JAYASING DHONDIRAM RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF THE MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by a retired Assistant Conservator of Forests against findings recorded by the Caste Verification Committee, Pune. The Committee invalidated his claim as being member of "Rajput Bhamta" caste and held that he is a Hindu Rajput by caste.

(2.) It is not necessary to elaborately set out the facts leading to controversy about the caste claim made by the Petitioner. Suffice it to say that the Petitioner initially relied upon a caste certificate dated 26th June, 1953 claiming that he belonged to Hindu Patharwat community. The certificate was cancelled by order dated 19th July, 1982 by the then Tahsildar, Tasgaon. The Forest Department had initiated a Departmental Enquiry on charge that the Petitioner had submitted a false caste certificate. The enquiry was, however, dropped. The Petitioner sought benefits of deemed promotion and consequential monetary benefits along with pensionary benefits. He had, therefore, filed a Civil Suit No. 251 of 1989 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangli. He also filed Transfer Application No. 1758 of 1991 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. Since the Caste Certificate of the Petitioner was not verified, the Tribunal allowed withdrawal of the suit with liberty to the Petitioner to move the Government for determination of caste claim by making reference to the appropriate authority for verification thereof. The Petitioner submitted an application dated 19th November, 1996 claiming verification of his caste claim as "Rajput Bhamta". The application was referred to the Caste Verification Committee, Pune. The Committee conducted necessary inquiries into the matter, interviewed the Petitioner and also collected certain documents. The Committee found that the caste claim of the Petitioner is incorrect and he does not belong to sub-caste known as "Rajput Bhamta" and as such he is not member of VJNT.

(3.) The Petitioner impugnes findings of the Committee on various grounds. On his behalf, learned Counsel Shri R. K. Mendadkar, canvased before us that the Committee failed to appreciate documentary evidence placed before it. He contended that the impugned order is vitiated due to non-furnishing of enquiry report of the vigilance cell. He further contended that the Committee did not apply its mind to the facts of the caste claim presented by the Petitioner and reached erroneous findings. The learned Counsel submitted that the caste claim of the Petitioner should not have been rejected by the Committee and urged to allow the Petition. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondents supported the impugned order.