Caste Certificate - Ordinary Residence Of Applicant Cannot Be Determined In A Summary Enquiry: Bombay High Court

"A finding that the applicant was not an ordinary resident cannot be recorded by taking a summary enquiry", the court stated.

Justices A. S. Chandurkar and Urmila Joshi-Phalke were dealing with a writ petition challenging the Scrutiny Committee's decision to cancel the petitioner's caste certificate.

The petitioner sought verification of her caste claim based on her caste certificate. The Scrutiny Committee said that the petitioner's caste certificate was in contravention to 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 (2012 Rules). The Committee declared the caste certificate as invalid and cancelled it. The petitioner challenged the order before the High Court.

Advocate S. R. Narnavare for the petitioner submitted that the service record of the petitioner's grandfather shows his permanent address in Andhra Pradesh. He was appointed in Western Coalfields Limited in 1968. Merely on this basis the Scrutiny Committee decided that the petitioner was not an ordinary resident without granting any opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate this aspect and without conducting a detailed enquiry through the Vigilance Cell.

Assistant Government Pleader N. P. Mehta for the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee submitted that the material collected by the Committee showed that the forefathers of the petitioner had migrated to Maharashtra from 1968 onwards. The petitioner's father being born in 1974 in Maharashtra wasn't sufficient to prove that the petitioner and her forefathers were ordinary residents of Maharashtra.

The Court relied on decision of Bombay HC in Badalsingh Bharosa Rawale v. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee in which it was held that applicant has to produce evidence regarding residential status. The court noted that no enquiry was conducted by the Vigilance Cell in the present case.

The court held that the question whether an applicant is ordinary resident of the area within the territorial jurisdiction of the competent authority is a question of fact and has to be decided by granting the applicant necessary opportunity to prove it.

The court further observed that Rule 14 of the 2012 Rules prohibits verification of caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee when such caste certificate is issued to a migrant from another State. "A caste certificate issued to a claimant by an Authority other than one from the State of Maharashtra cannot be verified", the court stated.

The court emphasized on the consequences of the finding of the Committee that the petitioner is a migrant and noted that such a conclusion can affect the academic as well as service prospects of the petitioner. Therefore, it is necessary that before such finding is recorded, the procedure prescribed by the Rules of 2012 is complied with.

The court also relied on Niraj Kamlakar v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee which provides that the power of cancellation of a caste certificate can be exercised only if the Scrutiny Committee is of the opinion that the caste certificate was obtained fraudulently. The court observed that the Scrutiny Committee has not considered this aspect.

The court directed the Scrutiny Committee to re-examine the petitioner's claim following the prescribed procedure including conducting an enquiry by the Vigilance Cell, if required.

Case no – Writ Petition No. 919 of 2020

Case Title – Ku. Priyanka v. District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Chandrapur

Coram – Justice A. S. Chandurkar and Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment