Usha vs State Of Maharashtra And Others

Nivedita P. Mehta, J

Heard.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

By the present petition, the petitioner challenges, the order dated 22.10.2018 passed by the Respondent No.2-District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Akola, whereby her claim for validation of caste certificate showing her caste as "Mahar" a Scheduled Caste, was rejected. The said order was communicated to the petitioner on 06.12.2018.

The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition are as under:-

The petitioner had applied for allotment of a petrol pump outlet under the reserved category with Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL). Having fulfilled the requisite eligibility conditions, HPCL, by communication dated 20.02.2018, forwarded the petitioner's proposal to the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Akola, for verification of her caste claim and issuance of a caste validity certificate.

During the course of verification, the matter was referred to the Vigilance Cell. The petitioner appeared before the Vigilance Cell on 09.07.2018 and produced various documentary records in support of her claim that she belongs to the Mahar caste. The Vigilance Cell noticed certain discrepancies, namely, variation in the date of birth of the petitioner's father as reflected in the Kotwal Book and the School Leaving Certificate, and variation in the name of the petitioner's grandfather appearing in different records. The petitioner explained that the names "Dau" and "Davalya" referred to the same person and that the discrepancy in the date of birth was inadvertent, both documents pertaining to her father and grandfather being pre-1950 records. The petitioner also produced the death certificate of her father in support of her claim.

Upon consideration of the material on record, the President of the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee recorded a finding that the petitioner had established her claim of belonging to the Mahar Scheduled Caste and expressed an opinion in favour of granting the caste validity certificate. However, the other two members of the Committee, namely the Member and the Secretary, differed from the view of the President and concluded that the petitioner had failed to establish her caste claim. Consequently, by majority decision, the Committee rejected the petitioner's claim and declined to issue a caste validity certificate.

Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Respondent No.2 - District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee failed to properly appreciate the documentary evidence placed on record. It is contended that the observation of the Committee regarding the age difference of approximately 61 years between the petitioner and her father is wholly conjectural, based on surmises and assumptions, and cannot constitute a valid ground for rejecting the petitioner's caste claim. Learned counsel further submits that the School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner's father, wherein his caste is recorded as "Mahar" and the date of admission is shown as 12.06.1925, is a pre-constitutional document carrying significant probative value in support of the petitioner's claim. Reliance is also placed upon the Kotwal Register entry pertaining to the petitioner's grandfather, Dau Mhasaji, wherein the caste is recorded as "Mahar". According to the learned counsel, the said entry is also a pre-1950 document and lends substantial corroboration to the petitioner's caste claim.

It is further submitted that the Vigilance Cell inquiry has not brought on record any material adverse to the claim of the petitioner. On the contrary, the Vigilance Cell report does not discredit the petitioner's claim. Learned counsel also points out that the affinity test conducted during the verification process is in favour of the petitioner. It is contended that the President of the Scrutiny Committee, upon appreciation of the documentary evidence, had accepted the petitioner's claim of belonging to the Mahar Scheduled Caste; however, the Member and Secretary erroneously took a contrary view and rejected the claim. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner has satisfactorily established her claim of belonging to the "Mahar" Scheduled Caste and that the impugned order warrants interference. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner has sufficiently established her claim of belonging to the Mahar Scheduled Caste and that the impugned order rejecting the caste validity claim is arbitrary, illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside.

Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader strongly opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted that upon careful scrutiny of the documents relied upon by the petitioner, material discrepancies are evident. In particular, it is pointed out that the date of birth of the petitioner's father as recorded in the Kotwal Book is shown as 01.07.1915, whereas in the School Leaving Certificate issued in his favour, the date of birth is recorded as 01.07.1914. It is further submitted that, on account of such discrepancies, coupled with the apparent age gap of approximately 61 years between the petitioner and her father, the documents do not inspire confidence and cannot be safely relied upon. According to the learned AGP, the Scrutiny Committee has rightly appreciated these inconsistencies while rejecting the petitioner's caste claim. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the short question that arises for consideration is whether the respondent-Scrutiny Committee was justified in rejecting the petitioner's claim for validation of caste certificate showing her caste as "Mahar", a recognized Scheduled Caste.

