Full Judgment Text
-: 1 :-
2006:BHC-AS:7110-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5408 OF 2001
Shri Jayasing Dhondiram Rajput )
aged adult (pensioner retired )
as Assistant Conservator of )
Forests), residing at House )
No.1029, Gavandi Galli, Tasgaon,)
District - Sangli. ).... Petitioner.
Versus
1) State of the Maharashtra )
through its Secretary, )
Social Welfare Department, )
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. )
2) Additional Commissioner )
(Revenue) Caste Certificate )
Scrutiny Committee, Pune, )
171A Ganesh Peth, Sugandha )
Chambers, Pangul Ali, )
Pune - 411 002. )
3) Secretary, )
Revenue and Forests )
Department, Government of )
Maharashtra, Mantralaya, )
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:19:24 :::
-: 2 :-
Mumbai - 32. ).... Respondents.
Mr. R. K.Mendadkar with Mrs. H.K.Mandlik
for the Petitioner.
Mr. C. R. Sonawane, AGP for Respondents.
CORAM : V.G. PALSHIKAR, and CORAM : V.G. PALSHIKAR, and CORAM : V.G. PALSHIKAR, and
V.R.KINGAONKAR, JJ. V.R.KINGAONKAR, JJ. V.R.KINGAONKAR, JJ.
DATED : 4TH APRIL, 2006. DATED : 4TH APRIL, 2006. DATED : 4TH APRIL, 2006.
JUDGMENT (Per : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J.): JUDGMENT (Per : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J.): JUDGMENT (Per : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J.):
This petition is filed by a retired Assistant
Conservator of Forests against findings recorded by
the Caste Verification Committee, Pune. The Committee
invalidated his claim as being member of "Rajput
Bhamta" caste and held that he is a Hindu Rajput by
caste.
2. It is not necessary to elaborately set out the
facts leading to controversy about the caste claim
made by the Petitioner. Suffice it to say that the
Petitioner initially relied upon a caste certificate
dated 26th June, 1953 claiming that he belonged to
Hindu Patharwat community. The certificate was
cancelled by order dated 19th July, 1982 by the then
Tahsildar, Tasgaon. The Forest Department had
initiated a Departmental Enquiry on charge that the
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:19:24 :::
-: 3 :-
Petitioner had submitted a false caste certificate.
The enquiry was, however, dropped. The Petitioner
sought benefits of deemed promotion and consequential
monetary benefits along with pensionary benefits. He
had, therefore, filed a Civil Suit No. 251 of 1989 in
the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Sangli. He also filed Transfer Application No. 1758
of 1991 before the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal. Since the Caste Certificate of the
Petitioner was not verified, the Tribunal allowed
withdrawal of the suit with liberty to the Petitioner
to move the Government for determination of caste
claim by making reference to the appropriate authority
for verification thereof. The Petitioner submitted an
application dated 19th November, 1996 claiming
verification of his caste claim as "Rajput Bhamta".
The application was referred to the Caste Verification
Committee, Pune. The Committee conducted necessary
inquiries into the matter, interviewed the Petitioner
and also collected certain documents. The Committee
found that the caste claim of the Petitioner is
incorrect and he does not belong to sub-caste known as
"Rajput Bhamta" and as such he is not member of VJNT.
3. The Petitioner impugnes findings of the Committee
on various grounds. On his behalf, learned Counsel
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:19:24 :::
-: 4 :-
Shri R. K. Mendadkar, canvased before us that the
Committee failed to appreciate documentary evidence
placed before it. He contended that the impugned
order is vitiated due to non-furnishing of enquiry
report of the vigilance cell. He further contended
that the Committee did not apply its mind to the facts
of the caste claim presented by the Petitioner and
reached erroneous findings. The learned Counsel
submitted that the caste claim of the Petitioner
should not have been rejected by the Committee and
urged to allow the Petition. On the other hand,
learned Assistant Government Pleader for the
Respondents supported the impugned order.
4. We have gone through the impugned order and the
copies of documents filed by the Petitioner. Crucial
question is as to what exactly was the caste claim
made by the Petitioner and whether the impugned order
is legal, proper and correct.
5. The basis for determination of the Petitioner’s
caste is his representation dated 19th November, 1996
(Exhibit "B"). He made such representation in
accordance with the directions of the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal in Transfer Application No.
1758 of 1991. On perusal of the representation, it is
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:19:24 :::
-: 5 :-
explicit that the Petitioner requested the Government
to refer his case to the Committee for verification.
His specific plea under the representation is to the
effect that the Committee may be requested to declare:
"Whether or not I fall under Rajput Bhamta as per the
Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste (Amendment) Order
1976". This aspect has certain bearing as we will
pin-point in the course of further discussion.
6. The Petitioner produced following documents before
the Caste Scrutiny Committee:
(1) The information submitted by father as regards
the loan of Shri V. D. Limaye mentioned on page
107(4) of the judgment dt. 12/12/38 in
B.A.D.R.CC. No. 5822, 5823, document No. 509,
3781 and 6907 wherein the caste of applicant’s
father is mentioned as Maratha, occupation -
agriculture and ‘patharwat’ (i.e.
stone-splitter).
(2) Land Revenue Mutation Entry No. 19541, (Father’s
name is mentioned with surname ‘Gavandi’).
(3) Death Certificate of his father - (caste is not
mentioned).
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:19:24 :::
-: 6 :-
(4) Death Certificate of his mother - (caste is not
mentioned).
(5) Birth Certificate of his brother Shri Vishnu
Dhondiram Patharat - (caste is not mentioned,
surname is ‘Patharat’).
(7) School leaving certificate of his son Satish
Rajput - (caste is not mentioned).
(8) Caste certificate of his son Satish - (It shows
caste as ‘Patharwat’).
(9) School leaving certificate of his son Sanjay.
(Caste is mentioned as Maratha (Patharwat).)
(10) School leaving certificate dt. 16/6/83 of his
son Sanjaykumar, (caste is not mentioned).
(11) Clarification of Head Master about not having
made entry as regards said caste in the school
record for the year 76-77.
(12) School leaving certificate of his daughter Kumari
Sujata Rajput - (caste Rajput Bhamta).
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:19:24 :::
-: 7 :-
(13) Caste certificate of his daughter, Kumari Sujata
- (caste Rajput Bhamta).
(14) His own Primary School leaving certificate -
(caste Rajput).
7. The Petitioner had also filed some other documents
including a Kabulayat dated 18th July, 1895 which
disclosed that his grandfather by name Savla Vitha
Naru had signed the document about receipt of
Rs.1800/- for construction of a Vithoba temple - as
‘Patharwat’. He also filed certain documents showing
that his father-in-law had obtained Sale Deed in 1936
wherein the caste is shown as ‘Patharwat’. On behalf
of the Petitioner, learned Counsel contended that
these documents indicated the petitioner’s being of
"Patharwat" caste but they are not properly
appreciated. We do not find any substance in this
contention. As pointed out earlier, the Petitioner
submitted application (Exhibit "B") for verification
of his caste claim as "Rajput Bhamta". Obviously,
those private documents which indicated caste of his
father-in-law and grand-father as ‘patharwat’ have no
bearing on the issue. There was no necessity for the
Committee to discuss these documents which are
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:19:24 :::
-: 8 :-
irrelevant in view of specific caste claim made by the
Petitioner.
8. It appears that the Petitioner had previously
filed caste certificate claiming himself to be "Hindu
Patharwat" but later on that certificate was
cancelled. He never relied on that certificate and
did not seek verification of such caste claim. It is
pertinent to note that on 28th August, 2000 the
Petitioner was interviewed by the Committee. The
Petitioner failed to furnish information regarding the
traits, custom and usage of "Rajput Bhamta" caste /
community. The Committee had rightly observed that
"Rajput Bhamta" is erstwhile criminal tribe and,
therefore, it is imperative that some entries at the
police station about family members of the Petitioner
could have been recorded in the history sheet. Nobody
from the forefathers of the Petitioner is recorded as
a criminal or history sheeter at any police station.
