Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

A division bench of Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, comprising Justice A.S Chandurkar and Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke, directed the scrutiny committee to re-examine the petitioner’s claim of issuance of caste certificate, following the prescribed procedure which would include conducting an inquiry by vigil mechanism. The High Court also set aside the earlier order of the scrutiny committee which cancelled the petitioner’s caste certificate.

In the present matter, the petitioner claimed that he belonged to a caste ‘Madiga’, falling into the category a scheduled caste. She had taken admission in a B.Tech course in a university for higher studies. To pursue higher education, she sought verification of her cased certificate dated 05.01.2014. The Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 29.07.2019 held that the said caste certificate issued in favor of the petitioner was in contravention of Rules 5 (1), (2), and 14 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance of Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012. Subsequently, the scrutiny committee cancelled the certificate and the benefits were also withdrawn. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner approached the Bombay High Court.

Advocate for the petitioner, Shri S.R.Narnavare, argued that the cancellation of the certificate was not justified since the conclusion was arrived at by the scrutiny committee only on the basis that the petitioner’s grandfather his permanent address was shown to be in District Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh. Petitioner’s forefather was appointed in Western Coal Ltd in 1968 based on which the committee concluded that he was a migrant to the State of Maharashtra. Further, no opportunity was given to the petitioner and no proper inquiry through the vigilance cell was done.  

N.P Mehta, for the respondents, argued that the petitioner’s father was born in 1974 in Maharashtra, and no record proved that the forefathers were residents of Maharashtra. The permanent address shows that her forefathers are residents of Andhra Pradesh and no pre-constitutional documents were placed before the committee. All the above points were considered by the committee and therefore, no interference is required.

The court set aside the order of the scrutiny committee on the basis that the petitioner was not served the notice that her caste certificate is cancelled. Had she been given the opportunity then she would have put forth her stand. Further, as per the rules of 2012, the vigilance cell has to conduct a detailed inquiry by visiting the claimant's residence which was not done in the present case. Rule 14 states prohibits verification of caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee when such caste certificate is issued to a migrant from another State.

The High Court relied on the decision of Niraj Kamlakar More vs. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad [2012 (5) Mh.L.J.367, wherein, it was held that a certificate can only be cancelled by the scrutiny committee if the same is obtained fraudulently.

Therefore, the court set aside the order of the scrutiny committee by directly the committee to reconsider the claim of the petitioner and conduct a detailed inquiry through the vigilance cell and decide the same 6 months from the date of appearance of the petitioner. Until then the petitioner's results of the petitioner were to be declared provisionally subject to the outcome of the validity proceedings before the Scrutiny Committee.

Case Title: Ku. Priyanka versus District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and Ors.