Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sanjay Pralhad Pardeshi, was appointed as a Police Constable on a post reserved for Vimukta Jati. His caste claim as belonging to Pardeshi Bhamta (a Vimukta Jati) was forwarded to the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nasik for verification. The petitioner submitted detailed documentary evidence, including caste validity certificates issued to his two real brothers, Jagdish Pardeshi and Mahesh Pardeshi, whose claims had been validated by the same committee in 2007 and 2003 respectively. Despite this, the committee rejected the petitioner's claim on 8th July 2013. The petitioner challenged this order before the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 6800 of 2013. The High Court, by order dated 18th February 2014, quashed the rejection and remitted the matter back to the committee for reconsideration, relying on the Division Bench judgment in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 & Ors., which held that if a committee has validated the caste of a candidate, another committee cannot refuse the same status to a blood relative who applies subsequently. Upon reconsideration, the committee again invalidated the petitioner's claim by order dated 19th July 2014, holding that the validity certificates of the real brothers were not binding because the petitioner had not produced any pre-1961 document. The petitioner again approached the High Court. The High Court found the committee's approach illegal and contemptuous, noting that the petitioner had produced validity certificates of his real brothers and his claim was also held genuine by the Vigilance Cell. The court held that the committee was bound by the earlier validity certificates and could not take a different view. The court quashed the impugned order and directed the committee to issue a validity certificate to the petitioner within four weeks.
Headnote
A) Caste Scrutiny - Validity of Caste Claim - Principle of Consistency - If a Scrutiny Committee has validated the caste of a candidate, another committee cannot refuse the same status to a blood relative who applies subsequently, merely on a different view of the same facts. The committee is bound by the earlier validity certificates of real brothers. (Paras 3-6) B) Caste Scrutiny - Contemptuous Approach - Disregard of Court Orders - The committee's approach in ignoring the validity certificates of real brothers and insisting on pre-1961 documents, despite the High Court's earlier direction to reconsider in light of the principle laid down in Apoorva Nichale, is illegal and contemptuous. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Caste Scrutiny Committee can reject the caste claim of a blood relative when the real brothers of the claimant have already been granted validity certificates by the same committee.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 19th July 2014 passed by the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nasik, and directed the committee to issue a validity certificate to the petitioner within four weeks.
Law Points
- Caste Scrutiny Committee cannot refuse validity to blood relative when real brothers have been granted validity
- principle of consistency
- binding nature of earlier validity certificates
