Being Circumspect Is One Thing While Cynical Is Other: Bombay HC While Directing SDO To Issue Tribe Certificate To Student

While agreeing to the frauds taking place for deriving the benefit, the court was of the opinion that being circumspect is one thing while being cynical is other. “There is no harm if the respondents are circumspect while scrutinizing the petitioner’s claim. However, the reasoning adopted clearly shows that they are cynical rather than circumspect. They have no contrary record to even draw a prima facie inference about the petitioner’s claim being fraudulent one. Rather they have conveniently overlooked the father’s school record which may not be too old but is of the year 1977. They have also overlooked the revenue record prima facie showing that the petitioner is resident of that particular village”, observed a bench of Justice Mangesh S. Patil and Justice S.G. Chapalgaonkar in the matter.

Advocate Chandrakant R. Thorat appeared for the petitioner and A.G.P. P.S. Patil appeared for the respondents.

In the present matter, the petitioner claiming to be belonging to ‘Munnervarlu’ scheduled tribe, sought a certificate to that effect from the competent authority under the provisions of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 and the rules framed thereunder.

As per the averments made, the certificate was sought for educational purpose for securing admission to the professional course from a reserved seat. For proof, the entry in the father’s name in his school record of the year 1977 was submitted.

However, the competent authority Kinwat, refused to grant him the certificate, and even the judgment and order passed by the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes Scrutiny Committee, Kinwat had dismissed his appeal.

The respondents opposing the petition submitted that several undeserving persons have made attempts to secure tribe certificates of ‘Mannervarlu’ tribe by resorting to forgery and fraud, therefore, it is essential for the authorities to be skeptical about any such claim being made.

They also contended that there is absolutely no material or revenue record except father’s certificate to demonstrate that the petitioner is a resident of that village and prima facie belongs to ‘Mannervarlu’ scheduled tribe.

The bench after considering the relevant submissions and contentions, thus opined that “Needless to state that a person claiming to a scheduled tribe or scheduled caste will have to further undergo a rigour of getting his caste certificate duly scrutinized by the scrutiny committee in a full fledged enquiry. Even the respondents would get an opportunity to undertake such investigation at an appropriate stage. Depriving the petitioner merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises from deriving a benefit by obtaining a tribe certificate would cause a serious prejudice”.

Consequentially, the bench directed the Sub Divisional Officer to issue a tribe certificate in the requisite format and with a correct spelling of the tribe name to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and in any case within four weeks of the order.

Cause Title: Akshay v. Deputy Director (Research) and Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee, Kinwat