1 Wp6344-00 dmt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6344 OF 2000 Vanita Sudhakar Nandanwar age 25 years, Occupation Teacher, residing at 125/234 Sanjay Park, Pune 411 032. .... Petitioner. V/s. 1. The Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Tribal Research and Training Institute, Maharashtra State, Pune. 2. The Shikshan Mandal, Pune Municipal Corporation, Pune. 3. The State of Maharashtra. (through Tribal Development Department) Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. ... Respondents. 2 Wp6344-00 Mr. P.B. Shah for Petitioner. Mrs. M.P. Thakur, Addl. G.P. For Respondent Nos. 1 & 3. Mr. Sanjeev J. Rairkar for Respondent No. 2. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE : 7th APRIL, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.) : By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Pune, dated 22nd September 2000 by which the Scrutiny Committee came to the conclusion that the petitioner does not belong to Halbi Scheduled Tribe community and her claim towards the same is held invalid. The Certificate given by the Tahsildar Executive Magistrate, Haveli dated 26.6.90 was invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee. The said order is challenged in this writ petition. 2. On the basis of the certificate granted by Tahsildar Executive Magistrate, Haveli the petitioner got employment with Respondent No. 2, The 3 Wp6344-00 Shikshan Mandal, Pune Municipal Corporation, Pune. Since her caste certificate is invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee, the Respondent No. 2 employer also gave notice to the petitioner as to why her services should not be terminated. However, in view of the pendency of the petition, no further steps have been taken by Respondent No. 2 in this behalf. 3. Mr. Shah, the learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently submitted that the Scrutiny Committee in paragraph 2 has observed that in an extract of school renewal register issued by the Head Master, the caste of the cousin uncle of the Petitioner Shri Uttam Babara Nandanwar is mentioned as Koshti. This document pertains to the period of 1945 according to the Scrutiny Committee. Mr. Shah, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the said document is in fact after 1950 as the cousin uncle of the Petitioner enrolled in the school in the year 1952 and he continued to study in the school upto 1957. Of course, it is required to be noted that the petitioner has not produced any document before the Scrutiny Committee regarding her cousin uncle’s school leaving certificate and the Scrutiny Committee relied upon an extract of school register issued by the Head Master of the School. 4. It is pointed out by Mrs. Thakur, the learned AGP., that this information was gathered by the police during vigilance inquiry from the school authority. The Scrutiny Committee also found that the document regarding petitioner’s cousin uncle Uttam Babara Nandanwar pertains to the year 1945 4 Wp6344-00 which has got highest probative value to determine the tribe claim of the petitioner. However, the caste of the petitioner’s cousin uncle is recorded as Koshti. The relevant portion from the order of the Scrutiny Committee reads as under :- “ The candidate has furnished her and her father’s school leaving Certificate and birth extract wherein caste is recorded as Halbi. Her father’s certificate is pertaining to the period of 1953. After the issuance of the first Presidential order 1950 which have no any probative value to determine the tribe claim of the candidate. Comparatively the caste of the candidate’s cousin uncle Shri Uttam Babara Nandanwar is recorded as Koshti in an extract of school general register which is obtained by way of enquiry. This document pertains to the period of 1945 which have got highest probative value to determine the tribe claim of the candidate. However the caste of the candidate’s cousin uncle is recorded as Koshti. Therefore the caste of the candidate and her father should not be different than them because the caste is always acquired by birth and paternal side. It is clear that at the time of school admission the caste of the candidate and her father is recorded as Halbi with a view to grab the concession of Halba Schedule Tribe. Therefore the school leaving Certificate of the candidate and her father can be treated 5 Wp6344-00 as manipulated record.” 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s cousin uncle enrolled in the school in the year 1952. He says that the date of birth of the cousin uncle of the petitioner is 1945 however the Scrutiny Committee has wrongly taken 1945 as the date of the document. Mr. Shah has relied upon various judgments of this Court to point out that when relevant documents are not considered the matter is required to be remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee. 6. The learned AGP., on the other hand, submitted that the Scrutiny Committee has considered the matter in proper perspective and even the petitioner failed in affinity test. The learned AGP has pointed out that on the basis of the vigilance report as well as on the basis of the documents on record as well as on the basis of the affinity test, the caste certificate of the petitioner is invalidated. 7. The learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 supported the arguments of the learned AGP. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. We have gone through the petition and the documents annexed to the same. 6 Wp6344-00 9. The Scrutiny Committee, in our view, has no doubt considered the matter in great detail and various documents have been considered by it. Regarding custom, the Scrutiny Committee has also observed that traditional occupation of the family is farm labour and also weaving. Surnames of petitioner’s relatives are Nadage and Pakhale and they do not know about traditional dance. The Scrutiny Committee, therefore, has considered relevant aspects of the matter while deciding the claim of the petitioner. However, the difficulty is only in connection with a document regarding petitioner’s cousin uncle Shri Uttam Babara Nandanwar which is in connection with school registration. The Scrutiny Committee has found that the document is prior to 1950. The said document was collected during inquiry but there is nothing on record by which it can be established that the said document is prior to 1950. Since the Scrutiny Committee has given great weightage to the said document and since from the record it is not possible for us to come to the conclusion that the document is really prior to 1950, in our view, the matter is required to be sent back to the Scrutiny Committee for considering the said document afresh and to find out whether the document is prior to 1950. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 1955 is the year when the petitioner’s cousin uncle was studying in the school and it is not the year in which he was admitted in the school and that he was admittedly in the school on 16.4.1952. The learned AGP., says that as on today it is not possible for her to say that the said document is prior to 1950 or not. 7 Wp6344-00 10. Since it is not possible for this Court to come to any positive conclusion as to on what basis it is said that the said document is prior to 1950 and since great weightage is given to the said document and other documents have not been considered mainly because of this document, we deem it fit to remand the matter back to the Scrutiny Committee to consider the said document and to find out whether the document is prior to 1950 or after 1950. We do not wish to say that even if the document is found to be after 1950 the petitioner can be said to have made out his case in any manner as ultimately the vigilance report and affinity test are of importance which have also been considered by the Scrutiny Committee. Since there is no clarity regarding the said document as to whether it is prior to 1950 or after 1950 and since great weightage is given to this document by the Scrutiny Committee, we are remanding the matter back to the Scrutiny Committee in view of the fact that the particular document was not properly considered by the Scrutiny Committee. It will be open for the Scrutiny Committee to call for information from the school to find out whether the school authority has preserved the relevant record after such a long time and to find out genuineness of the said document. We clarify that neither party will be allowed to lead any further evidence whatsoever before the Scrutiny Committee and the Scrutiny Committee shall consider the documents as stated above by giving appropriate reasons along with other material i.e. affinity test and vigilance report. We once again reiterate that affinity test is also one of the important test that cannot be lost sight of. It is for the Scrutiny Committee to consider the matter afresh 8 Wp6344-00 after considering the documents on record in light of what is stated above as well as in the light of the affinity test and vigilance report. The learned AGP pointed out that even the caste certificate of petitioner’s brother Shailesh Sudhakar Nandanwar was invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee and this Court has confirmed the order of the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee may also consider this aspect and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion as to whether the petitioner has made out any case or not and it is for the Scrutiny Committee to consider the same in accordance with law. Since the proceedings are of 2002, the Scrutiny Committee may decide the matter afresh latest by 30.6.2011. The petitioner is not permitted to lead any fresh evidence in any manner before the Scrutiny Committee and the Scrutiny Committee will decide the matter on the basis of the existing documents and other material on record. If the Scrutiny Committee collects any further new material, then notice may be given to the petitioner so that he can also put his say in this behalf to meet the same. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent by setting aside the order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 22nd September, 2000 and the matter is remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee to take fresh decision as indicated above. No order as to costs. 11. It is clarified that this order is confined to the facts of this case and none of the relatives of the petitioner whose cases are pending, can take advantage of this order. 9 Wp6344-00 12. In view of the above order, no order is required to be passed on the Civil Application as this Court will not like to take any additional evidence at such a belated stage. The civil application is accordingly rejected. (A.A.SAYED, J.) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)