Full Judgment Text
wp3304.22final.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3304 OF 2022
Kranti D/o Shivdas Pentewad,
Age : 19 years, Occu. Education,
R/o At post Mangrul, Tq. Himayatnagar,
District Nanded ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32
2. The Member Secretary Deputy Director,
Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Kinwat, Dist. Nanded, Head office
at Aurangabad
3. The Commissioner & Competent Authority,
Commissionerate of Common Entrance
Test Cell, Government of Maharashtra,
th
8 Floor, New Excelsior Building,
A.K. Naik Marg, Fort, Mumbai
4. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Hadgaon, Tq. Himayatnagar,
Dist. Nanded ..RESPONDENTS
Mr. U.P. Giri along with Ms. S.L. Puri, Advocate for petitioner;
Mr. S.P. Tiwari, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1, 2 & 4
CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA
AND
S. G. MEHARE, JJ.
th
DATE : 14 March, 2022
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.G. Mehare, J.)
1. Rule. Learned A.G.P. for the respondents waives service.
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:26 :::
wp3304.22final.odt
(2)
Rule made returnable forthwith. By the consent of the parties heard
finally.
2. Petitioner’s claim of “Mannerwarlu”-Scheduled Tribe based on
the blood relations has been rejected by respondent no.2, by its order
dated 18.2.2022. Hence, she approached this Court.
3. The petitioner is pursuing NEET-UG-2021. The Government of
Maharashtra State Common Entrance Test Cell has published a notice
dated 7.3.2022 of second selection list for State quota seats of
M.B.B.S./B.D.S. courses for academic year 2021-22. The petitioner
has been selected for B.D.S., however, she has to submit her tribe
validity certificate today by 5.00 p.m.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
respondent no.2 committed error of law ignoring the caste validity of
the blood relations of the petitioner. The certificate of blood relations
are yet not cancelled. The law is well settled that once the tribe
validity is granted to the blood relative, it is unjust to invalidate the
claim of the descendants. Respondent no.2 has erred in not
considering this settled position of law and abruptly recorded a
finding that the tribe validity of a blood relative was obtained by
suppressing the facts from the Committee. He also added that the
allegation of adding word “lu” at the last of the caste of the petitioner
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:26 :::
wp3304.22final.odt
(3)
was not under her control. The said documents were not in the
custody of the petitioner nor her family members. The petitioner has
explained that the so called interpolation by adding word “lu” is not
done by her and she is not aware who has added the word “lu”. The
Vigilance Committee never suspected the petitioner. However,
respondent no.2, on surmises, blamed the petitioner for alleged
interpolation. The tribe entries of her cousin uncle dated 25.9.1989
and 9.7.1984 are the natural entries. These are also the old entries.
However, respondent no.2 has ignored this natural evidence. He also
argued that the affinity test is not the litmus test to determine the
tribe validity. To bolster his argument, he relied on the case of
Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee &
ors. 2006 (6) Mh.L.J. 401. He also relied on case of Sayanna vs. State
of Maharashtra & ors., (2009) 10 SCC 268. He lastly argued that the
impugned order is without application of mind and the settled law.
Hence, petition may be allowed.
5. The learned A.G.P. strongly opposed the petition contending
that the tribe validity certificates of the blood relatives have been
obtained by suppressing the fact and without Vigilance Inquiry. Prima
facie it is evident from the record that the word “lu” was added at the
end of their caste. The petitioner and her relatives were well aware
of such interpolation.
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:26 :::
wp3304.22final.odt
(4)
6. The explanation given by the petitioner is not satisfactory. Show
cause notices to her blood relatives having tribe validity have already
been issued. The documents relied upon by the petitioners are
suspicious, hence, the impugned order is legal and correct.
7. The law relating to the probative value of caste validity of blood
relative is settled. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition
No.8341 of 2021 & 4996 of 2021, decided on 20.10.2021 and
13.12.2021, respectively, has observed in paragraph 5 in Writ Petition
No.8341 of 2021 as under:-
“5. Once this Court has granted validity to real sister
and brother of the petitioner and the real uncle of the
petitioner no.1, it was unjust on the part of the
respondent Committee to invalidate. All the petitioners
are paternal relatives of each other. The respondent
Committee could not have taken a different view and sat
over the judgment of this Court.”
8. This Court has taken a view in catena of judgments that
unless the caste validity of blood relative based on which the
validity claims are cancelled by the Caste Scrutiny Committee,
such validity certificate cannot be ignored while considering
the validity claim of other relatives. In other words, it is the
law laid down by this Court that the tribe validity issued by the
Competent Scrutiny Committee has the probative value, unless
it is cancelled by the Committee. In this case, the
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:26 :::
wp3304.22final.odt
(5)
petitioner relied on the validity of her blood relative. Barely a
show cause notice is issued to them. Unless the tribe validity of
the blood relatives of the petitioner are cancelled, it would be
improper on the part of the Scrutiny Committee – respondent
no.2 to discard such probative evidence.