The Petitioner utterly failed to prove his caste claim
during enquiry before the Committee. His daughter’s
school leaving certificate is the only document which
purports to show that entry of the caste is made as
"Rajput Bhamta". However his unmarried daughter by
name Sujata was admitted in the School by the
Petitioner himself and probably after raising the
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:19:24 :::
-: 9 :-
disputed issue regarding the caste claim and as such
the single entry in the school leaving certificate of
his daughter is of no avail to prove his claim.
9. In case of Madhuri Patil v/s Additional Madhuri Patil v/s Additional
Madhuri Patil v/s Additional
Commissioner, Tribal Development, Commissioner, Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241, Commissioner, Tribal Development,
the Apex Court has observed :
"The Committee which is empowered to evaluate the
evidence placed before it when records a finding
of fact, it ought to prevail unless found
vitiated by judicial review of any High Court
subject to limitations of interference with
findings of fact. The Committee when considers
all the material facts and records a finding,
though another view, as a court of appeal may be
possible, it is not a ground to reverse the
findings. The Court has to see whether the
Committee considered all the relevant material
placed before it or has not applied its mind to
relevant facts which have led the Committee
ultimately to record the finding. Each case must
be considered in the backdrop of its own facts."
10. The burden of proof is on the Petitioner and it
was for him to adduce reliable evidence in support of
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:19:24 :::
-: 10 :-
the caste claim. We have noticed that the Petitioner
has changed his stand from time to time. Initially he
filed caste certificate dated 1st October, 1980 issued
by Tahsildar, Tasgaon, to the effect that he is member
of "Patharwat" caste. The certificate was sent for
verification to the Collector, Sangli, which was found
to be incorrect and invalid and as such it was later
on cancelled. He subsequently claimed to be member of
"Rajput Bhamta" caste. Some of the documents filed by
him would go to show that his relatives have claimed
to be members of "Maratha" (Maratha caste). The caste
claim set up by the petitioner is not consistent and
his application also depicts his different stands
regarding the claim. In case of "Lilly Kutty vs. Lilly Kutty vs. Lilly Kutty vs.
Scrutiny Committee, S.C. and S.T. and others", Scrutiny Committee, S.C. and S.T. and others", AIR Scrutiny Committee, S.C. and S.T. and others",
2005 SC 4313, the Supreme Court observed:
"In view of the said finding, it is immaterial
that she had obtained a certificate showing her
caste to be Hindu Pulayan - Scheduled Caste. If
her case was that she was re-converted in
Hinduism, it was for her to put forward such
claim and to prove it in accordance with law. In
our opinion, Section 10 is clear and expressly
enacts that when a person claims to be a member
of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, burden of
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:19:24 :::
-: 11 :-
proof that he or she belongs to such caste or
tribe is on him/her."
From the above observation it is amply clear that
burden of proof lies on the person who claims benefit
of being member of a particular caste. In the present
case, the Petitioner utterly failed to discharge the
burden and prove that he belongs to "Rajput Bhamta"
caste. The findings of the Committee are, therefore,
legal, proper and correct.
11. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that
the Petitioner failed to prove his caste claim. There
is no merit in the contention that the Committee did
not appreciate probetive value of the documents placed
before it. The impugned order does not suffer from
any infirmity and deserves to be maintained.
12. In the result, the petition is destitute of
substance and as such is dismissed. Rule discharged.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(V.G.PALSHIKAR, J.) (V.G.PALSHIKAR, J.) (V.G.PALSHIKAR, J.)
Sd/-
(V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.)
(V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.)
