003 became ready and came up for hearing in the year 2011. 5. The record shows that no relative was produced by the petitioner before the Committee, no explanation was given by the petitioner and his father with regard to Vigilance Cell Report, no explanation was given with regard to the report that Tahsildar has not issued caste certificate to the petitioner and no explanation is given as to why the original caste certificate is not produced by the petitioner before the Committee. Copy of caste certificate issued to one Ramesh Gedewad was produced, but even affidavit WP No. 3520/09 5 of the said Ramesh was not filed. The record shows that on one occasion only a telegram was sent by the petitioner that as there was some difficulty, it was not possible for him to appear before the Committee. There is a record of service of notices etc. sent to the petitioner and his father. The record shows that the petitioner and his father avoided to appear before the Committee. 6. The record and aforesaid circumstances show that there was no alternative before the Caste Scrutiny Committee than to reject the claim of the petitioner. The order of the Committee is consistent with the record available to it and no perversity could be found in the order. Thus, in exercise of review jurisdiction, it is not possible to interfere in the decision of the Committee. 7. It was submitted in the present proceeding that the Vigilance Cell Report was not supplied to the petitioner. The aforesaid discussion shows that there is no force in this submission. In the present proceedings, a copy of Caste Validity Certificate issued to one Suresh Gedewad is produced and it was submitted that this record can be considered by the Committee. In the present proceedings first time copy of affidavit of one Amol is filed and Amol has given the description of family tree. It appears that these are the copies of the documents produced for WP No. 3520/09 6 obtaining validity certificate in respect of Suresh Piraji Gedewad. Even the name of Suresh is not shown in the family tree given by Amol. No such information was supplied to the Vigilance Cell or the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The fact remains that a copy of false certificate was produced by the petitioner for getting admission to D.Ed. course and he never appeared before the Committee to substantiate the claim. In view of these circumstances, the order of the Committee cannot be interfered with. So the petition stands rejected. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] ssc/