9. So far as the allegations of interpolation of document are
concerned, the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Sayanna
(supra) has observed in para nos.13 and 14 as follows:-
13. “What is relevant to notice is that in the report dated
1.12.2003 the Police Inspector has merely stated as a
matter of fact that the word “lu” was subsequently
added while recording the caste of the appellant as
“Mannerwarlu” in the school register. The Police
Inspector had not stated that the word “lu” was
interpolated by the appellant. There is every possibility
that the word “lu” was not mentioned at the time of
recording of the caste of the appellant and on being
pointed out the correct spelling of caste, the word “lu”
was added. Addition of word “lu” subsequently would
not lead to an irresistible conclusion that the said word
was added by the appellant or at his behest.”
14. It is difficult for this Court to understand as to on
which basis the Scrutiny Committee came to the
conclusion that the word “lu” was interpolated in the
register of the school. More particularly when it was not
so opined by the Police Inspector who had conducted
the enquiry. Whether interpolation by addition has
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:26 :::
wp3304.22final.odt
(6)
taken place can be stated by a handwriting expert or by
comparison of admitted letters of a person with this
disputed one. It is an admitted position that the
Scrutiny Committee had never attempted to get an
expert’s opinion nor itself had compared the disputed
letters with admitted one of the appellant.”
10. The observations in the case cited supra are clear that there
shall be evidence of interpolation at the behest of the applicant and
the Committee shall get an expert’s opinion or compare the disputed
letters with the admitted handwriting of the petitioner. Nothing
appears to have been done as such by respondent no.2 in this case.
Barely issuing show cause notice to the blood relatives shall not be
the reason to discard the probative evidence.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion
that the petitioner is entitled to a conditional tribe validity certificate.
12. Hence, Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses “B”
and “C”.
It is made clear that the certificate that would be issued by
respondent No.2-Committee would be subject to the outcome of the
show cause notices issued by respondent No.2-Committee to
Pentewad Dnyaneshwar Vitthalrao and Pentewad Indira, which are
pending before respondent No.2-Committee.
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:26 :::
wp3304.22final.odt
(7)
It is made clear that the petitioner would not claim any equity
in case the show cause notices issued against those two persons
culminate into an order of recall of the caste validity certificates
which were issued in their favour whose caste certificates have been
relied upon by the petitioner in this case.
Respondent No.2-Committee is directed to issue Caste Validity
Certificate declaring that the petitioner's caste is "Mannervalu"
Scheduled Tribe Serial No.27 in favour of the petitioner forthwith.
Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.
Learned AGP is directed to communicate the order to
respondent No.2-Committee forthwith.
(S. G. MEHARE, J.) (R.D. DHANUKA, J.)
amj
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:26 :::
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3304 OF 2022
Kranti D/o Shivdas Pentewad,
Age : 19 years, Occu. Education,
R/o At post Mangrul, Tq. Himayatnagar,
District Nanded ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32
2. The Member Secretary Deputy Director,
Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Kinwat, Dist. Nanded, Head office
at Aurangabad
3. The Commissioner & Competent Authority,
Commissionerate of Common Entrance
Test Cell, Government of Maharashtra,
th
8 Floor, New Excelsior Building,
A.K. Naik Marg, Fort, Mumbai
4. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Hadgaon, Tq. Himayatnagar,
Dist. Nanded ..RESPONDENTS
Mr. U.P. Giri along with Ms. S.L. Puri, Advocate for petitioner;
Mr. S.P. Tiwari, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1, 2 & 4
CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA
AND
S. G. MEHARE, JJ.
th
DATE : 14 March, 2022
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.G. Mehare, J.)
1. Rule. Learned A.G.P. for the respondents waives service.
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:26 :::
wp3304.22final.odt
(2)
Rule made returnable forthwith. By the consent of the parties heard
finally.
2. Petitioner’s claim of “Mannerwarlu”-Scheduled Tribe based on
the blood relations has been rejected by respondent no.2, by its order
dated 18.2.2022. Hence, she approached this Court.
3. The petitioner is pursuing NEET-UG-2021. The Government of
Maharashtra State Common Entrance Test Cell has published a notice
dated 7.3.2022 of second selection list for State quota seats of
M.B.B.S./B.D.S. courses for academic year 2021-22. The petitioner
has been selected for B.D.S., however, she has to submit her tribe
validity certificate today by 5.00 p.m.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
respondent no.2 committed error of law ignoring the caste validity of
the blood relations of the petitioner. The certificate of blood relations
are yet not cancelled. The law is well settled that once the tribe
validity is granted to the blood relative, it is unjust to invalidate the
claim of the descendants. Respondent no.2 has erred in not
considering this settled position of law and abruptly recorded a
finding that the tribe validity of a blood relative was obtained by
suppressing the facts from the Committee. He also added that the
allegation of adding word “lu” at the last of the caste of the petitioner
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:26 :::
wp3304.22final.odt
(3)
was not under her control. The said documents were not in the
custody of the petitioner nor her family members. The petitioner has
explained that the so called interpolation by adding word “lu” is not
done by her and she is not aware who has added the word “lu”. The
Vigilance Committee never suspected the petitioner. However,
respondent no.2, on surmises, blamed the petitioner for alleged
interpolation. The tribe entries of her cousin uncle dated 25.9.1989
and 9.7.1984 are the natural entries. These are also the old entries.