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:19:24 :::
2006:BHC-AS:7110-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5408 OF 2001
Shri Jayasing Dhondiram Rajput )
aged adult (pensioner retired )
as Assistant Conservator of )
Forests), residing at House )
No.1029, Gavandi Galli, Tasgaon,)
District - Sangli. ).... Petitioner.
Versus
1) State of the Maharashtra )
through its Secretary, )
Social Welfare Department, )
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. )
2) Additional Commissioner )
(Revenue) Caste Certificate )
Scrutiny Committee, Pune, )
171A Ganesh Peth, Sugandha )
Chambers, Pangul Ali, )
Pune - 411 002. )
3) Secretary, )
Revenue and Forests )
Department, Government of )
Maharashtra, Mantralaya, )
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:19:24 :::
-: 2 :-
Mumbai - 32. ).... Respondents.
Mr. R. K.Mendadkar with Mrs. H.K.Mandlik
for the Petitioner.
Mr. C. R. Sonawane, AGP for Respondents.
CORAM : V.G. PALSHIKAR, and CORAM : V.G. PALSHIKAR, and CORAM : V.G. PALSHIKAR, and
V.R.KINGAONKAR, JJ. V.R.KINGAONKAR, JJ. V.R.KINGAONKAR, JJ.
DATED : 4TH APRIL, 2006. DATED : 4TH APRIL, 2006. DATED : 4TH APRIL, 2006.
JUDGMENT (Per : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J.): JUDGMENT (Per : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J.): JUDGMENT (Per : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J.):
This petition is filed by a retired Assistant
Conservator of Forests against findings recorded by
the Caste Verification Committee, Pune. The Committee
invalidated his claim as being member of "Rajput
Bhamta" caste and held that he is a Hindu Rajput by
caste.
2. It is not necessary to elaborately set out the
facts leading to controversy about the caste claim
made by the Petitioner. Suffice it to say that the
Petitioner initially relied upon a caste certificate
dated 26th June, 1953 claiming that he belonged to
Hindu Patharwat community. The certificate was
cancelled by order dated 19th July, 1982 by the then
Tahsildar, Tasgaon. The Forest Department had
initiated a Departmental Enquiry on charge that the
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:19:24 :::
-: 3 :-
Petitioner had submitted a false caste certificate.
The enquiry was, however, dropped. The Petitioner
sought benefits of deemed promotion and consequential
monetary benefits along with pensionary benefits. He
had, therefore, filed a Civil Suit No. 251 of 1989 in
the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Sangli. He also filed Transfer Application No. 1758
of 1991 before the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal. Since the Caste Certificate of the
Petitioner was not verified, the Tribunal allowed
withdrawal of the suit with liberty to the Petitioner
to move the Government for determination of caste
claim by making reference to the appropriate authority
for verification thereof. The Petitioner submitted an
application dated 19th November, 1996 claiming
verification of his caste claim as "Rajput Bhamta".
The application was referred to the Caste Verification
Committee, Pune. The Committee conducted necessary
inquiries into the matter, interviewed the Petitioner
and also collected certain documents. The Committee
found that the caste claim of the Petitioner is
incorrect and he does not belong to sub-caste known as
"Rajput Bhamta" and as such he is not member of VJNT.
3. The Petitioner impugnes findings of the Committee
on various grounds. On his behalf, learned Counsel
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:19:24 :::
-: 4 :-
Shri R. K. Mendadkar, canvased before us that the
Committee failed to appreciate documentary evidence
placed before it. He contended that the impugned
order is vitiated due to non-furnishing of enquiry
report of the vigilance cell. He further contended
that the Committee did not apply its mind to the facts
of the caste claim presented by the Petitioner and
reached erroneous findings. The learned Counsel
submitted that the caste claim of the Petitioner
should not have been rejected by the Committee and
urged to allow the Petition. On the other hand,
learned Assistant Government Pleader for the
Respondents supported the impugned order.
