WP No. 4605/09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4605 OF 2009 Krishna s/o. Siddya Guttedar, Age 19 yrs., Occu. Student, R/o. Pandhari wadi, Tq. Shirur, Anantpal, Dist. Latur. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. The Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Through its Dy. Director (R), M.S., Aurangabad. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Nilanga, Dist. Latur. 4. The Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra State, Mumbai. 5. The Principal, Modern College of Engineering, off J.M. Road, Shivajinagar, Pune. ....Respondents. Mr. B.R. Kedar h/f. Mr. A.H. Koralkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4. Mr. P.S. Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 2. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T. V. NALAWADE, JJ. Reserved on : 22nd September, 2011. Pronounced on : 29th September, 2011. WP No. 4605/09 2 JUDGMENT : [ PER T. V. NALAWADE, J. ] 1. Heard both the sides. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final hearing by the consent of parties. 3. The petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the decision given by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad. The Caste Scrutiny Committee has rejected the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to "Rajgond" community, a Scheduled Tribe, notified as such in Maharashtra. 4. When the petitioner was studying in 12th Standard at Shri. Anantpal Nutan Vidhayala, Shirur Anantpal, Dist. Latur, he filed application to his school for referring his caste verification application to Caste Scrutiny Committee. The school forwarded his application to the Committee. During the pendency of the proceeding referred to the Committee, on the basis of caste certificate issued to the petitioner by the authority, the petitioner got admission in Engineering College from aforesaid reserved category in the year 2008-09. After considering the documents produced by the petitioner, the Committee referred the matter to Vigilance Cell. The first report was submitted by the Vigilance Cell on 26.5.2008. Copy of this report was supplied to the petitioner WP No. 4605/09 3 and his explanation was called. On 28.8.2008 the Committee made another order and directed the Vigilance Cell to verify the birth certificate of father of the petitioner as the date of birth of father of 1953 was registered on 25.6.1962. In respect of this matter, the Vigilance Cell gave a report to the Committee. But the Committee did not supply copy of this report to the petitioner. However, hearing was given to the petitioner on 26.3.2009 and the claim of the petitioner came to be rejected. 5. The Committee has given reasoning that the caste certificates produced by the petitioner are not pre-1950 period. The petitioner has produced most of the record of his relatives from mother's side and so the Committee has observed that the record is not in respect of the blood relatives of the petitioners. The entries made in favour of the petitioner and his brother in school record are not given much weight by the Committee, by observing that they are of recent period. The Committee has observed that the father could not produced information with regard to God, Goddess, occupation, custom, culture, followings etc. associated with real Scheduled Tribe community people. 6. In the order, the Committee has referred both Vigilance Cell reports dated 26.5.2008 and 2.2.2009 and the Committee has observed that the Vigilance Cell has pointed out that :- WP No. 4605/09 4 (a) the applicant could not produce old documents of pre-1950 period to establish his tribe claim; and (b) the applicant could not establish any affinity and ethnic link towards "Rajgond" community, a Scheduled Tribe. 7. The petitioner has relied on the case reported as 2009 (1) ALL MR 741 [Chetan s/o. Chandrashekhar Swami Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.] and a copy of judgment delivered on 5.8.2004 in Writ Petition No. 4560 of 2004 [ Coram : S.B. Mhase & A.P. Deshpande, JJ. ]. In aforesaid two cases, this Court has observed that the record of post-1950 period cannot be outrightly discarded as there may not be such record available, if the predecessors of the claimant were illiterate, unemployed or were not having any landed property. This Court has observed that the record of post-1950 period in aforesaid circumstances is also relevant and needs to be given due importance. In Writ Petition No. 4560/2004 this Court has also observed that the Vigilance Cell Report needs to be duly considered by the Committee. On the basis of the order made by Committee and the two Vigilance Cell Reports available on record, it can be said that the points verified by the Vigilance Cell are not at all considered by the Committee and without applying mind to the reports, the aforesaid observations are made by the Committee on the basis of two Vigilance Cell Reports. WP No. 4605/09 5 8. It is true that the caste certificate in respect of blood relations from father's side need to be given more importance, but the caste certificates in respect of the relations from maternal side are also relevant and they also need to be considered. This is because as per the customs and practices of such tribes, generally marriages are performed amongst the persons from the same community in India. It appears that no attempt was made to verify the record of relatives from maternal side and no attempt was made to ascertain the original place of the father of the petitioner. In the present case, it needs to be verified as to whether the claim of father that he was resident of the place where the date of birth registered in 1962, is correct as virtually no information is available in respect of the relatives from father's side. Further the entry in the birth record came to be made after more than ten years of the so called birth date of the father of the petitioner. 9. Rule 12 (4) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules shows that if the Caste Scrutiny Committee forms an opinion that the Vigilance Cell Report is against the claimant, a copy of the report needs to be supplied to the claimant and his explanation needs to be sought. It is already observed that some observations are made by the Committee on the basis of report of Vigilance Cell, but the copy of WP No. 4605/09 6 second report was not supplied to the petitioner. In the landmark case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others reported as AIR 1995 SC 94, the Apex Court has laid down that it is necessary to follow the principles of natural justice and the persons whose rights are affected as a result of inquiry, should be heard. As the copy of second report was not supplied to the petitioner and aforesaid inquiry was not made and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to explain the observations made in the Vigilance Cell Report, this Court holds that the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee needs to be set aside. 10. So the impugned order dated 19.6.2009 passed by the respondent No. 2 - Committee is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondent No. 2 - Committee for fresh inquiry. The fresh inquiry is to be completed within five months from today. 11. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] ssc/wp