1 wp4001.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4001 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 797 OF 2011 Kum. Swati d/o Gangagod Gurpwar, Age: 18 yers, Occ: Education, R/o. Narsi, Tq. Narsi Naigaon (Khair), District Nanded. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Mantralay, Mumbai 400 032. 2. The Divisional Caste Validity Certificate Committee, Samiti No.2, Latur, Dist. Latur. 2. Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University, Nanded Through its Registrar. 4. M.S. Bidve Engineering College, Latur through its Registrar. 5. Amission Central Committee, Technical Director of Maharashtra State, Mahapalik Marg, Mumbai 400 001. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. V.P. Kadam, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.R. Kale, AGP for respondent Nos.1,2 & 5. Mr. R.V. Ghuge, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. S.V. Natu, Advocate for respondent No.4. ... 2 wp4001.10 CORAM: SMT. NISHITA MHATRE,J.& S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 7TH APRIL, 2011 JUDGMENT : [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. The petition is filed challenging the decision of the Divisional Caste Validity Certificate Committee, Samiti No.2, Latur (For short, "the Scrutiny Commitee") dated 26-11-2009 i.e. respondent No.2 herein. The petitioner herein claims that she belongs to 'Kalal' caste which is recognized as Other Backward Class in the State of Maharashtra. It is further case of the petitioner that her caste is noted as 'Kalal' in the primary school record. The petitioner herein got admission for the 1st year Engineering Course (Electronics) 3 wp4001.10 from O.B.C. category in the M.S. Bidve Engineering College, Latur i.e. respondent No.4 herein. It is further case of the petitioner that her caste certificate was submitted for validity to respondent No.2 through respondent No.4. It is the case of the petitioner that inspite of placing on record voluminous evidence in support of her caste claim, respondent No. 2 without appreciating documents placed on record, has invalidated the caste of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner was allowed to appear for the examinations of 2nd and 3rd Semester by this Court by the order dated 15-12-2009 in the Writ Petition No. 8293 of 2009. Respondent No.2 was directed to decide the caste claim of the petitioner on or before 16-03-2010. 3. On 26-11-2009 respondent No. 2 i.e. the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim of 4 wp4001.10 the petitioner. Hence this writ petition. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the vigilance cell report is not prepared after following the proper procedure as streamlined in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others reported in AIR 1995 SC 1994. It is further submitted that, the grandfather of the petitioner owns his house at his native place and that itself is conclusive proof that the forefathers of the petitioner are permanent residents of the State of Maharashtra. The learned Counsel further submitted that the vigilance cell report itself would indicate that, from last 60 years the house in the name of grandfather of the petitioner is located in village Belkoni (Bk.) Tal. Biloli. The learned Counsel further invited our attention to the grounds taken in the petition, documents which were placed before respondent NO.2 - the Scrutiny Committee and also the report of the vigilance 5 wp4001.10 cell and submitted that respondent No.2 has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and therefore, this writ petition may be allowed by setting aside the impugned decision of respondent No.2 the Scrutiny Committee. 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2, the Scrutiny Committee submitted that, the Scrutiny Committee after taking into consideration the vigilance cell report and also documentary evidence placed on record, has passed a reasoned order and therefore, this Court may not interfere in the impugned decision. Therefore, he prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed. 6. We have given due consideration to the rival submissions and also perused the petition, annexures thereto, impugned decision and the relevant documents made available for our perusal. 7. A perusal of the vigilance cell report 6 wp4001.10 which is placed on record at Exhibit-D at Page 32 to the petition, would clearly shows that the vigilance cell made inquiry in the village Belkoni (Bk.) Taluka Biloli and from the said inquiry, it is revealed that the grandfather of the petitioner namely 'Ramagoud' did purchase the house in the said village 60 years back. The vigilance cell has recorded the statements of villagers including the old aged person namely Lachhiram Sayaji Uttalwad, who in his statement has stated that, the grandfather of the petitioner 'Ramagoud' owns a house which was purchased by him 60 years back. Therefore, the decision of the Scrutiny Committee that the forefathers of the petitioner were not residents / domicile of the Maharashtra State before 31st October 1967 has to be seen cautiously. In our opinion, the Scrutiny Committee has not properly appreciated the vigilance cell report. 8. Upon perusal of the vigilance cell report, it is undisputed position that the 7 wp4001.10 vigilance cell has not recorded the statements of the parents of the petitioner or no inquiry is made with the parents of the petitioner. Therefore, undisputedly the parents were not examined by the vigilance cell. This Court had occasion to consider the effect of not examining the parents of the candidate by the vigilance cell in the case of Digambar Domaji Wagh vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati and another reported in 2010(1) Mh.L.J. 510 and also in the case of Ku. Heera d/o Shalikram Mundharikar vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur & Ors. reported in 2010 ALL MR (Suppl.) 468, and has taken a view that it is mandatory for the vigilance cell to submit a report only after examining the parents of the candidate. Therefore, in our opinion, the impugned decision of respondent No.2 - the Scrutiny Committee, based on the vigilance cell report which was submitted without examining the parents of the petitioner, 8 wp4001.10 cannot be sustained. 9. In our opinion, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned decision of respondent No.2 - the Scrutiny Committee cannot be sustained. The writ petition is allowed. We accordingly quash and set aside the impugned decision of the Scrutiny Committee and remand the matter back to the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee will consider the vigilance cell report which should be submitted afresh. The petitioner's parents must be interviewed by the vigilance cell before the report can be taken on record by the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee will decide the caste claim of the petitioner within four months from today. 10. At this stage, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed that, the petitioner may be allowed to appear for the examination. However, we are informed that after the caste claim of the petitioner has been 9 wp4001.10 invalidated, the College has cancelled the admission of the petitioner. Therefore, in our opinion, such prayer cannot be granted. Hence the said prayer is rejected. 11. Rule made absolute accordingly. 12. In the light of the final disposal of the Writ Petition, the Civil Application is also disposed of accordingly. sd/- sd/- [S.S. SHINDE, J.] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] sut/Apr11