However, respondent no.2 has ignored this natural evidence. He also
argued that the affinity test is not the litmus test to determine the
tribe validity. To bolster his argument, he relied on the case of
Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee &
ors. 2006 (6) Mh.L.J. 401. He also relied on case of Sayanna vs. State
of Maharashtra & ors., (2009) 10 SCC 268. He lastly argued that the
impugned order is without application of mind and the settled law.
Hence, petition may be allowed.
5. The learned A.G.P. strongly opposed the petition contending
that the tribe validity certificates of the blood relatives have been
obtained by suppressing the fact and without Vigilance Inquiry. Prima
facie it is evident from the record that the word “lu” was added at the
end of their caste. The petitioner and her relatives were well aware
of such interpolation.
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:26 :::
wp3304.22final.odt
(4)
6. The explanation given by the petitioner is not satisfactory. Show
cause notices to her blood relatives having tribe validity have already
been issued. The documents relied upon by the petitioners are
suspicious, hence, the impugned order is legal and correct.
7. The law relating to the probative value of caste validity of blood
relative is settled. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition
No.8341 of 2021 & 4996 of 2021, decided on 20.10.2021 and
13.12.2021, respectively, has observed in paragraph 5 in Writ Petition
No.8341 of 2021 as under:-
“5. Once this Court has granted validity to real sister
and brother of the petitioner and the real uncle of the
petitioner no.1, it was unjust on the part of the
respondent Committee to invalidate. All the petitioners
are paternal relatives of each other. The respondent
Committee could not have taken a different view and sat
over the judgment of this Court.”
8. This Court has taken a view in catena of judgments that
unless the caste validity of blood relative based on which the
validity claims are cancelled by the Caste Scrutiny Committee,
such validity certificate cannot be ignored while considering
the validity claim of other relatives. In other words, it is the
law laid down by this Court that the tribe validity issued by the
Competent Scrutiny Committee has the probative value, unless
it is cancelled by the Committee. In this case, the
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:26 :::
wp3304.22final.odt
(5)
petitioner relied on the validity of her blood relative. Barely a
show cause notice is issued to them. Unless the tribe validity of
the blood relatives of the petitioner are cancelled, it would be
improper on the part of the Scrutiny Committee – respondent
no.2 to discard such probative evidence.
9. So far as the allegations of interpolation of document are
concerned, the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Sayanna
(supra) has observed in para nos.13 and 14 as follows:-
13. “What is relevant to notice is that in the report dated
1.12.2003 the Police Inspector has merely stated as a
matter of fact that the word “lu” was subsequently
added while recording the caste of the appellant as
“Mannerwarlu” in the school register. The Police
Inspector had not stated that the word “lu” was
interpolated by the appellant. There is every possibility
that the word “lu” was not mentioned at the time of
recording of the caste of the appellant and on being
pointed out the correct spelling of caste, the word “lu”
was added. Addition of word “lu” subsequently would
not lead to an irresistible conclusion that the said word
was added by the appellant or at his behest.”
14. It is difficult for this Court to understand as to on
which basis the Scrutiny Committee came to the
conclusion that the word “lu” was interpolated in the
register of the school. More particularly when it was not
so opined by the Police Inspector who had conducted
the enquiry. Whether interpolation by addition has
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:26 :::
wp3304.22final.odt
(6)
taken place can be stated by a handwriting expert or by
comparison of admitted letters of a person with this
disputed one. It is an admitted position that the
Scrutiny Committee had never attempted to get an
expert’s opinion nor itself had compared the disputed
letters with admitted one of the appellant.”
10. The observations in the case cited supra are clear that there
shall be evidence of interpolation at the behest of the applicant and
the Committee shall get an expert’s opinion or compare the disputed
letters with the admitted handwriting of the petitioner. Nothing
appears to have been done as such by respondent no.2 in this case.
Barely issuing show cause notice to the blood relatives shall not be
the reason to discard the probative evidence.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion
that the petitioner is entitled to a conditional tribe validity certificate.
12. Hence, Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses “B”
and “C”.
It is made clear that the certificate that would be issued by
respondent No.2-Committee would be subject to the outcome of the
show cause notices issued by respondent No.2-Committee to
Pentewad Dnyaneshwar Vitthalrao and Pentewad Indira, which are
pending before respondent No.2-Committee.
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:26 :::
wp3304.22final.odt
(7)
It is made clear that the petitioner would not claim any equity
in case the show cause notices issued against those two persons
culminate into an order of recall of the caste validity certificates
which were issued in their favour whose caste certificates have been
relied upon by the petitioner in this case.
Respondent No.2-Committee is directed to issue Caste Validity
Certificate declaring that the petitioner's caste is "Mannervalu"
Scheduled Tribe Serial No.27 in favour of the petitioner forthwith.
Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.
Learned AGP is directed to communicate the order to
respondent No.2-Committee forthwith.
(S. G. MEHARE, J.) (R.D. DHANUKA, J.)
amj
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:23:26 :::