SARANGAPPA SIDDHESHWARAPPA SWAMI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE, returnable forthwith. The learned A. G. P. appears and waives service on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner craves leave to delete the respondent No. 4. Leave granted. As all other respondents appeared and waived the service, petition is taken up for final hearing with consent.

(2.) THE petitioner claims to be belonging to Mala Jangam , which is declared as scheduled caste in the Presidential Order issued in the year 1950. The petitioner obtained admission to D. Ed. Course in District Education and Training Institute, Nanded, claiming the benefit of Mala Jangam - scheduled caste. The caste certificate issued by him was sent to the Scrutiny Committee (respondent No. 2 herein) for verification. The Scrutiny Committee, by its order dated 2nd October, 2001, invalidated the certificate. Prior to the order, the respondent No. 2 had called for the report of the vigilance cell. Copy of the report of the vigilance cell is produced at Exhibit-C to the petition. The Scrutiny Committee, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, invalidated the caste certificate principally on the following grounds. (i) The evidence produced by the applicant was of a recent origin. No evidence, which was prior to the year 1950, when Mala Jangam was notified as a scheduled caste, nor any evidence of the period immediately after the year 1950, is produced by the petitioner. (ii) Petitioner had produced a certificate of Junior College of his father of the year 1979-80, which showed caste of the petitioners father as Jangam and not as Mala Jangam. (iii) The petitioner had not produced the school leaving certificate or evidence regarding primary education of the petitioners father. Adverse inference was drawn and it was held that the said record was not produced because that record must be showing the caste of the petitioners father as Mala Jangam. (iv) The report of the vigilance committee is not favourable to the petitioner.

(3.) IT is true that almost all the documents produced by the petitioner except a deed of partition, are of recent origin. It is also true that normally the evidence of recent origin has a less probative value because the candidate, in order to get benefits, can claim, in the recent documents, that he belongs to scheduled caste. Normally the evidence, which is prior to the declaration of the caste as scheduled caste, has greater probative value than the evidence of recent origin. The petitioners father himself was admitted to the primary school some time in the year 1968 or thereabout. Therefore, the evidence of 1968, even if it would have been produced, could have been discarded by the Caste Scrutiny Committee on the ground that it relates to a period which is remote by 18 years from the date of declaration of Mala Jangam as a scheduled caste. The vigilance cell had visited the primary school of the petitioners father and even had spoken to the Head Master. The Head Master of the school has stated that the old records were not available in the school. If the records were not available, certainly petitioner cannot be blamed for non-production of record of primary school of the petitioners father.