VARSHA RAMSING DHANAVAT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 21-7-2005 passed by the respondent no. 2 Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, amaravati Division, Amravati, thereby invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner, who claims to be belonging to Vimukta Jati (Rajput Bhamta).

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as shikshan Sevak vide an order dated 23-8-2004 issued by the respondent No. 4 on the post reserved for Vimukta Jatis. She had obtained the caste certificate dated 3-3-1994 issued by the Executive Magistrate, Buldhana that she belongs to Rajput Bhamta - a Vimukta Jati. Because her caste claim was not verified at an early date, she had filed Writ Petition No. 7154 of 2004, where upon this Court directed the respondent No. 2 to decide her caste claim within three months and in the meanwhile her services were protected. Initially, the petitioner had deposited her documents with the Scrutiny committee at Aurangabad but since her caste certificate was issued by the Executive magistrate, Buldhana, those were transferred to the Scrutiny Committee at Amravati for early verification as per the order of this Court. The petitioner had presented in all seventeen documents which include caste validity certificates of two cousins of the petitioner along with their affidavits showing the genealogy. Vigilance enquiry was conducted by the Scrutiny Committee and after report was furnished to the petitioner by the research Officer, the petitioner filed her say explaining the laconic entries in the school record to be on account of illiteracy of earlier generations. The petitioner had requested the committee to call for and examine her father and other relatives so that they could explain the adverse entries in the record. As the scrutiny Committee did not summon them, the petitioner produced their affidavits i. e. affidavits of father and cousins, whose caste claims were validated. For the reasons discussed in the order, the Scrutiny Committee rejected the caste claim of the petitioner and hence this writ petition.

(3.) The respondents Nos. 4 and 5 -Chief Executive Officer and Zilla Parishad aurangabad respectively are impleaded in the capacity of employer since the petitioner desired interim protection till disposal of this writ petition against any adverse action by them, including termination of the petitioner on the basis of invalidation of the caste claim. Secondly, so far as challenge of the petitioner to the decision of the scrutiny committee is concerned, they have no contesting interests. Neither any affidavit is filed on their behalf nor their advocate advanced any contentious submissions. Shri. Rajaram Bhuryaji, working as research Officer of the Divisional Caste scrutiny Committee, Amravati Division, amravati has filed reply on behalf of other three respondents. It is submitted that since "rajput Bhamta" was notified as a Vimukta jati for the State of Maharashtra in the year 1961, it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to produce the documentary evidence, may be pertaining to forefathers of the petitioner, of the period prior to 1961. The affidavits of the relatives,-according to affiant, cannot prove the caste claim of the candidate and a conclusive documentary evidence pertaining to father, grand father and great grand father and entries showing them to be belonging to caste "rajput Bhamta" effected prior to 1961 only can establish the caste claim of the petitioner. The committee has rejected the caste claim of the petitioner on the basis of extract of admission register issued by the head Master, Central Marathi Pre-Primary school, Chandol Panchayat Samiti, Buldhana dated 24-3-2005. This entry in the Admission register shows that birth date of the father of the petitioner is 15-2-1946 and date of admission in the school was 21-4-1953, wherein caste is recorded as "p. R. " (probably pardeshi Rajput) , which is not included in the list of Vimukta Jatis. The Scrutiny Committee found this oldest document to be having greater probative value than other documents and hence the petitioner's claim was invalidated by the impugned order. The extract of admission Register given by the same Head master pertaining to Shri. Punilal Shivlal (petitioner's uncle) showed uncle's birth date to be 2-8-51 and date of admission to be 28-7-1959. The examination of the Admission register showed that the caste was registered only as "rajput" and the word "bhamta" was subsequently added in a different ink. Since the entries pertaining to father and uncle of the petitioner showed that they do not belong to vimukta Jati (Rajput Bhamta) , the committee has rejected the caste claim of the petitioner, in the light of ratio laid down by the Supreme court in Madhuri Patil's case to the effect that each case must be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and School leaving certificate of the petitioner and her School Register cannot be considered favourably in view of adverse record of father and uncle. The committee, thus, looks to the caste of the petitioner, who has obtained an employment on the post reserved for Vimukta Jati (Rajput Bhamta) , to be the spurious claim on the basis of false social status certificate obtained by her. It is said that even the caste validity certificates in favour of dr. Dongarsingh and Dr. Rajendrasingh, said to be cousins of the petitioner, cannot be considered favourably in view of school record pertaining to father and uncle of the petitioner. The theme of the argumentative affidavit filed on behalf of the Scrutiny Committee is that the caste of the father determines the caste of the child and since the school record of the father and uncle of the petitioner did not show the caste to be "rajput Bhamta" all other evidence is incapable of outweighing those old entries and therefore, the Scrutiny Committee has rejected the caste claim of the petitioner.