PRIYANKA Vs. DISTRICT CASTE CERTIFICATE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE, CHANDRAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner claims to belong to 'Madiga' Scheduled Caste. The petitioner has taken admission in the Bachelor of Technology (B.Tech.) course being conducted at the respondent No.2-University. With a view to pursue higher education, the petitioner sought verification of her caste claim based on the caste certificate dtd. 5/1/2014. The Scrutiny Committee by its order dtd. 29/7/2019 has held that the said caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was in contravention to Rules 5 (1), (2) and 14 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance of Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 (for short, the Rules of 2012). The Scrutiny Committee therefore declared the caste certificate as invalid and proceeded to cancel the same. The benefits derived pursuant to the said caste certificate were directed to be withdrawn. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order.

(3.) Shri S.R.Narnavare, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Scrutiny Committee was not justified in cancelling the petitioner's caste certificate on the ground that the same was issued in contravention to Rule 5(1) and (2) as well as Rule 14 of the Rules of 2012. The basis for arriv- ing at such conclusion was only in view of the fact that in the service record of the petitioner's grandfather his permanent address was shown to be in District Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner grandfather was appointed in Western Coalfields Limited on 22/2/1968 and on that basis the Scrutiny Committee concluded that he was a migrant in the State of Maharashtra hav- ing settled here in 1968. It was concluded that the petitioner could not prove that her forefathers were ordinary residents of the State of Maharashtra. According to him, this conclusion was arrived at without granting any proper opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate this aspect and without conduct- ing a detailed enquiry through the Vigilance Cell. Inviting attention to the judgments of this Court in Badalsingh Bharosa Rawale vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.3, Nagpur and another [2016(1) Mh.L.J.77] and Rajanna Ganganna Rashalawar vs State Of Maharashtra and others [2022(4) Mh.L.J.283], it was submitted that the question with regard to migration of forefathers was required to be answered after permitting the petitioner to adduce evidence to indicate otherwise. No such opportunity was granted to the petitioner. The said finding had been recorded merely on the basis of the fact that the petitioner's grandfather had secured employment in the year 1968 and that in his service record his permanent address was shown as Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh. It was further contended that the insistence of the Scrutiny Committee to require the petitioner to submit pre-constitutional documents was without any legal basis. There was no such requirement prescribed either in the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (for short, the Act of 2000) or in the Rules of 2012. Placing reliance on the decision in Mahesh Pralhadrao Lad vs. State of Maharashtra and others [2009(2) Mh.L.J.90] it was submitted that the Scrutiny Committee was required to consider all documents produced by a claimant irrespective of the fact that they were of the pre-constitutional or post-constitutional period.