WP No. 2403/10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2403 OF 2010 Bais Nileshsingh s/o. Gangasingh, Age 25 yrs., Occu. Education, R/o. Naik Nagar, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya Mumbai through its Secretary. 2. The Divisional Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Committee No. 2, Latur Through its Research Officer Alias Member Secretary. 3. The Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded, through its Registrar. 4. The Principal, Mahatma Gandhi Mission's College of Engineering Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. ....Respondents. Mr. A.S. Bayas, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. R.M. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No. 3. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T. V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATED : 19th October 2011. WP No. 2403/10 2 PER COURT : [ T. V. NALAWADE, J. ] 1. The petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to challenge the order made by Caste Scrutiny Committee, Aurangbad on 19.10.2005. The Caste Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner. 2. The caste certificate of the petitioner was referred to the Committee by Yashwant College, Nanded where the petitioner was studying in 12th Standard with the application filled by the petitioner. During the pendency of enquiry before the Committee, on the basis of caste certificate issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nanded, dated 23.5.2003, the petitioner obtained admission on a seat reserved for Vimukta Jati. He contended that he belongs to caste "Rajput Bhamta" which is notified in the year 1961 as Vimukta Jati for Maharashtra. 3. The Committee has perused the record produced by the petitioner which includes copies of school leaving certificates issued to the applicant, his brother and his sister. The Committee has considered the Vigilance Cell Report. Some zerox copies of caste certificates issued to the persons from Solapur District were produced by the petitioner, but the petitioner did not bring those WP No. 2403/10 3 persons before the Committee or the Vigilance Cell and he did not establish his relation with the said persons. Sufficient opportunity was given by the Committee to the petitioner and his father to produce the record in respect of the father of petitioner or other relations of the father to prove his caste claim. As the petitioner failed to produce the record and he also failed in affinity test, the caste claim is rejected. 4. In the present proceeding, this Court has heard the advocate for the petitioner and the advocate for the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The original record was made available. With Civil Application No. 6437/2011 filed in the proceeding, the petitioner produced a certificate issued to his father in respect of the entry made in the school register in the year 1953. To ascertain the truth and correctness, this Court called the original register from the school and this Court found that there is a manipulation and the father of petitioner simply produced affidavit and on the basis of affidavit the caste came to be entered as "Rajput Bhamta" in February 2011. No steps were taken for such correction as provided under the Secondary School Code. If the original record is not called, this Court would have accepted the certificate issued by the School as it is and on the certificate there is no entry to show that the caste came to be WP No. 2403/10 4 entered in the year 2011. 5. The original record shows that the father had given his caste as "Rajput" in the school. Submission was made for the petitioner that copy of Vigilance Cell Report was not supplied to him and proper procedure was not followed. To ascertain the truth, this Court has gone through the original record. The record shows that not only a copy of Vigilance Cell Report was supplied to the petitioner, his say was also obtained and there was personal hearing/interview after seeking explanation from the petitioner with regard to the Vigilance Cell Report. The Vigilance Cell has reported that the petitioner belongs to "Rajput" caste. The Vigilance Cell visited the school, the residential place and the Vigilance Cell made local enquiry. The statement of the father of petitioner was also recorded by Vigilance Cell. The record shows that even the Caste Scrutiny Committee recorded the statement of father of during personal hearing. The statement of the father of petitioner shows that he received education up to 6th standard and his brother Bhagwansing received education up to 8th standard. He submitted before the Committee that the record in respect of the education is not available. 6. In the application filed for verification the petitioner WP No. 2403/10 5 had contended that his father is illiterate and so no record in respect of the father was available. He supplied documents like a copy of caste certificate issued to him by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nanded on 23.5.2003, a zerox copy of Transfer Certificate (T.C.) issued by his school and bonafide certificate issued by Yashwant College. Application of the father was also sent to the Committee to inform that the father has received primary education in rural area. This record shows that the caste certificate was obtained from Sub Divisional Magistrate, on the basis of T.C., affidavit and some certificates issued by Village Officers. Thus, no record in respect of the father or the petitioner was produced for obtaining the caste certificate. 6. In zerox copies of T.Cs. and school leaving certificates in respect of petitioner, his brother and sister produced before the Committee, it is mentioned that at the time of admission, the name of the caste was given as "Rajput Bhamta". It is clear that for entering this caste in the school record, there was nothing with the family of the father of petitioner to establish the caste as "Rajput Bhamta". The school leaving certificate (zerox copy) in respect of Riteshsingh, brother of the petitioner, was produced to show that the occupation of the father was given as service. The occupation of the father was not given to the school when sister WP No. 2403/10 6 of the petitioner was admitted in the school. The petitioner gave the occupation of the father as "contractor" in his school. The record now available shows that the father of the petitioner received education in the school from Yelegaon, Taluka Kallamnoori, District Hingoli (in past it was District Parbhani). It can be said that the native place of the father was Yelegaon, Taluka Kallamnoori, District Hingoli, but the caste certificate was obtained from Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nanded. Zerox copies of two certificates of so called relatives are produced and they show that they obtained the caste certificate from Sub Divisional Magistrate, Solapur. The relation with the persons like J.B. Bayas and S.M. Bayas is not established. In any case, no explanation is given as to how these two persons, who obtained caste certificates in Solapur District, had any link with the father of the petitioner, who was resident of Tahsil Kalamnoori, District Hingoli. These circumstances show that things were suppressed and manipulated for getting the validity certificate. It was necessary for the petitioner to produce the record in respect of father, uncle or aunt or it was necessary to establish the link with "Rajput Bhamta" community. No such attempt was made before the Committee. Enquiry was made in respect of customs followed by the family of the father of petitioner. The Vigilance Cell Report which is accepted by the Committee shows that the customs or WP No. 2403/10 7 rites of the family of the petitioner do not tally with the customs or rites of "Rajput Bhamta" community. 7. In the present case the Presidential Order was issued with regard to the notification of Vimukta Jati "Rajput Bhamta" in the year 1961 and no record of pre-1960 is produced. The aforesaid record on which the petitioner relies, had no basis and only on the oral information recently given, the entries were made in the school record. The petitioner could not produce even the caste certificates of the blood relations on father's side. The provisions of Maharashtra Caste Verification Certificate Act, 2008 and the Rules prepared under the Act are in consonance with the landmark case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241. Section 8 of the Act shows that the burden of establishing that a person belongs to notified tribe, caste is on the person who wants the validity certificate. Section 6 of the Act shows that Scrutiny Committee is expected to verify each caste certificate which comes before it before it issues validity certificate. The procedure laid down in the Rules shows that the principles of natural justice are required to be followed by the Committee. The Rules also mention the record which is to be accepted and required to be produced by the applicant. The WP No. 2403/10 8 provisions show that the Committee is expected to take decision on the basis of material made available before the Committee and the Committee is also allowed to take assistance of the Vigilance Cell. In view of the aforesaid record and circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to hold that no fault can be found with the decision of the Committee, the order cannot be called as perverse and it cannot be said that the material produced by the petitioner is not considered. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no interference is possible in the decision of the Committee. 8. Alternate submission was made for the petitioner that he may be allowed to take degree certificate of Engineering Course and he undertakes, not to claim any more benefit in future on the basis of the caste claim. The advocate produced copies of two decisions given by the Apex Court like Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 12646/2008 filed against the judgment and order dated 21.4.2008 in WP No. 2733/2008 which was pending in Bombay High Court between Shoa Wiqar Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and others. and Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 2128/2009 filed against the judgment and order dated 17.1.2009 in CWP No. 1207/2009 which was pending in the Bombay High Court between Vishal Bhagwandas WP No. 2403/10 9 Panchal Vs. Caste Scrutiny Commit. No-3, Mumbai & others. In the first decision, the relevant portion in this regard is as follows :- "4. In this case the petitioner who was admitted in 2004-05 has virtually completed the course and has also taken a final examination. In such circumstances, this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind and others 2001 (1) SCC 4 and in Yogesh Ramchandr Naikwadi Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2008 (5) SCC 652 had permitted the students concerned to retain the benefit of the studies undergone by them and degree to be obtained in pursuance of it. The petitioner has filed an affidavit undertaking not to claim any further benefit of reservation as belonging to a Vimukti Jati (Chhaparband) either in public employment or for prosecuting further studies or for any other purpose. In view of the above, we direct that the petitioner will be entitled for the declaration of her results and need not be denied the benefit of the BDS Course already undergone by her. But she will not be entitled to seek any benefit of reservation in future either for further studies or for employment. It is also made clear that if she has obtained any concession or benefit by way of reduction in fee as a reserved candidate, she will have to make good the same by paying the difference in fees WP No. 2403/10 10 with reference to the fees payable by the general candidates, if it is not already paid. It is made clear that the petitioner will be entitled to the benefits of the degree only after making good the payment. This order will not enable any relative of the petitioner to claim any benefit of reservation." In the second decision, the relevant portion is as under :- "5. In view of above, while upholding the decision of the High Court, we direct that the petitioners admission shall not be cancelled and will be entitled for declaration of his results and he shall not be denied the benefit of the MBBS Course already undergone by him. But he will not be entitled to seek any benefit/concession of reservation in future either for further studies or for employment. It is also made clear that if he has obtained any concession or benefit by way of reduction in fee as a reserved candidate, he will have to make good the same by SLP (C) No. 2128/2009 paying the difference in fees, if not already paid. It is made clear that the petitioner will be entitled to the benefits of the degree only after making good the payment. This order will not enable any relative of the petitioner to claim any benefit of reservation." WP No. 2403/10 11 In aforesaid both the cases, the caste claim was invalidated and the Apex Court allowed to take the degree, to complete the course to which the admission was obtained on the basis of caste certificate, subject to some undertaking. These orders were made in view of the facts of those cases. 9. In the present case, there are circumstances to show that the petitioner manipulated things, the record and avoided to produce the relevant record. Right from the beginning the action of the petitioner, his father was not bonafide. The caste certificate was forwarded from the College, where the petitioner was studying in 12th standard, to the Caste Scrutiny Committee and after passing 12th standard examination, admission was obtained on the basis of copy of the certificate for Engineering Course. He filed three writ petitions. He obtained interim reliefs when he received letter of the College that his admission will be cancelled, if validity certificate is not produced. In Writ Petition No. 7768/2005 he obtained direction from the Court on 24.9.2007 for expediting the matter, in addition to interim relief to protect his admission in the Course. The record shows that infact the Caste Scrutiny Committee had given the decision on 19.10.2005. 10. A direction was given by this Court to the petitioner to WP No. 2403/10 12 appear before the Committee on 7.7.2005 in previous proceeding, Writ Petition No. 4384/2005 and he did appear before the Caste Scrutiny Committee in July 2005. As per the record, the matter was then kept for personal hearing/interview on 2.8.2005. The petitioner filed affidavit on 18.8.2005 before the Committee and statement of his father came to be recorded on 31.8.2005 by the Committee. The matter was then kept for decision on 11.12.2005 as there was direction to dispose of the matter within 12 weeks. The matter was actually decided in October 2005 and as per the outward register, copy of the order was sent to the petitioner on 19.10.2005. Thus, there is no scope to say that petitioner could not know the decision in the year 2005. To show that he had not received the copy, he applied to Caste Scrutiny Committee on 11.1.2010 for getting one more copy and then he filed the present writ petition. He produced a copy of letter of Engineering College to show that by letter dated 25.1.2010 it was informed to him that the admission of petitioner for B.E. second semester cannot be continued and the examination form for second semester cannot be processed. By using this letter the petitioner obtained interim relief from this Court and appeared for the examination. It appears that when the petitioner applied for second copy on 11.1.2010, one more copy was sent to his college by the Committee, but there is the record to show that the first copy was WP No. 2403/10 13 sent on 19.10.2005. Surprisingly a submission was made that the petitioner has now completed the Engineering Course and result needs to be declared and the degree needs to be given to him when letter of college shows that he was to be admitted in second semester in the year 2010. All these circumstances show that the conduct of the petitioner was not proper and he misused the process of law for obtaining interim relief. He concealed material information from the Court. 10. In view of these circumstances this Court holds that the petitioner cannot be given any benefit and a direction cannot be given to allow him to complete the course or to declare his results and to give the degree certificates to him. Thus, there is no other alternative than to dismiss the petition and the petition stands dismissed. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] ssc/