4. We have gone through the impugned order and the
copies of documents filed by the Petitioner. Crucial
question is as to what exactly was the caste claim
made by the Petitioner and whether the impugned order
is legal, proper and correct.
5. The basis for determination of the Petitioner’s
caste is his representation dated 19th November, 1996
(Exhibit "B"). He made such representation in
accordance with the directions of the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal in Transfer Application No.
1758 of 1991. On perusal of the representation, it is
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:19:24 :::
-: 5 :-
explicit that the Petitioner requested the Government
to refer his case to the Committee for verification.
His specific plea under the representation is to the
effect that the Committee may be requested to declare:
"Whether or not I fall under Rajput Bhamta as per the
Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste (Amendment) Order
1976". This aspect has certain bearing as we will
pin-point in the course of further discussion.
6. The Petitioner produced following documents before
the Caste Scrutiny Committee:
(1) The information submitted by father as regards
the loan of Shri V. D. Limaye mentioned on page
107(4) of the judgment dt. 12/12/38 in
B.A.D.R.CC. No. 5822, 5823, document No. 509,
3781 and 6907 wherein the caste of applicant’s
father is mentioned as Maratha, occupation -
agriculture and ‘patharwat’ (i.e.
stone-splitter).
(2) Land Revenue Mutation Entry No. 19541, (Father’s
name is mentioned with surname ‘Gavandi’).
(3) Death Certificate of his father - (caste is not
mentioned).
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:19:24 :::
-: 6 :-
(4) Death Certificate of his mother - (caste is not
mentioned).
(5) Birth Certificate of his brother Shri Vishnu
Dhondiram Patharat - (caste is not mentioned,
surname is ‘Patharat’).
(7) School leaving certificate of his son Satish
Rajput - (caste is not mentioned).
(8) Caste certificate of his son Satish - (It shows
caste as ‘Patharwat’).
(9) School leaving certificate of his son Sanjay.
(Caste is mentioned as Maratha (Patharwat).)
(10) School leaving certificate dt. 16/6/83 of his
son Sanjaykumar, (caste is not mentioned).
(11) Clarification of Head Master about not having
made entry as regards said caste in the school
record for the year 76-77.
(12) School leaving certificate of his daughter Kumari
Sujata Rajput - (caste Rajput Bhamta).
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:19:24 :::
-: 7 :-
(13) Caste certificate of his daughter, Kumari Sujata
- (caste Rajput Bhamta).
(14) His own Primary School leaving certificate -
(caste Rajput).
7. The Petitioner had also filed some other documents
including a Kabulayat dated 18th July, 1895 which
disclosed that his grandfather by name Savla Vitha
Naru had signed the document about receipt of
Rs.1800/- for construction of a Vithoba temple - as
‘Patharwat’. He also filed certain documents showing
that his father-in-law had obtained Sale Deed in 1936
wherein the caste is shown as ‘Patharwat’. On behalf
of the Petitioner, learned Counsel contended that
these documents indicated the petitioner’s being of
"Patharwat" caste but they are not properly
appreciated. We do not find any substance in this
contention. As pointed out earlier, the Petitioner
submitted application (Exhibit "B") for verification
of his caste claim as "Rajput Bhamta". Obviously,
those private documents which indicated caste of his
father-in-law and grand-father as ‘patharwat’ have no
bearing on the issue. There was no necessity for the
Committee to discuss these documents which are
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:19:24 :::
-: 8 :-
irrelevant in view of specific caste claim made by the
Petitioner.
8. It appears that the Petitioner had previously
filed caste certificate claiming himself to be "Hindu
Patharwat" but later on that certificate was
cancelled. He never relied on that certificate and
did not seek verification of such caste claim. It is
pertinent to note that on 28th August, 2000 the
Petitioner was interviewed by the Committee. The
Petitioner failed to furnish information regarding the
traits, custom and usage of "Rajput Bhamta" caste /
community. The Committee had rightly observed that
"Rajput Bhamta" is erstwhile criminal tribe and,
therefore, it is imperative that some entries at the
police station about family members of the Petitioner
could have been recorded in the history sheet. Nobody
from the forefathers of the Petitioner is recorded as
a criminal or history sheeter at any police station.
