A.P. Shah, J.
1. By this petition under Article 226 the petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of the order dated 14th July, 1986 passed by the Scheduled Tribes Certificate Scrutiny Committee ('Scrutiny Committee' for short) directing cancellation and confiscation of the petitioner's caste certificate as belonging to 'Halba' Tribe as well as the decision of The Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development. Nasik dated 27th August, 1986 confirming the order of the Scrutiny Committee.
2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner claims to be a member of 'Halba' Tribe, which is a Scheduled Tribe declared under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 1976 in its II Schedule at Item No. 19 of Maharashtra State. The petitioner after passing his 12th standard examination sought admission to the engineering college, Pune against the reserved quota for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Tribe. As per the rules framed by the Slate Government, the petitioner's caste certificate was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification of his caste. Before the Scrutiny Committee the petitioner produced several documents. He produced his own caste certificate as well as the caste certificates of his father and other relations as belonging to 'Halba' Tribe. The petitioner produced the record of S.P. College, Pune showing his caste as Halba. The petitioner also produced the affidavit of the petitioner's cousin Savita Chandrakant Khandilkar, whose caste claim as belonging to Halba Tribe was accepted by the Scrutiny Committee by order dated 2nd December, 1983, The petitioner also produced the circular dated 6th September, 1983 issued by the Social Welfare Department of the Government of Maharashtra providing inter alia that cases where the blood relations, namely, brothers, sisters has been held as valid by Government/Divisional Commissioner/High Court/Supreme Court may be considered as valid evidence provided the candidate produced affidavit to the effect that they are blood relations as brother, sister etc., for the caste verification. The petitioner also relied upon the certificate issued by the all Maharashtra Halba Samaj Seva Sangh, Pune on 18th August, 1986 recognising the petitioner as member of Halba Tribe. It seems that originally the petitioners caste was shown as 'Koshti's' in the colleges record. The petitioner produced on record letter dated 26th December, 1985 issued by the Deputy Director of Education whereby he directed the Principal, S.P. College. Pune to effect the change in the record of the college relating to the caste of the petitioner on the basis of the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar Executive Magistrate. Pune by substituting the words 'Hindu Halba' in the place of 'Hindu Koshti'. The petitioner's father made a statement before the Scrutiny Committee that Koshti was their profession and not the caste and it was this profession which was entered in the school record of the petitioner.
3. The Scrutiny Committee after considering the material produced on record held, inter alia, that the petitioner has failed to establish that he belongs to Halba Tribe. The Committee recorded a finding that the petitioner belongs to Koshti caste. The petitioner carried an appeal before the Additional Commissioner which also came to be dismissed.
4. Mr. Chopda, learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that in the light of the instructions issued by the Government of Maharashtra under circular dated 6th September, 1983 that if a close relative is already given caste certificate, that must be given due weight, has not been followed by the Scrutiny Committee. He submitted that the other documentary evidence produced by the petitioner was also not properly appreciated by the Committee. Mr. Chopda brought to our notice the judgment of the Division Bench (Coram: Mohta & Dhabe, JJ.) in Abhay Shrawanji Parate v. State of Maharashtra : AIR1985Bom45 wherein it was held that the decision in respect of other near relations must be given due weight in deciding the caste claim of the candidate. Mr. Chopda also brought to our notice the decision of the Supreme Court in Gayatrilaxmi v. State of Maharashtra 1996 (2) MLJ 402 : 1996 (3) Bom CR 687 holding that if the claim of the first cousin of the candidate was accepted by the Government, similar benefit cannot he denied to the candidate.
5. We find considerable force in submissions advanced by Mr. Chopda. There is no dispute that the claim of the petitioner's near relation, namely, his maternal sister Savita Chandrakant Khandilkar has been accepted by the Scrutiny Committee. In Abhay v. State, Mohta, J., as he then was, speaking for the Bench observed :
6. Validity of the caste certificate can be upheld also on other grounds. Even in the guidelines dated 6th September, 1983, it is mentioned, inter alia, that normally claim regarding caste should be held valid in case the caste tallies, with the School Leaving Certificate. It is further mentioned that decisions on caste chums given in respect of certain blood relationship by the Government, Divisional Commissioner. High Court or Supreme Court should be accepted as valid provided affidavit of relationship is filed. Obvious object behind these guidelines seems to be not to reopen the same question again and again and to avoid conflicts of opinion on this otherwise difficult question of proving one's origin. It is true as rightly submitted by Shri Jaiswal, that this part of the circular refers only to blood relations of particular type, namely, brothers, sisters and first cousins but the spirit behind this circular and the evidentiary value of the old decisions in respect of other near relations cannot be ignored. There is no reason to discard the affidavits of Anna Parate and Madhukar Dekate about relationship and they cannot be ignored only because they were not filed earlier. We see no valid justification to reject the explanation of the father of the petitioner about not correcting his School Leaving Certificate.
5. In Gayatrilaxmi's case (supra), the Supreme Court relying upon the order passed in respect of the near relation of the candidate came to the conclusion that the rejection of the appellant's claim was not proper when there was no other evidence placed contra to suspect the proof produced by the appellant. In our opinion, the petitioner has satisfactorily established that he belongs to 'Halba' community. The Scrutiny Committee has recognised the claim of the petitioner's maternal sister as that she belongs to 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe. There is no dispute that the affidavit of Savita Khandilkar was placed before the Scrutiny Committee by the petitioner in support of his caste claim. It seems, however, the Scrutiny Committee discarded the certificate mainly on the ground that the candidate himself has not filed affidavit confirming his relationship with Savita Khandilkar. In our opinion, the approach of the Scrutiny Committee is completely erroneous. Considering the documentary evidence produced on record, we are of opinion that the petitioner has satisfactorily established that he belongs Halba community. Hence, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue the caste validation certificate in favour of the petitioner. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.
Certified copy expedited.
Date: June 19, 1997
Leave to amend the first name of the petitioner from Subhash to Suhas.