VANDANA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the respective parties. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel.

(2.) THE petitioner had appeared for the 12th Standard Examination held in March 1993, therefore, she applied well within time to respondent No. 3 for validation of her Caste/tribe claim, contending that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe Halba and along with the said application, she had supplied in all 19 documents pertaining to herself, her parents and grand father as well as other near relations. In addition, she had also submitted a questionnaire duty filled-in in the prescribed form and an affidavit sworn by Vijay Natthuji Dekate, one of her near relations. Respondent No. 3, that is, the Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, by its order dated 10-6-1993, rejected the claim of the petitioner and cancelled the Caste Certificate issued to her by the Executive Magistrate, Chimur, District Chandrapur. The Scrutiny Committee further held that the petitioner belongs to the Koshti Caste which is categorised under Other Backward Classes. The said order passed by respondent No. 3, came to be challenged in Appeal before respondent No. 2 who by his order dated 5-11-1993 confirmed the order passed by respondent No. 3 and rejected the appeal. The petitioners has, therefore, approached this Court challenging the legality and validity of the orders passed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

(3.) IT has been contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that in spite of the fact that the documents pertaining to the petitionerss father show that he belongs to the Halba Scheduled Tribe, the documents have not been accepted by respondent No. 3 and the Committee has erroneously denied her the status of Scheduled Tribe, though she had also submitted all the necessary proofs in support of her claim by filing the caste certificates of her close relations as well. In this regard, she relied upon the caste verification made by the Additional Tribal Commissioner in respect of Vijay Natthuji Dekate, who is a close relation of the petitioner and whose status is verified as belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner has further contended that even the Appellate Authority respondent No. 2 has failed to apply his mind to the facts on record and committed gross error in confirming the order passed by respondent No. 3.