The Petitioner utterly failed to prove his caste claim
during enquiry before the Committee. His daughter’s
school leaving certificate is the only document which
purports to show that entry of the caste is made as
"Rajput Bhamta". However his unmarried daughter by
name Sujata was admitted in the School by the
Petitioner himself and probably after raising the
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:19:24 :::
-: 9 :-
disputed issue regarding the caste claim and as such
the single entry in the school leaving certificate of
his daughter is of no avail to prove his claim.
9. In case of Madhuri Patil v/s Additional Madhuri Patil v/s Additional
Madhuri Patil v/s Additional
Commissioner, Tribal Development, Commissioner, Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241, Commissioner, Tribal Development,
the Apex Court has observed :
"The Committee which is empowered to evaluate the
evidence placed before it when records a finding
of fact, it ought to prevail unless found
vitiated by judicial review of any High Court
subject to limitations of interference with
findings of fact. The Committee when considers
all the material facts and records a finding,
though another view, as a court of appeal may be
possible, it is not a ground to reverse the
findings. The Court has to see whether the
Committee considered all the relevant material
placed before it or has not applied its mind to
relevant facts which have led the Committee
ultimately to record the finding. Each case must
be considered in the backdrop of its own facts."
10. The burden of proof is on the Petitioner and it
was for him to adduce reliable evidence in support of
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:19:24 :::
-: 10 :-
the caste claim. We have noticed that the Petitioner
has changed his stand from time to time. Initially he
filed caste certificate dated 1st October, 1980 issued
by Tahsildar, Tasgaon, to the effect that he is member
of "Patharwat" caste. The certificate was sent for
verification to the Collector, Sangli, which was found
to be incorrect and invalid and as such it was later
on cancelled. He subsequently claimed to be member of
"Rajput Bhamta" caste. Some of the documents filed by
him would go to show that his relatives have claimed
to be members of "Maratha" (Maratha caste). The caste
claim set up by the petitioner is not consistent and
his application also depicts his different stands
regarding the claim. In case of "Lilly Kutty vs. Lilly Kutty vs. Lilly Kutty vs.
Scrutiny Committee, S.C. and S.T. and others", Scrutiny Committee, S.C. and S.T. and others", AIR Scrutiny Committee, S.C. and S.T. and others",
2005 SC 4313, the Supreme Court observed:
"In view of the said finding, it is immaterial
that she had obtained a certificate showing her
caste to be Hindu Pulayan - Scheduled Caste. If
her case was that she was re-converted in
Hinduism, it was for her to put forward such
claim and to prove it in accordance with law. In
our opinion, Section 10 is clear and expressly
enacts that when a person claims to be a member
of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, burden of
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:19:24 :::
-: 11 :-
proof that he or she belongs to such caste or
tribe is on him/her."
From the above observation it is amply clear that
burden of proof lies on the person who claims benefit
of being member of a particular caste. In the present
case, the Petitioner utterly failed to discharge the
burden and prove that he belongs to "Rajput Bhamta"
caste. The findings of the Committee are, therefore,
legal, proper and correct.
11. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that
the Petitioner failed to prove his caste claim. There
is no merit in the contention that the Committee did
not appreciate probetive value of the documents placed
before it. The impugned order does not suffer from
any infirmity and deserves to be maintained.
12. In the result, the petition is destitute of
substance and as such is dismissed. Rule discharged.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(V.G.PALSHIKAR, J.) (V.G.PALSHIKAR, J.) (V.G.PALSHIKAR, J.)
Sd/-
(V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.)
(V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.)
::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2026 20:19:24 :::