NARAYAN DEOJI KOLI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the decision of the Commissioner, Konkan Division, in an appeal said to fall under the provisions of Government Resolution No. CBC-1680/43669/d-V dated 29 October, 1980.

(2.) PETITIONER joined service as Junior Assistant in the Rehabilitation Housing and Backward Classes Department of the Government of Maharashtra at Mantralaya in October 1955. He was transferred to the Labour and Social Welfare Department on the 1st November, 1955. Then he came to Education and Social Welfare Department and on 10 March, 1966 was promoted as a Superintendent. After returning from the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, a Government under taking to which he had been deputed, he was posted in the social welfare Cultural Affairs, Sports and Tourism Department. Petitioner was thereafter promoted as an Assistant Secretary on 1 April, 1955. Then came a second deputation to the Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation, where he worked as a Junior Executive. Came another promotion as an under Secretary in the General Administration Department on 9 August 1977. On 2 March, 1982, petitioner was promoted and posted as a Deputy Secretary in the Legislative Affairs Department, Mantralaya. He was thereafter transferred to the General Administration Department and there, he earned another promotion as a Joint Secretary and it is in that post that he is presently working. Initially recruited as one from an other Backward Community, the petitioner on 7 June, 1976 applied to the Chief Secretary through the Secretary of the Department in which he was then stationed, for rectification of the official record vis-a-vis his caste. The claim made in the application was that he had been recruited as a Suryawanshi Koli, whereas in fact he was a Mahadeo Koli which was a scheduled Tribe. The request made by the petitioner was acceded to vide Government Memorandum dated 9 July, 1976. The 5th respondent who is the Director of Tribas Research and Training Institute, Pune, addressed a letter to the petitioner on 11 May, 1982, requiring the petitioner to appear before him for the verification of his caste. Petitioner took objection to the process of re-verification. He did appear before the Scrutiny Committee and furnished additional information to support the claim of his being the member of Mahadeo Kolis, being a scheduled tribe. What exactly happened at the level of the 5th respondent is not known. The Commissioner, Konkan Division, who is the 2nd respondent to this petition, addressed a letter to the petitioner calling upon him to appear before him. Petitioner appeared before the said respondent and raised various submission. A detailed written representation was submitted by him. The documents tendered by him included a School Leaving Certificate, a Caste Certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate, Thane, Government memorandum dated 9 July, 1976 spoken of above, an abstract from the service book of the petitioner, primary and secondary school certificates of the petitioners sister, caste certificates issued by three M. L. As testifying to the petitioner being a member of the Mehadeo Koli tribe, certain Government letter relating to his relations and affidavits of these relations. The 2nd respondent was unconvinced and on 29 January, 1987 passed the impugned order, the operative part whereof is worded as follows :

(3.) THE contentions raised in this petition, are dealt with below : Firstly, it is submitted that the Commissioner, Konkan Division, had no power under the G. R. aforementioned to go into and verify the certificates issued prior to 29 October, 1980. Next, the Commissioner had erred in ignoring the certificate obtained by close relations of the petitioner testifying to their being Mahadeo Kolis wherefore it followed that the petitioner also was a Mahadeo Koli. Thirdly, the Commissioner erred in assuming that a School Leaving Certificate was the last word on the subject of a persons caste or tribe and that it prevailed over the other evidence. Lastly, it was contended that the Commissioner, who was an inferior of the Government, could not seek to reverse a decision taken by the Government and expressed through the Secretary of the Department in which the petitioner was at the time of the said decision, about rectification of his caste. Respondents in their return have taken various contentions and these are no more than a reiteration of the correctness of what is to be found in the impugned order.