RAJESH Vs. SCHEDULED TRIBES CASTE CERTIFICATE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition was admitted on 17/01/2008 and the interim relief granted earlier in terms of prayer clause - (iv) on 29/5/2007 was continued. Today when the matter was listed for considering the application for early hearing, on a query being made, to the Counsels for the parties whether they were willing to address the Court on merits, they expressed agreement, as a result of which the matter was heard finally.

(2.) The petition challenges the order dated 10/5/2007 passed by the respondent no.1, invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to the Scheduled Tribe "Halbi".

(3.) Shri M.D. Lakhe, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order dated 10/5/2007 passed by the respondent no.1, clearly suffers from non-application of mind as the pre-independence documents, which demonstrated the caste of the ancestors of the petitioner as "Halbi" have been ignored and merely on a misconceived notion, that the correction in the school record of the father of the petitioner, was not explained, the caste claim has been invalidated. He further submits that the question of applying the affinity test would arise when there was absence of pre-independence documents or there was any conflict in the caste of the ancestors of the petitioner in the pre-independence documents. He submits that the consistent view of the Courts that pre-independence documents relating to caste have a great probative value, has clearly been ignored by the respondent no.1, which has resulted in passing of the impugned order. He further submits, that the respondent no.1, cannot approbate and reprobate, inasmuch as it cannot render a finding that the vigilance cell report was without any detailed enquiry and on the other hand, place reliance upon the same too. He further submits that the caste of the petitioner, and his ancestors has been consistently demonstrated to be "Halbi" which in fact, has also been accepted by the Scrutiny Committee, as would be apparent from paragraph 4 (c) of the impugned order. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto.