SUBHASH GANPATRAO KABADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who claims to belong to the Scheduled Tribes "Mahadev Koli" sought admission to the Medical College at Aurangabad in the quota reserved for the Scheduled Tribes on the basis of the marks obtained by him in the Biology group at the H.S.C. Examination held in March 1983. He secured 65% marks in the Biology group and stood third in the merit list of the Scheduled Tribe candidates who had applied for admission to the Medical College against the seats reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates. He was refused admission on the ground that he does not belong to Schedule Tribe, Mahadev Koli. The finding to that effect was recorded by the Director of Social Welfare, Pune in his capacity as the chairman of the Caste Verification Committee constituted by the Government to scrutinise the caste claims of persons applying for admission to various educational institutions and for employment in Government service. The finding was confirmed by the Director of Tribal Development cum-Additional Commissioner of Tribal Development, Maharashtra State, Nasik, in the Caste Appeal No. 17 of 1983 preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged these findings as perverse, and completely inconsistent with the various documents filed by the petitioner in support of his claim that he belong to scheduled Tribe, Mahadev Koli. We find that the documentary evidence tendered by the petitioner in support of his caste claims and the queer reasoning adopted by the Caste Verification Committee as well as by the Director of Tribal Development completely justifies petitioners grievance that the findings on the basis of which his legitimate claim for admission to the Medical College came to be rejected were absolutely perverse and showed non-application of mind and basically wrong approach on the part of the concerned authorities.

(2.) It is an admitted position that in support of his claim the petitioner filed in all eighteen documents as mentioned para 8 of the petition and these documents included School Leaving Certificate of his brothers and sister, an extract of the service-book of his father and a duplicate School Leaving Certificate as amended on the application of the petitioner. The Scrutiny Committee did not attach any significance to the School Leaving Certificates of petitioners brothers and sisters solely on the ground that these brothers and sisters are younger to the petitioner. They conveniently ignored the position that in relevant school registers the caste of these brothers and sisters was shown as Mahadev Koli and that these entries were obviously made on the basis of the information supplied at the time when thee students were admitted in the school which was long before the petitioner sought amendment of the school register for the purpose of incorporating an entry in respect his caste.

(3.) We are more dismayed by the funny argument adopted by the Scrutiny Committee in respect of the service record of petitioners father. The service recorded shows that as far back as in the year 1956 the caste of petitioners father was record as back ward (Koli Mahadev). The Scrutiny Committee rejected this clinching piece of evidence on the ground that petitioners father was shown in his service record as backward and not as belonging to Scheduled Tribe. This incorrect classification, according to the Scrutiny Committee rendered the service record of petitioners father unreliable. This reasoning is obviously incorrect because Schedule Tribe is one of the recognise species of the genus "backward class". Hence simply because it was not specifically mentioned that petitioners father belonged to one of the categories of the backward classes viz. Scheduled Tribe, the entry in the service record, the genuineness of which is, and cannot be challenged, cannot be ignored. The Director of Tribal Development gave different though equally absurd reason for rejecting this entry in the service record of petitioners father in respect of his caste. The learned Appellate Authority found material difference between the certificate (Ex. 13) produced by the petitioner and the certificate (Ex. 163) produced by the office in which petitioners father is working. In Ex. 163 the caste of petitioners father is shown as "Backward (KoliMahadev" while in Ex. 13 it is shown as "Backward (Koli Mahadev). In our view there is absolutely no distinction, much less material, between the two entries. It is nobodys case that the word "Mahadev" was subsequently incorporated.