SUREKHABEN RANJITBHAI PATELIA Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals arise out of a common judgement dated 03.11.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 11261 of 2009 and 11262 of 2009. Both the petitioners are real sisters named Sudha and Surekha, daughters of Ranjitbhai Patelia. On the basis of the declaration in the school leaving certificate that they belonged to Scheduled Tribe, they were granted scheduled tribe certificates by the competent authority in the Social Welfare Department of the State Government. On such basis, they also secured appointment in primary schools. Later on, it was revealed that their father Ranjitbhai Patelia was an employee in the Panchayat and had declared his status as belonging to Socially and Educationally Backward Class ['SEBC' for short]. An inquiry was, therefore, undertaken regarding the caste status of the two sisters. The Commissioner of Schedule Tribe Development passed an order dated 19.09.2009 holding that Sudha Ranjitbhai Patelia did not belong to Scheduled Tribe community and consequently, ordered cancellation of her caste certificate. He upheld the findings of the scrutiny committee constituted for such purpose. Under similar circumstances, the caste certificate of the other daughter of Ranjitbhai viz. Surekhaben also came to be cancelled. The two sisters, therefore, filed above noted petitions. Learned Single Judge dismissed the petitions by the impugned common judgement, in which, it was recorded that as per the record, father of the petitioners belonged to SEBC community. He also had a certificate to that effect. He had never claimed the benefit of scheduled tribe status. Inter alia on such grounds, the petitions came to be dismissed.

(2.) IT is this judgement, which the original petitioners have challenged by filing two separate letters patent appeals. Upon perusal of the record and after hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, we notice that there is no grievance made about adequate opportunity not being granted to the petitioners before the authorities took adverse decision. Even the detail orders passed by the Commissioner and the contents thereof would reveal that at all stages, the petitioners were given ample opportunities to represent their cases and to place such materials on record as they desired. Even the statements of the father of the petitioners were recorded. Various documents were produced and taken into consideration. The short question, therefore, calls for consideration is whether the Government authorities erred in cancelling the caste certificate of the petitioners giving them a status of scheduled tribe and whether resultantly, the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petitions.

(3.) FROM the record, it clearly emerges that before the Commissioner, the petitioners heavily relied on their school records which recorded that they belonged to Scheduled Tribe community. Their reliance also was on the premise that their mother held agricultural land in which the Collector had imposed restrictions flowing from Section 73AA of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code. These were primarily the grounds, on which, the petitioners defended their caste certificates before the Government authorities. The Commissioner of Scheduled Tribe Development, however, noted that the father of the petitioners belonged to SEBC community and he also held the certificate to that effect. He belonged to Baria Khsatriya community which fell in SEBC category. There is no other evidence to suggest that his family or his community followed customs of scheduled tribes. In his school admission form as well as school leaving certificate, he is shown to be belonging to SEBC community. The daughters of Ranjitbhai, therefore, would belong to the same caste and would fall within SEBC category. He refuted the contention of the petitioners that in case of the land held by their mother restriction was imposed by the Collector under Sections 73A and 73AA of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code by observing that their mother, Kariben held lands in which there is no indication of restrictions under Section 73A and 73AA of the Code.