MURLIDHAR RAMKRISHNA GATHE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was employed in the office of the respondent No. 4 against a reserved post on the basis that he belongs to Thakur s. T. which is a notified scheduled tribe. The caste certificate was sent for verification to the relevant committee. The committee on considering the record held that the petitioner did not belong to Thakur S. T. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order, preferred a petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 6359 of 1999. After hearing the parties, this Court was pleased to dispose of the same by order dated 14-2-2000. We may refer to paragraph 6 of the order which reads as under:

(2.) AT the hearing of this Petition, on behalf of the petitioners, it is firstly submitted that the Committee did not take into consideration the direction No. 5 of Para 13 in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil and another vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, (1994) 6 SCC 241 which reads as under :

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that the Committee did not consider the judgment in Kum. Madhuri Patil (supra) and more specifically Direction No. 5 of para 13, where it was directed that the Vigilance Cell as set out therein should conduct an enquiry. The petitioner has not approached this Court for the first time. He had earlier approached this Court challenging the order of the committee in Writ Petition No. 6359 of 1999. That was not his grievance then. The learned Bench of this Court after hearing the counsel for the parties, was pleased to set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the committee for disposal in terms of the said order. The petitioner thereafter made representation on 6-5-2000 and forwarded various documents. It was not the grievance of the petitioner before the committee that vigilance enquiry ought to be conducted or that the request to conduct vigilance enquiry was rejected. This Court considering the contentions advanced had remanded the matter back to the committee. Considering the terms of the remand order, it would not have been open to the committee, a quasi-judicial body to act contrary to the order of this Court. The committee was bound to follow the order of this Court which the committee has done. Apart from that, the petitioner was given a full opportunity of producing his documents. The committee also gave opportunity to the petitioner to produce relevant material as to traits, characteristics, ethnic linkage and affinity test to thakur S. T. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had given any information other than that is set out in the order of the committee. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the committee has not given reasons as to why the information given is not associated with Thakur S. T. We called on the learned counsel for the petitioner to show from the petition any averment by the petitioner contending that what was reproduced in the order are affinities to Thakur S. T. There are no such pleadings. In our opinion, therefore, the contention as now being urged is merely an afterthought. The petitioner was allowed to lead evidence both documentary and oral. The petitioner furnished information, as to his Tribal traits and characteristics and the same was recorded. The Committee recorded a finding that the material produced does not show affinity towards Thakur S. T. Reply has been filed by Senior research Officer in the office of the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Reference is made to the documents produced by the petitioner before the committee being school Leaving Certificate No. 14671. Column No. 2 in that certificate reads as under: "caste and/sub-Caste only in the case of pupil belonging to Backward classes and category among backward classes (e. g. S. C. /s. T. etc ). " in the document produced front of that column no caste/sub-caste is shown. This document would show that the petitioner joined Shri Arjan Khimji national High School, Khamgaon on 22-6-1979 and left the school on 30-4-1983 after having completed the course of S. S. C. Examination. The petitioner in the information sought for did not disclose that he belonged to Thakur S. T. On the other hand, the document in our opinion, would disclose that the petitioner did not make any claim that he belongs to Thakur S. T. or any other backward caste. In the local surroundings where the petitioner's caste or tribe would be known, it would lead to an inescapable conclusion that the petitioner did not belong to the backward class. This Court has judicially recognised, that the word or surname "thakur" is shared by both forward and backward communities. The burden of proving that the person belongs to a s. T. /s. C. /o. B. C. lies heavily on the person seeking the certificate. The role of the vigilance Committee is to conduct an enquiry to ascertain and verify the material produced by the candidate including as to traits and characteristics claimed. If the material and information on traits, characteristics, customs, deities and other information did not relate to Thakur S. T. further verification of that material normally would be uncalled for. The law as declared in Madhuri Patil (supra)would require verification of the information given. If that information was associated with the Thakur S. T. then to rule out the information given was based on bookish knowledge, the vigilance enquiry is required to be conducted to establish that the evidence produced is genuine. Once the committee with whom are associated experts, conversant with the anthropological and ethnological traits and other characteristics of the community, rule out the association of the petitioner to that community, the burden is on the petitioner to establish otherwise. That burden has not been discharged. There is not even a specific challenge to those specific findings of the committee except a bald assertion that the committee was wrong. We are therefore, clearly of the opinion that considering the order of remand, the committee could not have done that exercise. The argument could have been countenanced if at the hearing on remand any additional information linking the petitioner to the Thakur S. T. was produced which was not verified. The opinion of the committee on tribal traits and characteristics, coupled with the documentary evidence considered, would disclose that the order on that count does not suffer from any illegality.