(1) wp1650-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1650 OF 2009 Manik s/o Ganpatrao Watane, R/o At Post Nandkheda, Tq. and Dist.Parbhani, at present Jogaiwadi Parisar, Mauli Nagar, Ambajogai, Tq. Ambajogai, District Beed. PETITIONER VERSUS The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad, through its Deputy Director (R), Aurangabad. RESPONDENT ..... Mr. S.M. Vibhute, advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Additional Govt. Pleader for the Respondent. ..... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 5th AUGUST, 2011 JUDGEMENT (PER : M.T. JOSHI, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties and heard finally. 2. By the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the respondent - The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification (2) wp1650-09 Committee, Aurangabad (for short, "the Committee") whereby his tribe certificate showing that he belongs to "Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe" was invalidated by the Committee. 3. Before the Respondent - Committee, the petitioner inter alia has submitted the photocopies of Validity Certificates of his blood relatives, namely, Raju Datrao Watane, cousin sisters - Arati Balasaheb Watane, Kirati Balasaheb Watane, blood relatives Raju Balaji Watane, Chandrakant Balaji Watane, Bhanudas Ramkishan Watane and Kundlik Ramrao Jukate, whereby their tribe certificates were validated by the Committee. The Vigilance Cell, during enquiry, had collected admission register extracts of 21 relatives of the petitioner wherein the caste of those relatives was mostly shown either as `Munarwar', `Maratha' or `Kolam'. In some of the cases, it was found that caste "Mannervarlu" was written in different ink and in one case, to the word "Munarwar", the letters "lu" were added in different ink. 4. The Respondent – Committee considered the (3) wp1650-09 tribe validation certificates of the relatives of the petitioner and observed that each and every case needs to be considered in the backdrop of its own merit and the candidate has to stand on his own legs. It was further observed that the documents are of recent origin. Further, it was noted that the information furnished by the petitioner about traditional occupation, god/goddess, surnames, customs, culture, affinity, following etc. are not associated with the real Scheduled Tribe community people. In the circumstances, the tribe certificate of the petitioner was invalidated. Hence, the present petition. 5. The petitioner has specifically raised the following grounds while challenging the impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee : That the Respondent – Committee did not appreciate that the father of the petitioner is illiterate and, therefore, his school record would not be available. Further, the validation of the tribe certificates of 6 to 7 relatives of the petitioner was discarded perversely by the (4) wp1650-09 Respondent – Committee. Even tribe certificate of his real sister Ku. Padmin is verified and found to be correct by the Vigilance Officer. While in the present case, it was observed that the school records of Balaji Munjaji and Nirmala Munjaji were suspicious, their tribe certificates were, however, earlier validated by the Respondent – Committee on 19th September, 2005 and 17th May, 2007, respectively. Lastly, it was submitted that the Respondent – Committee ought to have discussed the affinity test and ethnic linkage in its judgement by applying its mind and, therefore, the petitioner urged that the impugned order be set aside. 6. Mr. S.M. Vibhute, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relied on various authorities before us. Some of them pertains to the grounds raised in the petition while some of the authorities are extraneous to the contentions raised in the petition. For example, he relied on the judgement delivered by ourselves in Writ Petition No. 6948 of 2009 (Dattatraya s/o Bapurao Parde vs. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee, (5) wp1650-09 Aurangabad), which was regarding the non-examination of the parents of the candidate by the Vigilance Cell resulting into the remand of the case to the Respondent – Committee. However, as already pointed out, this ground is not taken by the petitioner in the present petition. On the other hand, Mr. Vibhute, during the argument, has submitted that the Vigilance Report is in favour of the candidate and, therefore, he supports the same. 7. Before adverting to the other case-laws, it is to be borne in mind that the details regarding the genealogy placed in the petition by the petitioner does not tally with the letter at Exhibit-E filed by the petitioner. The said letter was sent by one of the relatives of