GANESH DHONDU BAVISKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing with the consent of learned Advocates appearing for respective parties.

(2.) Present writ petition has been filed for issuing writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction in the like nature to quash order dated 28-03-2011 passed by respondent no.02 - Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar (hereinafter referred to as "the Committee") and also for issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the nature of the tribe claim of the petitioner as belonging to "Tokre Koli", Scheduled Tribe and directing the Committee to issue validity certificate to the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner has come with a case that he is selected as a Conductor (Junior) of the respondent no.03. However, respondent no.02 - Committee has invalidated his caste claim. The petitioner belongs to Tokre Koli, which is included in the Scheduled Tribe category at entry no.28 of the Presidential list. He was selected as against a seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe category. Thereafter, respondent no.03 had referred his tribe claim to the Committee for validation. He had filed 29 documents to support his claim before the Committee which was included validity certificate which was held to be correct by this Court in respect of his cousin Shamkant. Further, his another cousin Manohar's claim was also validated. His cousin grandfather Kautik's claim was also validated and in the affidavit, the petitioner had communicated the relationship. A detailed report of the Research Officer from Vigilance Cell showed that the information that was supplied by the petitioner was satisfactory. That information would reveal that the petitioner belongs to Tokre Koli community. However, the Committee failed to appreciate the value of the validity certificates and unnecessarily brushed aside the evidence rejecting the claim of the petitioner. By way of amendment, it has been contended that the Committee has not examined the parents of the petitioner on the point of mutual affinity as required under Rule 12(v) of the Rules of 2001. This Court in certain matters has quashed the orders of the Committee after noticing that they are in violation of Rule 12(iv). The matters were remitted to the Committee for fresh disposal. The rule of area restriction is not applicable taking into consideration the fact that since many generations, the petitioner's family is residing at the given place. The jurisdiction was vested with the Committee to consider thorough enquiry and, therefore, the order passed by the Committee on 28-03-2011, refusing the claim of the petitioner is illegal.