RAJENDRA RAMRAO GHOSALKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appearing parties.

(2.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges the order dated May 19, 2000 passed by the Respondent no. 2 - the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribes Claim (for short, "scrutiny Committee") rejecting the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to "thakur" tribe, which is a scheduled tribe notified as such by the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Presidential order") as amended by the Parliament by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes (Amendment) Act, 1956 (Act No. 63 of 1956) and further amended by scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No. 108 of 1976).

(3.) In the enquiry before the second respondent, the petitioner produced ten documents, including the Primary School Leaving Certificate of his father ramrao. Though the school leaving certificate showed that petitioner's father was a "thakur" and that entry was made in the year 1948 i. e. prior to the presidential Order, relying upon the report of the vigilance officer the Scrutiny committee came to the conclusion that the petitioner did not belong to Thakur tribe. In the enquiry made by the vigilance officer it was discovered that in the school register dated 14th July, 1978, the caste of Raju Ganpat Gosalkar, the first cousin brother of the petitioner was recorded as "bhat". So also the caste of mangal Ganpat Ghosalkar, first cousin sister of the petitioner was recorded as "kunabi" in the school register and that entry was made on July 2, 1970. Report of the vigilance officer also disclosed caste of Anusaya Sampatrao Ghosalkar, another first cousin sister of the petitioner was recorded as "bhat" in the school register the said entry was made on July 5, 1971. The scrutiny committee was of the view that these adverse entries in the school registers, as disclosed from the report of the vigilance officer, were not properly explained by the petitioner. Therefore, the scrutiny committee came to the conclusion that the petitioner did not belong to the "thakur" tribe.