1 Writ Petition No. 790 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No. 790 OF 2011 * Usha Prabhakar Chaure, Age 33 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Ankush Nagar, East Near Andhapang Mukbadhir School, Nagar Road, Beed, District Beed. ... Petitioner. Versus 1) The Divisional Caste Validity Scrutiny Committee Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 2) The Superintendent of Police, Beed, Taluka and District Beed. ... Respondents. -------- Smt. Surekha P. Mahajan, Shri. Advocate for petitioner. Shri. V.D. Godbharle, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE: 28th FEBRUARY 2011 2 Writ Petition No. 790 of 2011 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The petitioner claims to be belonging to "Mang", a Scheduled Caste. The petitioner states that the petitioner joined service as a Police Constable on 1-9-2000. Before the Caste Scrutiny Committee the petitioner has produced following documents. (1) Caste Certificate No.95 Misc/1536, dated 7-7-95 issued by the Executive Magistrate Beed to the petitioner. (2) Xerox Copy of first page of the Service Book of the petitioner. (3) Xerox copy of first page of service book of the father of the petitioner. (4) Birth Certificate issued by the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Beed in favour of Prabhakar alias Maruti. (5) Extract of School Admission Register, dated 3-8-64 issued by Head Master, Central Primary School, Dhondipura, Beed to Shri. Maruti Tatyarao Gaikwad. 3) Considering the documents placed on record the petitioner in her support firstly placed reliance on caste certificate issued in her favour and secondly on the 3 Writ Petition No. 790 of 2011 extract of the service book of the petitioner's father who was serving in Police Department as a Class VI employee. The extract of service book of the father of the petitioner shows that, his name as Maruti Tatyarao Gaikwad which was encircled and written as Chaure. The date of birth of the petitioner's father, according to the said record, is 1-1-1952. Another set of evidence, on which the petitioner is placing reliance, is the vigilance cell inquiry report, which, according to the petitioner, is favourable to the petitioner's claim. The Committee considered these documents and the evidence placed before it and rejected the caste claim of the petitioner. 4) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, in accordance with the judgment delivered in the case of Vaijnath Janardhan Zunjkar v. The Scrutiny Committee for Verification of Tribe Claims, 2006 (4) ALL MR 554 the Committee ought to have discussed the implications of the vigilance cell report which was favourable to the petitioner. The counsel submits that the petitioner's father was referred to as Prabhakar @ Maruti. A copy of the birth certificate 4 Writ Petition No. 790 of 2011 issued by the Municipal Council Beed was produced before us today which shows the date of birth of the petitioner's father as 1-1-1957. 5) Original record was produced before us by the learned Assistant Government pleader. 6) The leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the Committee had decided the claim based on the documentary evidence alone whereas, the vigilance cell report ought to have been looked into. 7) The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that, there is contra evidence in the case. The petitioner in her statement stated that in the school record her caste was mentioned as "Vanjari", Nomadic Tribe. The petitioner admittedly did not produce school record though petitioner claims to have passed SSC Examination. The counsel further submits that in absence of clinching evidence and the fact that the vigilance cell report does not expire confidence the Committee has rightly negatived the caste claim of the petitioner. 5 Writ Petition No. 790 of 2011 8) We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the judgment cited supra. The Committee has considered the documentary evidence and did not find that it had probative value for holding that the petitioner belongs to "Mang", Scheduled Caste. It is true that, the Committee did not say in enough words its opinion in respect of vigilance cell report but in the first paragraph of the impugned order the Committee referred to the vigilance cell report and observed that the caste claim of the petitioner could not be ascertained on the basis of the vigilance cell report, therefore, the petitioner was called for personal hearing. The Committee further observed that, though the petitioner remained present on 22-12-2009 but she failed to produce any evidence in support of her claim which means that, the Committee did consider the vigilance cell report too while deciding the claim of the petitioner. 9) There is no dispute on the principle that even if a person does not have enough documentary evidence to establish his case before the Committee based on the 6 Writ Petition No. 790 of 2011 documentary evidence, but based on vigilance cell report, the caste claim could be established in a given facts of the case. In the present case, the Committee did not find that the evidence produced and collected was inspiring confidence and having probative value to unhesitatingly hold that the petitioner belongs to "Mang", Scheduled Caste. 10) For the reasons we do not find that the view adopted by the Committee was perverse or patently wrong. In exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution we do not find any glaring error in the impugned order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee in rejecting the caste claim of the petitioner. 11) The writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl