ASRA FATEMA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.

(3.) The petitioner is a student pursuing her further education. She claimed to be 'Chapparband ' (De-notified tribe). As per the contention of the petitioner she is studying in B.E. (Civil) final year. Her caste claim was referred for verification. She submitted various documents to substantiate her claim to be 'Chapparband '. The Caste Scrutiny Committee referred the same to the Vigilance Committee for necessary enquiry. The Vigilance Committee submitted its report on 08/07/2019. As per the contention of the petitioner, the Vigilance Committee had not expressed any negative opinion. However, after receipt of report, the Caste Scrutiny Committee issued notice on 07/08/2019 and called the petitioner to remain present on 20/08/2019. Accordingly, the petitioner had filed detailed reply on 20/08/2019 but the Scrutiny Committee rejected the claim of the petitioner by assigning reason that the petitioner had failed to prove that she belongs to 'Chapparband '. It is further the contention of the petitioner that before the Caste Scrutiny Committee she relied on the pre-independence entries i.e. extract of Dakhal Kharij register which shows that as per her grandfather 's school leaving certificate, birth date is recorded as 01/07/1933. He was admitted in the Municipal School, Amravati for the period from 20/08/1949 to 04/04/1950. In the school he was recorded as 'Chapparband '. She further submitted that the validity certificate was issued to her paternal uncle by name Ashfaque Ahmed. Her father and her brother were also recorded as 'Chapparband ' and the caste certificates were issued to them by the Sub-Divisional Officer but the Committee had rejected the caste claim of the petitioner by assigning reason that the caste validity certificate issued to Ashfaque Ahmed prior to the decision of the Hon 'ble Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and anr. Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and ors. (1994) 6 SCC 241. Therefore, the said decision cannot be taken into consideration.