Kambli 1 WP3300.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3300 OF 2009 ... Sonam Mahendra Patel ...Petitioner v/s. State od Maharashtra and others ..Respondents ... Mr.R.K.Mendadkar for the Petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for State. Mr.Rui Rodrigues for Respondent No.5. ... CORAM: D.K.Deshmukh & N.D.Deshpande,JJ DATED: 20th December,2010 P.C.: 1. The Petitioner by this petition challenges the order dated 24-2-2009 passed by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the claim of the Petitioner that she belongs to Mahyavanshi Scheduled Caste is valid, but she is not entitled Kambli 2 WP3300.09 to any benefits available to the scheduled caste in the State of Maharashtra because she is a migrant. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for both sides. We find from the record that the Scrutiny Committee has found that the father of the Petitioner has migrated to the State of Maharashtra in the year 1965. There is no document on record produced to show that the Petitioner or her father were residing in the State of Maharashtra before 1-5-1960. The Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and anr. v/s. Union of India and anr., (1994) 5 SCC 244 has held that the persons belonging to scheduled caste who have migrated to another State are not entitled to the benefits of scheduled caste in the other State. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Scrutiny Committee after having come to the conclusion that the Petitioner belongs to Mahyavanshi caste could not have further recorded a finding that she is a migrant and therefore is not entitled to any Kambli 3 WP3300.09 benefits of scheduled caste in the State of Maharashtra. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel relied on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.1650 of 2006, Sonam Mahendra Patel v/s. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and others, dated 3rd April, 2006, wherein the Division Bench has held that the Caste Scrutiny Committee cannot record any finding on the question whether a person is migrant to the State of Maharashtra or not. The learned Counsel relied on the observations found in paragraph 3 of that judgment. That order was delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in the petition filed by the present Petitioner. In our opinion, the observations made by the Division Bench that the Scrutiny Committee has no jurisdiction to hold inquiry into question whether the claimant is migrant to the State of Maharashtra or not are per- incurium, because the judgment was pronounced on 3rd April, 2006 when The Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification Kambli 4 WP3300.09 of) Caste Certificate Act, 2001 had already come into force. That Act came into force on 18th October, 2001. The term “Caste Certificate” is defined by Section 2(a) of that Act. It reads as under: “Caste Certificate” means the certificate issued by the Competent Authority to an applicant indicating therein the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special Backward Category, as the case may be, to which such applicant belongs; It is Section 3 which deals with an application for issue of caste certificate. It reads as under: 3. Any person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special Backward Category, required to produce a Caste Certificate in order to claim the benefit of any reservation provided to such Castes, Tribes or Classes, either in any public employment or for admission into any educational institution, or any other benefit under any special provisions made under clause (4) of Article 15 of the Constitution of India or for the purpose of contesting for elective post in any local authority or in the Co.-operative Societies; or for purchase or transfer of land from a tribal land- holder or any other purposes specified by the Government, shall apply in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, to the Competent Kambli 5 WP3300.09 Authority for the issue of a Caste Certificate. Perusal of the above quoted provisions shows that an application for Caste Certificate can be made in the State of Maharashtra under the Act by an Applicant in order to claim the benefits of any reservation in the State of Maharashtra. It means that a person who is entitled to the benefits to the reservation in the State of Maharashtra only can make an application for Caste Certificate under Section 3. Section 4 deals with issuance of Caste Certificate. The Competent Authority before issuing Caste Certificate has to satisfy itself about the genuineness of the claim made in the application. Section 6 deals with verification of Caste Certificate by the Scrutiny Committee. It is sub-section 2 of Section 6 which is relevant. It reads as under: 6(2) After obtaining the Caste Certificate from the Competent Authority, any person desirous of availing of the benefits or concessions provided to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De- notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special Backward Category for the purposes mentioned in Section 3 may make an application, well in time, in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, to the concerned Scrutiny Committee for the verification of such Caste Certificate and issue of Kambli 6 WP3300.09 a validity certificate. Perusal of the above quoted Sub-section 2 of Section 6 shows that what to be scrutinised by the Scrutiny Committee is certificate issued under Section 3 of the Act to a person who is desirous of availing of the benefits or concessions provided to the Backward Classes. Obviously in the State of Maharashtra the Scrutiny Committee is constituted under the Legislation enacted by the Maharashtra Legislature. It means that the Scrutiny Committee can verify the caste claim and caste certificate of persons who are entitled to claim benefits available to Backward Classes in the State of Maharashtra. Therefore, under the scheme of the Act the Scrutiny Committee will have to first ascertain whether a person would be entitled to claim benefits available to Backward Classes in the State of Maharashtra, in case the Scrutiny Committee holds that his caste claim is valid. In other words, the first inquiry that is to be made by the Scrutiny Committee is whether the person is a migrant and therefore is not entitled to the benefits. In our opinion, therefore, in the present case the Scrutiny Committee was justified in holding that the Kambli 7 WP3300.09 Petitioner being a migrant is not entitled to claim benefits belonging to scheduled caste in the State of Maharashtra . In our opinion, therefore, no exception can be taken to the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the Petitioner is not entitled to any benefits claimable by a person who belongs to scheduled caste in the State of Maharashtra. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has successfully completed the course of B.E.(Information Technology), though the Degree is yet to be awarded. He submitted that considering that the Petitioner has completed her education, the authorities may be directed not to disturb the Degree to which the Petitioner is entitled to on the basis of the marks secured by her. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has stated before us that the Petitioner has paid the fees which are to be paid by a candidate belonging to the general category. In our opinion, in view of the clear finding recorded that the Petitioner belongs to scheduled caste and that she has already completed course and she has already paid the fees which Kambli 8 WP3300.09 are payable by a general candidate, it will not be appropriate at this juncture to deprive the Petitioner the benefits of the Degree of B.E. (Information Technology). 4. In the result, therefore, the petition is disposed of with a directions to the Respondents Nos.4 & 5 not to deny the Petitioner the benefits to which the Petitioner is entitled on the basis of examination that she has passed, only because of the order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 24-2-2009. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (N.D.DESHPANDE, J.)