rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8229 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 8229 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 8229 OF 2007 Bhimaray Shipappa Gowli ] Residing at Koyana Road & Building ] Sub Division Koyana, Tal.-Patna, ] .. Petitioner District - Satara. ] V/s. 1. Secretary, Jalsampade ] Mantralaya, Mumbai. ] 2. Member Secretary, ] Divisional Caste Certofocate ] Scrutiny Board, Pune Division, ] PMT building, Behind Janki Hall, ] Swargate, Pune - 37. ] 3. The District Officer, ] .. Respondents Backward Classes & Minorities ] Zilla Panchayat Premises Kanakdas ] Extension Bijapur, Tal.-Bijapur ] Dist.-Bijapur, State Karnataka. ] 4. Executive Engineer,Koyna Road & ] Building Sub Division No.1, Koyana ] Tal.-Patna, District-Satara. ] Mr.S.H.Shool for the Petitioner. Mrs.S.S.Bhende, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : S.B.MHASE AND CORAM : S.B.MHASE AND CORAM : S.B.MHASE AND S.S.SHINDE, JJ. S.S.SHINDE, JJ. S.S.SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 4TH APRIL, 2008. DATE : 4TH APRIL, 2008. DATE : 4TH APRIL, 2008. P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned A.G.P. appearing for Respondent State. Notices are already issued to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. We proceed to dispose of the matter at admission stage itself. 2 2. In this petition the Petitioner has impugned order dated 31st August, 2007 by which the Government of Maharashtra, Department of Water Conservation declined to extend approval to the promotion of the Petitioner as Deputy Engineer. The impugned order was passed by the department since caste certificate of the Petitioner as "Kurub" caste given by the Tahsildar Bijapur State of Karnataka is not verified by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Pune. 3. The brief facts as disclosed in the writ petition are as under : . The Petitioner whose parents were from village Shivanagi of Taluka Bijapur was admitted to K.B.Boy’s School, Shivanagi in the year 1961-62. His caste was entered as "Kurub". In 1972-73 the Petitioner joined for his post school education and completed his diploma in Civil Engineering in 1976-77. In response to an advertisement, the Petitioner appeared for an interview for the post of Sectional Engineer and on selection joined the services of Respondent No.1. In his service record, his caste is entered as "Kurub" tribes. 4. In the year 1999 the Petitioner was promoted as Deputy Engineer against reserved vacancy for Nomadic tribes subject to getting his certificate validated from the Caste Scrutiny Committee. On 30th January, 2006, the Executive Engineer under whom Petitioner is 3 working submitted Petitioners caste certificate issued by Tahsildar Bijapur state of Karnataka to Divisional Member, Secretary Caste Scrutiny Committee, Pune for validation. On 7th February, 2006 the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Pune communicated that since the certificate is issued by the Tahsildar Bijapur, State of Karnataka, said certificate cannot be undertaken for scrutiny / verification by the Committee. In December, 2006 the Executive Engineer under whom the Petitioner is working, informed the Secretary of the Department in respect of decision of the Committee dated 7th February, 2006 of which copy was given to the Petitioner directing him to approach the correspondent Caste Scrutiny Committee in Karnataka to get the certificate validated or otherwise report accordingly without delay. On 11th May, 2006 the Deputy Executive Engineer wrote a letter to the concerned caste validation Committee at Bijapur, State of Karnataka to validate the Petitioners certificate. On 1st July, 2006 the District Officer, Backward Classes and Minorities, Bijapur issued clarification that Shri. B.S.Gowali belongs to "Kurbu" in terms belongs to category II (A) under serial No. 7(a) of Karnataka Gazettes of category II(A). On 16th August, 2007 the Chief Engineer Department of Jalsampada, State of Maharashtra received the above communication from the District Officer, Backward Classes and Minorities, Bijapur clarifying that the Petitioner belongs to 4 "Kurub" caste and the same was forwarded to the Secretary, Jalsampada Department, Government of Maharashtra. On 31st August, 2007, the Under Secretary, Department of Jalsampada, Government of Maharashtra issued order refusing the extension for the temporary promotion of the Petitioner on the post of Deputy Engineer. 5. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 31st August, 2007 passed by the Under Secretary, Department of Jalsampada, Government of Maharashtra has filed the present petition. 