SHAILAJA CHANDRASHEKHAR SANGVIKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the present petitioner challenging the Judgment/order passed by the respondent Scrutiny Committee dated 22-11-2006 invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to "mala Jangam", scheduled caste.

(2.) Perusal of the Judgment of the respondent Scrutiny Committee would reveal that the petitioner has submitted about 22 documents in support of her caste claim. The aforesaid documents are enlisted in the Judgment of the respondent Scrutiny Committee. The respondent Scrutiny Committee found that in respect of the petitioner's real brother, there was an entry in the admission register dated 4-7-1962, in which the caste of the real brother of the petitioner was recorded as "lingayat Jangam". Similar was the case in respect of another real brother of the petitioner, whose caste was also came to be recorded as "hindu Jangam" in the admission register dated 9-10-1963. In respect of the relative of the petitioner, i. e. Virappa, his caste was also recorded as "jangam" in his service book. The respondent Scrutiny Committee, therefore, found that these contrary entries have far outweigh the probative value to be attached to document no. 13, which is a mortgage bond alleged to have been executed by the great grandfather of the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. Barlinge, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged before us that the respondent Scrutiny Committee has ignored the document at serial No. 13 which has been filed by the present petitioner. The aforesaid document was a mortgage deed alleged to have been executed in 1357 Fasli i. e. 1938 A. D. , in which the caste of the great grand father of the petitioner has been recorded as "mala Jangam". According to Mr. Barlinge, learned counsel respondent Scrutiny Committee erred in refusing to place reliance on the aforesaid document on the ground that the said document was unregistered document. Mr. Barlinge, learned counsel submitted that the Division Bench judgment of this Court has been produced before the respondent Scrutiny committee and the respondent Scrutiny Committee has rendered the aforesaid finding completely ignoring the ratio laid down by the Judgment of the Division bench of this Court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the division Bench of this Court in Rajesh Jagdishrao Code vs. State of maharashtra and others, 2006 (4) ALL MR 131, has held that the document could not be rejected on the sole ground of its being unregistered document. Mr. Barlinge, learned counsel for the petitioner further urged before us that this document ought to have been preferred to other documents showing contra entries and few solitary entries contrary to the caste claim set up by the petitioner ought to have been ignored by the respondent Scrutiny Committee and great weightage ought to have been given to the document at Serial Number 13 i. e. mortgage deed alleged to have been executed by the great grand father of the petitioner in 1938.