At the outset, it is required to be noted that the Pres-ident of the Committee, upon appreciation of the documentary evidence and the Vigilance Cell report, recorded a finding that the petitioner had established her claim of belonging to "Mahar" caste, however, the Member and Secretary took a contrary view and re-jected the claim. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the majority members require close scrutiny.

The record reveals that the petitioner relied upon, inter alia, the School Leaving Certificate of her father Fakira Dawalya showing caste as "Mahar" and a Kotwal Book extract per¬taining to Dau Mhasaji Mahar, both being documents of the period prior to 1950. Ordinarily, pre-Constitution and pre-independence entries carry significant probative value in caste verification pro¬ceedings, unless their genuineness or linkage is successfully dis¬credited. The principal reason assigned by the majority members for discarding these documents is the discrepancy in the date of birth of the petitioner's father. While the Kotwal Book extract re¬cords the birth date as 11.07.1915, the School Leaving Certificate reflects the date as 01.07.1914. The Committee also noticed an age gap of about 60 to 61 years between the petitioner and her father and, on that basis, doubted the relationship and linkage of the documents.

In the opinion of this Court, the aforesaid discrepan¬cies by themselves could not have been treated as sufficient to dis¬card otherwise relevant and old documentary evidence. This ex¬planation finds support from the material collected during the vi¬gilance inquiry. The majority members have neither demonstrated that the explanation was false nor recorded any reason for disbe¬lieving the same. Similarly, the variation in the date of birth of the petitioner's father in the two documents is relatively minor and pertains to records prepared several decades ago. Unless such dis¬crepancy goes to the root of the caste claim or destroys the genea¬logical linkage, the same cannot be treated as fatal. The record further indicates that the petitioner had filed an affidavit explain¬ing the discrepancy in the name of her grandfather and had also produced the death certificate of her father in support of the gene¬alogical relationship. The impugned order does not disclose any substantial consideration of this material while rejecting the peti¬tioner's explanation.

The record reveals that the petitioner has placed reli-ance upon pre-constitutional documents pertaining to her father and grandfather, which clearly indicate that the caste entry "Ma-har" was recorded much prior to the cut-off date of 1950 pre¬scribed under the Presidential Order. These documents carry signi¬ficant evidentiary value and lend substantial credence to the peti-tioner's claim. It is further evident that the Vigilance Cell report also supports the petitioner's caste claim and does not record any adverse finding casting doubt on the authenticity or genuineness of the documents produced by the petitioner. Though it is true that the Vigilance Cell report is not binding upon the Scrutiny Committee and the ultimate satisfaction has to be recorded by the Committee itself, the findings of the Vigilance Cell constitute an important piece of corroborative material. In the present case, the Vigilance Cell inquiry does not appear to have unearthed any ma¬terial suggesting that the petitioner does not belong to "Mahar" Schedule caste. Viewed cumulatively, the reasons assigned by the majority members of the Committee for rejecting the caste claim appear to rest primarily on discrepancies relating to dates and names without adequately considering the explanations offered by the petitioner and the supporting material collected during the vi- gilance inquiry. The approach adopted by the majority members, therefore, cannot be said to be in consonance with the settled principles governing caste verification proceedings.

In view of material on record and the submissions advanced, we proceed to pass the following order:-

ORDER

(i). Writ Petition is allowed.

(ii). The order passed by the respondent no.2- District Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Akola dated 22.10.2018 is quashed and set aside.

(iii). The respondent No.2-District Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Akola is directed to issue the validity certificate to the petitioner of belonging to 'Mahar' Scheduled Cast' within a period of three weeks from today.

Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.