ANITA RAMRAO HIMGIRE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the Petitioners are challenging the order dated 21.11.2000 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad invalidating their caste claim as belonging to "Lingder" which is a Schedule Caste.

(2.) Such of the facts which are necessary for adjudication of the above matter are narrated herein below:-

(3.) In the above Petition Rule came to be issued and in view of the interim orders granted by this Court the Petitioners have pursued their studies for the BHMS and MBBS course and we are now informed that they have completed the said courses. We have heard the learned counsel Shri Urgunde for the Petitioners and Shri Suryawanshi learned AGP for the Respondents. The learned counsel for the Petitioners Shri Urgunde while challenging the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee has made two fold submissions. It was firstly contended by the learned counsel that the Caste Scrutiny Committee failed to take into consideration that the Petitioners have produced as many as eight documents which were prior to the year 1950 i.e. before the issuance of the Presidential order and therefore the said documents had great probative value. In support of the said contention the learned counsel has relied upon judgment reported in 2006 All MR page 131 Rajesh Gode v. State of Maharashtra and 2002 (3) Mh LJ 290 Sarangappa V/s. State of Maharashtra. Both the said judgments lay down that the documents which are prior to the Presidential order carry a great probative value in the matter of considering the caste claim of the Applicant. Second submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioners is that the said documents produced by the Petitioners have not been considered in their proper prospective. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioners the Scrutiny Committee has unnecessarily laid too much emphasis on the words used to describe the caste of the Petitioners in the translated copies of the documents. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that since there is no other scheduled caste than Lingder the description of the said caste in the translated documents as Lingdhar or Lingdir would only mean as Lingder and none else.