PRABHAKAR SADASHEO NANDANWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN this petition came up for final hearing, Shri C. J. Madkholkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, made a preliminary submission that anomalous position was occurred because of restrictive interpretation of the provisions of Chapter XVII, Rule 18 of the Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, 1960.

(2.) BY this petition, the petitioner is challenging the action of the respondents of reverting the petitioner as a sequel to an order made by the Caste Verification Authority holding that the petitioner does not belong to a particular backward community. The post held by the petitioner as a promotional post having been reserved for that backward community, the petitioner should not be continued in that post and hence he was reverted after the decision of the Government that his caste was not that for which the post is reserved. The learned Counsel has not gone into the merits of the case but has canvassed that by judgment of this Court delivered by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3826/2000, some observations have been made in relation to the Chapter XVII, Rule 18 of the Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, 1960 and by interpretation thereof in accordance with this judgment, the Registry of the Bombay High Court at Nagpur is listing for admission as also for hearing the matters arising out of the orders passed by the Caste Verification Committees in relation to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe before the learned Single Bench. Identical orders in relation to the Other Backward Classes are placed before the Division Bench for admission and hearing. According to the learned Counsel, this amounts to violent discrimination violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as a person facing Caste Verification Committee by itself forms of a class whether he belongs to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or Nomadic Tribe or Vimukti Jati or any Other Backward Class, defined under the orders framed under the Constitution. There is no distinction between the castes which have been given certain privileges for which verification of caste is strictly undertaken by the State authorities. It may be that various Caste Verification Committees have been formed for different castes and communities but the job is same viz. to verify the caste of the candidate as per the claim made by the candidate. There is, therefore, no sub-classification possible or permissible and hence reading of Rule 18 as restricted to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, would be improper and illegal. There is nothing in the Appellate Side Rules which requires such restricted reading.

(3.) YET another submission made by the learned Counsel was that though the persons are identically situated viz. the persons facing caste verification for their being Nomadic Tribe and the persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste facing Caste Verification, are identically situated, the Caste Verification Committee in case of both the candidates, rejects the claim or invalidates the certificate of caste as claimed by the respective candidates. The challenge, in relation to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, will go before the Single Bench and the challenge, in relation to the Nomadic Tribe, will go before the Division Bench. Assuming that both the petitions are dismissed, a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe will have further opportunity to approach this Court under Letters Patent Appeal Jurisdiction whereas such opportunity is denied to a candidate belonging to the Nomadic Tribe. Restricted reading of Clause 44 to Rule 18, thus, results in hostile discrimination between two identical persons in the matter of remedy available for redressal of the grievance. For this reason also, according to the learned Counsel, the Rule is liable to be read liberally. It was canvassed by the learned Counsel that large number of cases go up in relation to the orders passed by the Caste Verification Committees and repeated discriminatory treatment in relation to the remedies available should not be permitted to exist. He, therefore, requested that the question of interpretation of the Rule authoritatively should be decided so far as this Court is concerned. There is no doubt that the question is of some importance. It certainly is of regular occurrence and the Rule, thus, requires to be interpreted.