PRABHU NARAYAN SURVASE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Peon in a school run by the respondent No. 4. His tribe claim was referred to the second respondent for verification. The second respondent, by its order dt. 28. 1. 2003 invalidated the tribe claim and hence the present petition.

(2.) THE petitioner, in his petition has averred that he had not applied for a reserved post for Scheduled Tribe. It is not necessary to go into that issue as the tribe claim of the petitioner was referred by the School to the committee. The petitioner appeared and participated. He was appointed by order dt. " 22/09/1999, and his services came to be confirmed on successful completion of probation vide order dated 27/09/2001. His tribe claim was referred by the Headmaster to the Committee sometime in August, 2002. The petitioner was asked to appear before the committee on 24th September, 2002. Petitioner appeared on 24th September, 2002, and submitted several documents and in addition filled in a questionnaire in the prescribed proforma. The petitioner submitted as many as eight documents which included the entry in the service book of his father. The Vigilance Officer conducted an enquiry and submitted the report dated 30th August, 2002 which was made available to the petitioner some time in September, 2002. It is the case of the petitioner that, the second respondent noted that the tribe of his father was recorded as Koli in the school record. The second respondent then proceeded on the footing that since the record was maintained by the public authority, the same had probative value to determine the status of the petitioner's family. It is the respondent's contention that the caste Koli has been notified as a Special Backward Class n the State of Maharashtra and is in no way connected with the Scheduled Tribe Mahadeo Koli. The documents relied upon by the petitioner were rejected on the ground that all those documents were issued subsequent to the entry in the school record of the father of the petitioner. The respondent no. 2 Committee further held that the petitioner was unable to produce documentary evidence in support of his claim and failed to prove affinity and ethnic linkage towards Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that the Government of India had appointed a Committe on Backward Classes under the chairmanship of kaka Kalelkar so as to identify and recommend the communities which fall in the category of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and which could be notified as such. The Backward Classes Commission has recommended to include Koli in the list of Scheduled Tribes for the erstwhile hyderabad State. Before the recommendations of Kaka Kalelkar Commission, on Backward Classes could be accepted or implemented, the estwhile Hyderabad State was dissolved. Five of the districts of erstwhile Hyderabad State, which form part of what is now known as marathwada region of the State of Maharashtra, were included in the state of Maharashtra. As a consequence of the State of Hyderabad being dissolved, Parliament had no occasion to accept the recommendations of the Commission on backward classes in so far as State of Hyderabad is concerned. The five districts are 1) Aurangabad (Now bifurcated into aurangabad and Jalna. (2) Nanded, (3) Latur (now bifurcated into Latur and Osmanabad ). (4) Parbhani (now bifurcated into Parbhani and Hingoli)arid (5) Beed. The above five districts as now bifurcated constitute eight districts of Marathwada, in the State of Maharashtra. It is petitioner's further case that, historically speaking, the origin of koli Mahdeo is in the Balaghat Ranges. The Balaghat Ranges are formed in the Marathwada Region of the erstwhile Hyderabad State. There is no coastal area in the Marathwada region and, consequently, there is no machimar Koli found in the Marathwada region. The petitioner's further case is that in these areas Koli Mahdeo was. not recognized as Scheduled tribe before 1976 though it was recognised in some Districts of the State of Maharashtra. The members belonging to this community did not bother to mention their sub tribe or sub division of the main community i. e. Koli. It is petitioner's case that Koli community was the main tribe i. e. genus whereas Koli Malhar, Tokre Koli, Chumble Koli, Mahdeo Koli were its sub divisions or sub tribes. Various grounds have been taken to challenge the order of the second respondent. They will be considered to the extent they are required to be considered while disposing of the petition. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent no. 2, it is contended that the Committee considered the documentary evidence, the Vigilance report and also made an enquiry into the tribal traits and affinity of the petitioner towards Mahdeo Koli community. The Committee found that the petitioner had failed to produce sufficient documentary evidence in support of his claim and also utterly failed to prove the affinity and ethnic linkage towards Koli Mahdeo Scheduled Tribe and in view of that, rejected the claim of the petitioner herein.