the petitioner i.e. Manik Watane to the Respondent – Committee for the purposes of validation of his tribe claim. While the petitioner in the petition claimed that his great-grandfather Venkatrao had two sons, namely, Narayan and Madhav, the letter of Manik Watane at Exhibit-E showed that said Venkatrao had three sons. Besides Narayan and Madhav, he had third son, namely, Baburao. Further, (6) wp1650-09 the school admission record of majority of the blood relatives of the petitioner casted a serious doubt on the claim of the petitioner that he or his blood relatives belong to `Mannerwarlu' tribe. The Vigilance Cell had found that tribe “Mannerwarlu” in some cases was written in different ink or sometimes, letters “lu” are added to word “Mannerwar” (which is not a Scheduled Tribe) in some of the record. Considering all these facts, if some orders validating the tribe certificates of some of the relatives are passed by the Respondent – Committee, we do not find any infirmity when the claim of the present petitioner is rejected after thorough enquiry into his case. In view of the above findings of the facts, it would be useful to turn to the authorities relied on by Mr. V.M. Vibhute, learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. In the case of “Varsha Ramsing Dhanavat vs. State of Maharashtra and others” 2006 (4) Mh.L.J. 676, a Division Bench of this Court has held that a statement of the relatives of the claimant cannot be expected to be cent percent accurate and, therefore, (7) wp1650-09 their answer regarding traits and characteristics of the caste should be appreciated liberally. 9. In Writ Petition No. 5251 of 2010, in our order dated 26th July, 2011, we have observed that the Respondent – Committee had not discussed in that case the reason as to why it differed with the Vigilance Cell Report concerning the affinity. 10. In Writ Petition No. 7417 of 2007, a Division Bench of this Court had held that the order of the Scrutiny Committee did not disclose as to why the case of the petitioner based on tribal traits and characteristics has been rejected. 11. In the case of “Ashwini Anil Chavan vs. State of Maharashtra and others” 2006 (4) ALL MR 106, it was held that while considering the question of affinity, it is necessary for the Scrutiny Committee to apply its mind to the Report of the Research Officer. 12. In the case of “Narayan Shankar Solanki vs. (8) wp1650-09 State of Maharashtra and others” 2009 (2) ALL MR 363, it was observed that the Committee therein had given a go-bye to an important factor that the Research Officer should be associated with Vigilance Cell in an enquiry. Further, in that case, earlier, the Court had specifically directed the Committee to take fresh decision in accordance with law after associating the Research Officer, yet, the same was ignored by the Committee. 13. In the case of “Rajesh Jagdishrao Gode vs. State of Maharashtra and others” 2006 (4) ALL MR 131, the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to “koli Scheduled Tribe” was invalidated on the sole ground that a document showing the transfer of property was unregistered wherein the tribe was mentioned. In the circumstances, the case was remanded back by the Court to the Tribe Verification Committee. 14. In Writ Petition No. 318/1999, by order dated 13th August, 2010, the case was totally different i.e. the person who heard the case had not decided the same. In Writ Petition No. 1150/2010, (9) wp1650-09 this Court has further found various discrepancies in the proceeding before the Tribe Verification Committee like no proper constitution of Vigilance Cell, non-association of the Research Officer to the Vigilance Cell, etc. 15. All this shooting the volley of the case- laws by the learned counsel for the petitioner shows that against the grounds raised in the present petition, some of the case-law is relied on. Each of the case has to be decided in its own facts. In the present case, the specific attack of the petitioner is that the validity granted to the tribe certificates of his blood relatives was ignored. The Respondent - Tribe Verification Committee has, however, forwarded the reason for the same. It has particularly taken into consideration the tampering of the school records made in the cases of the number of the blood relatives of the petitioner. 16. In view of all the above facts and legal position, the ratio of any of the case-law, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, would not (10) wp1650-09 be applicable in the present case. In view of the above material, the petition will have to be dismissed. 17. In the result, the petition is dismissed. The Rule is discharged accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] npj/wp1650-09