ARUNA SHIVRAJ ANUMULA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in Writ Petition No.12295 of 2018 Smt. Aruna Kudmulwar, assails the order dtd. 22/10/2018, of the Scrutiny Committee in which, though by a majority decision the petitioner is held as belonging to the Caste 'Munnur Kapu' (SOBC), however in light of the proviso to Rule 14 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules 2012 (Caste Certificate Rules 2012, hereinafter for short), have refused to verify the caste certificate, as issued to the petitioner. The petition also further seeks directions against the respondents not to disqualify the petitioner as a President of Municipal Council. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.1753 of 2019 Smt. Archana B. Patankar, is the objector in W.P. 12295/2018 and assails the same order dt.2210/2018, passed by the Committee to the extent of the observations of the President and the Member Secretary of Respondent-Committee, which is minority view.

(2.) The petitioner in Writ Petition No.12295 of 2018 was elected as a President of a Municipal Council, Kundalwadi, Taluka Biloli. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had migrated to the State of Maharashtra in the year 1987, after her marriage. She belongs to Munnur Kapu caste. The said caste was included in NTB category, for the first time, under notification (Government Resolution) dtd. 30/1/2014. Earlier thereto the said caste was included as SBC under Government Resolution dtd. 7/12/1994.

(3.) It is contended that the forefathers of the petitioner belonged to Nanded District. The father of the present petitioner shifted to Hyderabad for the purpose of service in 1960, where the petitioner was born and completed her education. The petitioner got married to Vitthal Kudmulwar on 24/5/1987 and thus came to reside in her matrimonial home. Munnur Kapu, the caste to which the petitioner belongs was a backward class in the State of Andhra Pradesh. On the basis of the caste certificate issued to the petitioner by the Tahsildar, Mandal Amberpet, Hyderabad (Now Telangana). The S.D.M., Biloli, District Nanded issued a caste certificate on 22/11/2016 to the petitioner in FORM - 10 as prescribed under Rules 6 (1) (a) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012. According to Ms. Talekar, the learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.12295 of 2018, the relevant date to be considered for a person to get the caste certificate and the benefit of the said caste is the date of notification, pursuant to which the said caste is included in a particular reserved category. The petitioner has obtained the caste certificate of NTB Munnur Kapu on 22/11/2016 and his caste was included in NTB category for the first time in the year 2014. In view of that, even if the case of the Committee is accepted that the petitioner has migrated in 1987 as such the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the said caste. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sau. Kusum Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2009) 2 SCC 109. The learned counsel further submits that the judgment of the full Bench of this Court in the case of Shweta Santalal Lal Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2010) 2 Mh.L.J.904 would not go against the petitioner. The said case was dealing with the Presidential Orders in respect of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. The learned counsel submits that the question framed itself was such that a person residing in the State of Maharashtra on the date of the notification would be entitled for the benefit of the reserved caste. The learned counsel submits that the Committee ought to have issued validity to the petitioner. The learned counsel also relies on the circulars issued by the Election Commission dtd. 20/9/2001 and 28/11/2016. The learned counsel further relies on the Transfer Certificate dtd. 21/3/1995 to contend that the admission was taken in July 1990.