RAVINDRA PRALHADRAO KHARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has impugned the judgment and order dated 8th October 2012 passed by the Scheduled Tribes Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Division, Thane (hereinafter referred to as "the Scrutiny Committee"). The matter of verification of the caste claim of the Petitioner was referred to the Scrutiny Committee. The Petitioner claimed that he belongs to the caste "Thakur" which is a Scheduled Tribe. The Petitioner was employed with the Fire Brigade of the third Respondent - Municipal Corporation and the caste claim of the Petitioner was forwarded to the Scrutiny Committee for verification. Earlier, the caste claim of the Petitioner was invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee and, thereafter, a Writ Petition was filed by the Petitioner in which an order of remand was passed. The judgment and order has been passed after remand. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Scrutiny Committee has completely ignored that the Petitioner had filed a reply to the report of the Vigilance Cell. He pointed out that the school record of the Petitioner's father shows that the caste of the Petitioner's father was recorded as "Thakur" way back in the year 1948. He pointed out that the death extract of the grand father of the Petitioner shows that in the year 1947, his caste was recorded as "Thakur". He submitted that the said material documents have been brushed aside by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. He submitted that the documents have been discarded on the ground that the same are not conclusive. He submitted that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has gone by the affinity test which is not conclusive. He placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and Others, 2012 1 SCC 113. He submitted that the impugned judgment and order is perverse. The learned AGP supported the impugned judgment and order. He invited our attention to the observations made by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the impugned judgment and order and submitted that the Petitioner claimed caste status only with the intention to take undue advantage of the similarity in the nomenclature of the caste. He, therefore, submitted that no interference is called for.

(2.) We have carefully considered the submissions. It will be necessary to make a reference to the impugned judgment and order. The Caste Scrutiny Committee has referred to the school record of the Petitioner's father which discloses that in the year 1948, his caste was recorded as "Thakur". The Scrutiny Committee has also referred to the death extract of the grand father of the Petitioner which shows that in the year 1947, his caste has been shown as "Thakur". The third important document referred to by the Scrutiny Committee is the service book of the Petitioner's father which shows that his caste was "Thakur". These three documents have been brushed aside by the Scrutiny Committee by making following observations:

(3.) We fail to understand as to how the Caste Scrutiny Committee expects the documents of the years 1947-1948 to mention as to whether the caste "Thakur" belongs to the category of Scheduled Tribe or the category of non-tribal. In the years 1947-1948, such entries could not have been made. Another finding recorded by the Tribunal is that the Petitioner could not establish his affinity to the caste and to the area. On this aspect, it will be necessary to make a reference to what is held by the Apex Court in the case of Anand, 2012 1 SCC 113 in Paragraph 22. The Paragraph 22 of the said decision reads thus: