PADMINI NAIR Vs. COLLECTOR, NASIK REGION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner far an appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside a Resolution of the Government of maharashtra, dated 7th May, 1999, to the extent that it deprives children belonging to Backward class of concessions and benefits to which they are entitled.

(2.) The petitioner is a minor. He has filed this petition through his mother Mrs. Padmini Nair (Nashikkar) , residing at Nasik. The case of the petitioner is that his mother's maiden name was ms. Mandakini lilamanrao. Bodke and Nashikkar. She belongs to Vanjari Caste which is classified as nomadic Tribe. Petitioner's father, Nandakumar bhaskaran, hails from the State of Kerala. His community does not recognize any caste. He, therefore, has no caste. It is the case of the petitioner that he was born and brought up among the family members and relatives of his mother, all of whom belong to Hindu-Vanjari community. The petitioner does not know Keralite customs and traditions of his father. None of the relatives of the petitioner's father resides in Maharashtra. The petitioner also occasionally visits his relatives from father's side. He, however, is known as vanjari. The petitioner got admitted to a school by declaring his caste as Hindu Vanjari. In the school record, his caste is noted as Hindu-Vanjari. At present, the petitioner is studying in 12th standard and would be entering College in the next year. He, therefore, applied for a caste certificate so that he can get admission in a college next year. The petitioner was, however, told that no caste certificate would be issued in his favour in view of the Government Resolution dated 7th May, 1999 (Exhibit-D) which stipulates that in case of inter-caste marriage, the concessions and benefits of the father's caste would be available to children and not of the mother's caste. According to the petitioner, the resolution refers to a decision of the Supreme court. But the said decision is neither correctly interpreted nor properly applied by the State government and the petitioner is deprived of concessions and benefits as a member of Vanjari caste. He, therefore, is constrained to approach this Court by filing the present petition impugning the resolution being illegal, invalid and ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute between the parties that the mother of the petitioner belongs to Backward class i. e. Hindu-Vanjari community, which is classified as Nomadic Tribe. It is also not in dispute that petitioner's father is from Kerala. According to the petitioner, the community of his father does not have any caste. It is not even the case of the petitioner or his mother that the father of the petitioner or husband of Padmini Nair belongs to Backward Class. The question before this court is whether in the circumstances, the petitioner would be entitled to concessions and benefits as Nomadic Tribe to which the mother of the petitioner belonged prior to her marriage. Now, it may be appropriate to consider the resolution of the Government of Maharashtra issued on 7th May, 1999. Considering several resolutions and circulars issued from time to time by the State and referring to a decision of the Supreme Court in valsamma Paul (Mrs. ) vs. Cochin University and others, (1996) 3 SCC 545, it was decided that a candidate who had the advantageous start in life being born in forward caste would not be entitled to concessions and benefit, of reservation under article 15 (4) or 16 (4) of the Constitution. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court, the Government of Maharashtra issued certain directions. Clauses 4 and 5 of the Resolution are material and read thus: