1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD /REPORTED/ WRIT PETITION NO.2164 of 2010 Date of decision:20/9/2010 For approval and signature HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R.GAVAI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.U.CHANDIWAL 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Papers Yes. may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see No. the fair copy of the Judgment ? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial? No. question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder ? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the No. Civil Judges ? 6. Whether the case involves an important No question of law and whether a copy of the Order should be sent to Bombay, Goa and Nagpur Office ? Private Secretary AGP/office/2164-10perkucj 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2164 OF 2010 Sau.Jyoti Madhukar Thakur, Kum.Jyoti Baburao Thakur, Age 35 years, Occu: Household, R/o. Gurukrupa Chal, Room No-2, Ramchandra Nagar-1, Kamgar Hospital Road, Thane(W) Pin 400 604 ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Trible Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai -32. 2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar Division, Nandurbar. 3. The Deputy Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 4. The Deputy Executive Health Officer, (Family Welfare and Mother-child care Brihan Mumbai Mahanagarpalika, General Health Department, F/South Section, First Floor, Room No.13, Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marg, Parel, Mumbai 400 012 ...RESPONDENTS ... 3 Shri K.T.Shirurkar, Adv., for the petitioner. Shri S.K.Tambe, A.G.P. for State. Shri R.P.Phatake, Adv., for respondent no.2. Shri A.K.Tiwari, Adv., for respondent no.4. ... CORAM: B.R.GAVAI AND K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE :20/9/2010 *** *** JUDGMENT ( Per K.U.Chandiwal, J.): 1. Heard. 2. On 28th June, 2010, Rule was issued. Record is made available by the learned Counsel representing respondent no.2, the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar. 3. The petitioner canvassed, she belongs to Thakur Scheduled Tribe, a reserved category. In her school record it is accordingly indicated as Thakur Scheduled Tribe. She also informed, in the basic school record of her father or the other blood relatives, the caste is recorded as Thakur. Thus, the family status of the petitioner, as Thakur, was even in existence prior to the Presidential Order of 1950. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel extensively. Our attention is drawn to the school record of petitioner's father dt.6.4.1938, the 4 document was at Sr.Nos. 4 and 15 in the list of the Committee. In the said school record, father's caste is recorded as Thakur. The Vigilance Committee has visited the school and verified father's school record, which is in conformity to the record produced. The petitioner's father was in service of Ordinance Factory at Bhusaval, a Central Government enterprise. His caste claim is entered as Thakur, Scheduled Tribe, on 20th May, 1982. There is no challenge to the same. In the birth record of petitioner dt.2nd August, 1972, her caste claim is recorded as Thakur. It is well settled, "the entries in the school register preceding the Constitution would furnish great probative value to the declaration of status of caste". 5. It is informed, and not controverted, on 11.9.1987 and 29.9.1987, the petitioner's real brother Mohan and Rajendra have been benedicted with Thakur Scheduled Tribe certificate by the competent authorities. On 12.3.1987, even the petitioner's husband has got such certificate. 6. The queries made by the Research Officer and recorded on 7.7.2009, are inconceivable as initially the record indicated answers to the queries by the petitioner was consistent. However, subsequently, there is addition of the 5 word "not" in the said report. This has been felt by the petitioner to be a doubtful situation emerged. There is nothing to illustrate, what made the authorities first to subscribe consistency in the answers and then to define that it was not consistent. This anomalous situation, certainly adds salt to the injuries of the needy candidates who are required to wander for just claims with the competent authorities. 7. The findings of the Committee, in the set of above situation, cannot be countenanced. There is nothing to illustrate that the petitioner's father's record is manipulated. The reasons assigned by the Committee for rejecting the same, is leaning to a shaky observation, rather than genuinely dealing with the same. The documentary evidence on record before the competent authorities, by itself, was sufficient to accept the petitioner's caste claim as belonging to Thakur Scheduled Tribe. Mentioning in some of the documents Thakur as caste by itself will not exclude and dilute the relevancy of old documents, referred hereinbefore. The original abode of petitioner's family was Bhusaval, dist. Jalgaon. Her father settled in Bhusaval prior to 1950. The dialect of her family and community is impure Marathi. The petitioner informed that there is a caste 6 Panchayat in their community. 8. The survey of documents illustrates that the sociological, anthropological and ethnological perspectives match to the queries made to the petitioner/applicants or the documents produced by her. The affidavits, service record of the applicant, her brother, husband and father was produced, which should have been appreciated in proper perspective in legal frame. It is a surmise, that by taking undue advantage of similarity in the nomenclature, the petitioner has obtained caste certificate to ensure for facilities that are available for Thakur Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner, cannot be branded to be a person belonging to a better placed situation or that she does not suffer disabilities, socially and economically. 9. The findings being not depicting correct approach to the documents, warrants, to quash the order of the learned Scheduled Tribe Certificates Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar Region, Nandurbar, in Case No. JAG/SERV/JMT/808/08 dt.8th Feb.,2010. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). (K.U.CHANDIWAL) (B.R.GAVAI) JUDGE JUDGE ...