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as the Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State of Maharashtra and its Authorities. The Advocate for the Petitioner invited our attention to the Caste Certificate of the Petitioner at Exhibit "C" at page 23 issued by the Tahsildar Bijapur, State of Karnataka, in which his caste is mentioned as "Kurub". It is submitted that the "Kurub" caste is mentioned in the list of Nomadic tribes in State of Karnataka. He further contended that even in the State of Maharashtra "Kurub" caste is included in the list of Nomadic tribes. He invited our attention to the Government communication dated 25th May, 2006 issued to the various department of the Government of Maharashtra. The said communication is 5 accompanied by the list of backward classes in the State of Maharashtra. The Advocate for the Petitioner invited our attention to entry 29 of the list of Nomadic tribes and placed reliance on the entry as "Kurmar" and submitted that "Kurub" has mentioned in the certificate of the Petitioner is same as "Kurmar" in Maharashtra Nomadic tribes list. He submitted that "Kurub" caste mentioned in its caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar Bijapur in State of Karnataka is similar to "Kurmar" in the Nomadic tribes list in the State of Maharashtra. He submitted that he is migrated from state of Karnataka to the State of Maharashtra and in case same caste is found in the list of Nomadic tribes in State of Karnataka and list of Nomadic tribes in State of Maharashtra, caste claim of the Petitioner ought to have been accepted by the Department and his promotion as a Deputy Engineer ought to have been continued and approved. In support of his contention he relied on the decision of this Hon’ble Court reported in 2007 (5) MLJ, Page 330 and tried to contend that since the Petitioner is migrated, the Scrutiny Committee, Pune should have gone through the exercise to scrutinize the caste certificate submitted by the Petitioner and ought to have validated the same. 7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State as well as Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee submitted that the caste mentioned 6 in the caste certificate of the Petitioner issued by the Tahsildar Bijapur, State of Karnataka mentions Petitioners caste as "Kurub". However, "Kurub" caste is not included in the list of Nomadic tribes in the State of Maharashtra. She submitted that, the caste "Kurub"is different then "Kurmar" and therefore the Petitioners claim that "Kurub" in the list of Nomadic tribes in Karnataka should be equated with "Kurmar" in the Nomadic tribes list in the State of Maharashtra is without any basis and deserves to be rejected. 8. We have carefully perused the Petition as well as annextures thereto and affidavit-in-reply filed by the Respondent. In our considered opinion, the "Kurub" caste is mentioned in the caste certificate of the Petitioner issued by the Tahsildar Bijapur, State of Karnataka is not included in the list of Nomadic tribes in State of Maharashtra. The Petitioners contention that the caste "Kurub" has mentioned in his caste certificate as synonymous to the caste "Kurmar" mentioned in the list of Nomadic tribes in State of Maharashtra cannot be accepted. It is not permissible to equate "Kurub" as existing in the Nomadic tribes list in the State of Karnataka with "Kurmar" as exist in the list of Nomadic tribes in the State of Maharashtra. Therefore, the Petitioners first contention that "Kurub" in list of Nomadic tribes in 7 State of Karnataka is the same as that of "Kurmar" in the Nomadic tribes list in the State of Maharashtra is rejected. 9. The second contention of the Petitioner that, since he is migrated from the State of Karnataka and his caste is included in the Nomadic tribes list in State of Karnataka as well as State of Maharashtra and therefore his promotion as Deputy Engineer ought to have been approved by holding that the caste certificate as "Kurub" is valid. We do not find any merit in this contention since the Petitioner is not migrated from the area which was erstwhile part of the Maharashtra State. 10. The third contention of the Petitioner that the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar Bijapur State of Karnataka ought to have been scrutinized by the caste Scrutiny Committee, Pune, is liable to be rejected since the Committee does not have jurisdiction to scrutinize / verify the caste certificate issued by the Government Authorities in State of Karnataka. 11. The forth contention of the Petitioner that, Exhibit "B" at page 22 i.e. letter written by the District Officer, Backward Classes and Minorities, Bjiapur to the Deputy Executive Engineer, Koyna Construction Division No. I, Koyna be read as decision 8 given by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in State of Karnataka, cannot be accepted. The letter written by the District Officer, Backward Classes and Minorities, Bijapur, State of Karnataka to the Deputy Executive Engineer, Koyna Construction Division No.I, Koyna is merely clarification given by the said Authority. Therefore, the forth contention of the Petitioner to read the letter at Exhibit "B" as a decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee in Karnataka is rejected. 12. Taking overall view of the matter, we do not find any merits in the Petition and same is rejected summarily. (S.S.SHINDE,J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE,J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE,J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)