SANGEETA BALAYYA BHUREWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Writ Petition No.866/1995 the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Caste Certificates Scrutiny Committee, Maharashtra State, Nashik (hereinafter referred as 'the committee), whereby the committee has in validated the caste/tribe claim of the petitioner. The petitioner obtained a certificate from Executive Magistrate, Aurangabad, on the basis that she belongs to "Chhatri" scheduled tribe. On the basis of the said certificate, the petitioner secured employment in public Works Department, Government of Maharashtra. By an order dt.31st of Dec., 1989, the petitioner came to be appointed as Typist. The order of appointment dt.31st of Dec., 1989 being temporary for a period of six months. The appointment order also indicates the terms and conditions. As per condition No.4 of the appointment order, the service of the petitioner was to be continued only after the report/ order from the committee. The petitioner's tribe claim was accordingly forwarded to the Committee by the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Board, Aurangabad. The caste claim was then referred to the committee which was constituted as per the Government of Maharashtra, Tribal Development Department, Resolution No.CBC/1684/(291)/D-XI, dt.23rd of Jan., 1985. The petitioner furnished some documents in order to prove her claim. The documents are divided in three groups; (1) documents pertaining to the petitioner. (2) documents pertaining to the petitioner's father; and (3) documents pertaining to the petitioner's husband.

(2.) It is claim of the petitioner that he married to Jitendra Balaji Potpalliwar, who belongs to "Chhatri" scheduled tribe community. She stated that her marriage is not inter caste marriage and to establish her claim, she mainly relied on the documents pertaining to her husband. We have noticed from the order passed by the Committee that in the documents which are produced by the petitioner pertaining to her father, tribe 'Chhatri' is not mentioned there. The Committee then noticed the petitioner and she appeared with her father-in-law before the Committee. The Committee has recorded the statement of her father-in-law during the course of the enquiry. The committee then analysed 14 documents which were produced by the petitioner along with the statement of her father-in-law. The Committee observed that the petitioner's father-in-law has utterly failed to establish any affinity with "Chhatri" Scheduled Tribe. The Committee considered the information furnished by the petitioner's father-in-law and, on appreciation of evidence produced by the petitioner, the Committee came to the conclusion that petitioner failed to establish that she belongs to "Chhatri" Scheduled Tribe and, accordingly, her claim came to be invalidated and order of cancellation of certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate came to be passed. After the decision of the Committee, the Committee forwarded the order to the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Board, Aurangabad, under whom the petitioner was working, who, in turn, by his order dt.31st of Jan., 1995, terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that the certificate obtained by the petitioner has been invalidated. Being aggrieved by these two orders, the petitioner approached this court.

(3.) The petition was taken up for motion hearing on 10th of March, 1995, and this court granted Rule Nisi and protected the services of the petitioner. While granting Rule Nisi, the court passed following order: