CHAITANYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, thereby challenging the order dtd. 7/7/2022 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Kinwat through its Deputy Director at Aurangabad, by which the tribe claim of the petitioner for 'Mannerwarlu' tribe has been rejected.

(2.) The petitioner contends that she belongs to 'Mannervarlu' tribe. The tribe certificate was issued by the competent authority on 1/7/2009. However, on 5/10/2015, the Verification Committee cancelled the same on the ground that the nomenclature of the tribe was wrongly recorded. The petitioner approached this Court in W.P. No. 3252 of 2017. The order dtd. 5/10/2015 was quashed and set aside. Thereafter, the competent authority issued the corrected tribe certificate on 20/7/2017. It was submitted to the committee for verification on 24/8/2017. It is further case of the petitioner that in the year 2016-17 she was qualified for admission to MBBS Course from Scheduled Tribe category and consequently, admitted to the respondent No.3 college. She completed her course in May 2021. However, by the impugned order dtd. 7/7/2022, the Committee rejected the Tribe claim.

(3.) Mr. Vibhute, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that on 5/3/2007, the scrutiny committee had validated the tribe claim of her father. Similarly, the committee at Nasik had validated tribe claim of her cousin uncle, namely, Amol Palekar on 20/5/1998. The tribe claim of her cousin grandfather Dnyanoba and cousin uncle Rajaram were also validated in the year 2005. The claims of many other blood relatives have been validated by the committee. He would further submit that on 10/8/2018, the Committee issued validity certificate in favour of the paternal cousin Nishikant as per the directions of this court in W.P. No. 9382 of 2018. He would further submit that under the orders of this Court in W.P. No. 8417 of 2020 the validity certificate has been issued to Sarika and Sayali Palekar, who are blood relatives of the petitioner. Mr. Vibhute would further submit that the Committee relied upon the vigilance report dtd. 5/5/2020. The observations in the report were duly replied by the petitioner. He would further point out that remarks of the vigilance cell in the matter of Sarika and Sayali are similar to the one in the matter of the petitioner. This Court after considering such remarks directed the committee to issue tribe certificate to them. However, in case of the petitioner, differential treatment is given thereby invalidating her claim.