(1) WP-5301.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5301 OF 2010 Ajinkya S/o Sanjay Patil Age : 20 years, Occu.: Education, R/o Devika, 4, Sahakar Nagar, Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai (Copy to be served on Assistant Government Pleader, High Court, Bench at Aurangabad) 2. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad Through its Member Secretary RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Advocate h/f. Mr. N.B. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Addl. G.P. for the Respondent-State. ..... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 13TH JULY, 2011 JUDGMENT (PER - M.T. JOSHI, J.):- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. (2) WP-5301.2010 2. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner is praying that the order passed by the respondent no.2-the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee dated 20.1.2010 be quashed and set aside and instead it be directed to issue caste validity certificate, certifying that the petitioner belongs to "Kunbi" O.B.C. caste. 3. The petitioner's caste certificate in this regard was sent for validation to the respondent no.2. The documents included the school leaving certificate of Dagadu Shamrao Patil in which caste Kunbi was mentioned as against said Dagadu and the certificate showed that said Dagadu had joined the concerned school on 2nd December, 1913 and left the school on 1st October, 1915. Further caste validation of Digvijay Prakash Patil, the paternal relative of the petitioner was also pressed into service. 4. The Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee took into consideration the documents and the vigilance report. As regards the validation of the caste certificate of Digvijay Patil, i.e. the cousin (3) WP-5301.2010 brother of the petitioner respondent no.2-Committee has held that each case will have to be decided on its own merits. It was further observed that merely because the said caste claim was validated it would not mean that the petitioner would also be granted the validation. 5. As regards the school record of Dagadu Shamrao Patil the petitioner has claimed that said Dagadu was his great grand father. Affidavits and documents in regard of him were placed on record showing the genealogy and also the revenue record regarding the land possessed by the said Dagadu and inherited by his siblings, which included the father of petitioner-Ajinkya. Respondent no.2-Scrutiny Committee however found that while the school record mentions the said person as Dagadu Shamrao Patil, the revenue record shows the name as "Dagajirao Patil". Thus, finding two different names, according to the Scrutiny Committee, the document did not indicate the relationship of the petitioner with the said person and, therefore, the validation was refused. 6. Perusal of the documents show that while the (4) WP-5301.2010 school record of the said person named him as Dagadu Shamrao Patil, the Record of Rights of various agricultural properties of village Undirkhede has recorded the name as Dagaji Shamrao Patil. More specific is the City Survey record of plot no. 3168 of 2009 of Jalgaon. The property card of the said plot issued by the City Survey office shows that the plot was granted to "Dagadu" Shamrao Patil on 2.11.1931 and upon his death new tenure holders were recorded as no.1-Balwant "Dagajirao" Patil, no.2- Bhaskar "Dagajirao" Patil, no.3-Dattatraya "Dagajirao" Patil etc. 7. This extract of the property card would thus clearly show that upon death of Dagadu Shamrao Patil, his legal representative i.e. Balwant S/o Dagajirao Patil etc. had become the owner of the said non- agricultural plot. The Scrutiny Committee however, merely for the difference in the name as Dagadu and Dagajirao has concluded that these two are the different persons and therefore the documents concerning Dagadu and/or Dagajirao does not establish the relationship of the petitioner with him. It may (5) WP-5301.2010 be noted that these documents are of vital importance since the caste of the said person is entered into the school record of the year 1913, while the caste Kunbi came to be included in O.B.C. category in the year 1961. 8. As regards the validation of the caste certificate to the cousin of the petitioner, though the Scrutiny Committee has rightly held that, it cannot be the sole ground for validating the certificate of the petitioner. However, it failed to consider that grant of such validation is having a persuasive value. Further, particularly in the background of non-appreciation of the mere difference of names of the same person i.e. the respondent no.2, in the light of documentary evidence, the order has become unreasonable. 9. In the circumstances, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) and (c). The order dated 20.1.2010 passed by the respondent no.2 is hereby quashed and set aside. Instead, the respondent no.2 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the observations made (6) WP-5301.2010 above and pass an order afresh by giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, according to the law, within a period of four (4) months from the date of this order. The petitioner shall appear before the respondent no.2 on 16th August, 2011 at 11.00 am. Rule made absolute in the above terms. Sd/- Sd/- [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] arp/