MRS. RASHMI RAJAN LAMBOR ALIAS SAGGUBAI B Vs. SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR VERIFICATION OF CASTE CERTIFICATE THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article of the Constitution of India, what the petitioner prays is that an order dated 16th January, 2012, being Exhibit P -1 to the petition, passed by respondent No.1 be quashed and set aside and that the Certificate issued by the Deputy Collector/SDM Quepem, Exhibit P -10 to the petition, be ordered to be scrutinised by the Scrutiny Committee -respondent No.1, in accordance with law. By the order under challenge, the Scrutiny Committee of Caste Certificate at Porvorim, Goa has held that there was evidence on record placed by both the parties and detailed arguments were canvassed. Even the Vigilance Report is on record. The contents of the Vigilance Report are referred to, but, ultimately, relying upon a circular issued by the Government of Goa on 13th August, 1991, that the Scrutiny Committee concluded that in order to claim Other Backward Class ("OBC" for short) status, the parents of the petitioner are required to migrate to the State of Goa before 19/02/1968. According to the Scrutiny Committee, the case of the present petitioner is that she started residing in Goa from 5th May, 2003. There is no evidence to show that the parents of the petitioner were settled in Goa before 19th February, 1968. Therefore, in view of the above circular, the members of "Gowli" Community in Karnataka are not entitled to avail the benefits of Dhangar OBC in the State of Goa.

(2.) MR . Dessai, learned Senior Counsel had raised several contentions before us. His first contention was that the Gowli Community in the State of Karnataka is recognized as OBC qua that State. At the same time, the persons from this community migrating to the State of Goa are recognized as Dhangars which is classified as OBC for the State of Goa. For all purposes, Gowlis from Karnataka are similar and identically placed as Dhangars in the State of Goa. He submits that the circular relied upon by the Scrutiny Committee is inapplicable, as its application is restricted to the benefit of admission in the Colleges of Goa which is being secured against quota reserved for SCs/STs. His contention was that for this circular to apply, it must be construed as being applicable to the OBCs. Assuming it can be so construed, but without admitting it, its applicability is restricted to admissions against reserved quota in Colleges in the State of Goa. Mr. Dessai submits that the Scrutiny Committee fell in patent error in applying this circular to the facts of the present case, wherein the issue of the petitioner's status, as OBC, has been raised in an election dispute/petition filed by the contesting respondent to this writ petition. Further the Scrutiny Committee's inquiry is with regard to the certificate, certifying the petitioner as belonging to Dhangar Community. It is that certificate which was to be scrutinized by the Scrutiny Committee. That is how the matter was understood and was being processed. That is why the evidence was permitted to be led and it was also referred to for report by the Vigilance Committee. If such is the procedure which is adopted bearing in mind the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, reported in : (1994) 6 SCC 241, then, midway, the Committee erred in relying on this circular and closing the case. This is some abrupt conclusion, on the basis of only the circular and without discussing the contents of the vigilance report or by referring to the materials on record which would entitle the petitioner to prove that Dhangar Community of Goa is identical to Gowli Community of Karnataka in matters of dress, language, cultural, religious rites, traits and customs. That opportunity has been taken away and, therefore, the impugned order should be set aside on this ground alone.

(3.) MR . Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent, on the other hand, urges that the petitioner is seeking to assert her status as OBC on the strength, firstly, of migration to the State of Goa which is by virtue of her marriage to an OBC in the State of Goa. It is well settled, according to Mr. Lotlikar, that caste is acquired by birth. One does not get transferred into a caste by virtue of marriage or adoption. If that is the fundamental principle on which the law proceeds, then, no further inquiry was necessary. The Scrutiny Committee's conclusion can be supported by relying on this settled principle. Assuming that the petitioner claims independent status as OBC in the State of Goa on the basis of the caste certificate issued in her favour, even that is claimed on the basis of migration. It is not that the caste status can be said to be proved by migration from Karnataka to Goa of an OBC. Every thing depends upon the facts of each case and, therefore, going by the principle laid down in the case of Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College, reported in : (1990) 3 SCC 130 that unless there is a legislation in the field, the Court cannot direct any inquiry into the status of the petitioner, on the strength of migration to the State of Goa. For all these reasons, and the circular also being in place, he submits that the petition be dismissed.