Astha Gopal Khakra vs The State Of Maharashtra

2023 INSC 945 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7524 OF 2019

ASTHA GOPAL KHAKRA Appellant(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

HRISHIKESH ROY, J.

Heard Mr. Kunal Cheema, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, learned counsel

appears for the State of Maharashtra and District Caste

Certificate Verification Committee, Akola [respondent nos.1

and 2 respectively]. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, learned counsel

appears for the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences

(Respondent No. 4).

Signature Not Verified

2. Digitally signed by The challenge here is to the judgment dated 18.09.2018 of Indu Marwah Date: 2023.10.20 16:47:14 IST

the Division Bench of the High Court whereby the appellant’s Reason:

challenge to the finding of the District Caste Certificate 2

Scrutiny Committee, Akola (for short, “Scrutiny Committee”)

invalidating her Caste Certificate was dismissed. The

appellant claims to belong to Nomadic Tribe-Ghisadi of

Maharashtra mentioned at Entry (8) of Schedule II in the

Government Resolution dated 21.11.1961 i.e., Ghisadi-Lohar. By

virtue of Circular dated 27.03.1965, the appellant claims to

belong to the Ghisadi-Lohar community which is made

equivalent to Entry No. (8) of the Schedule II of the

Resolution.

3. The fore-fathers of the appellant migrated from the State

of Rajasthan and the appellant’s grand-father settled in

Akola, Maharashtra. The appellant sought recognition as

Nomadic Tribe-Lohar and a certificate to this effect was

issued to her on 10.08.2012 by the Sub-Divisional Officer,

Akola. The Caste certificate issued to the appellant became

the subject matter of scrutiny and in the Enquiry Report of

the Vigilance Squad dated 27.12.2014 (Annexure P-10), it was

reflected that the appellant’s family originally belonged to

Rajasthan but her grand-father-Mulchand had come to Akola in

the year 1960 and was residing in the Mominpura Area in Akola

as a tenant. Later, her grand-father purchased a plot of land

in the year 1968 and constructed a house on the said plot and

settled therein along with the other family members including

the appellant’s father.

3

4. However, notwithstanding the above finding of the

appellant’s grand-father having migrated to Akola in the year

1960, the Scrutiny Committee, Akola, on the basis of the

material adduced opined that the appellant could not

substantiate her caste claim and accordingly, the following

decision was given against the appellant:

“1. The 'Lohar' (Nomadic Tribe-B) caste claim of the applicant - Astha Gopal Khakra is declared as Invalid.

2. The Sub Divisional Officer (S.D.O.), Akola is directed to impound the caste certificate No.MRC-81/Akola/F-238/2012-13 issued to Shri Astha Gopal Khakra immediately and take necessary action under section 10 (3) of the above Act.”

5. Following the above decision of the Scrutiny Committee,

the aggrieved appellant filed Writ Petition No.4051/2017

which came to be dismissed in the first round on 11.09.2017.

But the said Writ Petition was restored on 08.06.2018 by the

Division Bench of the High Court and eventually the impugned

order came to be passed on 18.09.2018.

6. The determination of the Caste status for the people in

appellant’s category is to be made under the Maharashtra

Scheduled Castes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic

Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category

(Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste 4

Certificate Rules, 2012 (for short, “the 2012 Rules”).

7. The 2012 Rules provide for constitution of the Scrutiny

Committee to decide on the validity of a Caste Certificate.

As the appellant’s family migrated from Rajasthan to

Maharashtra, under the 2012 Rules, the appellant is required

to establish that by the deemed date i.e., 21.11.1961, the

appellant’s fore-fathers from the paternal side, had set up

residence in the State of Maharashtra.

8. For verification of Caste status, the claimant is

required to furnish the information mentioned in Rule 16 of

the 2012 Rules which specifies the documents to be furnished

as primary information and evidence. Amongst the mentioned

documents, the claimant may furnish School Leaving

Certificate of a relative. She must also indicate proof of

permanent residence in the State of Maharashtra, prior to the

deemed date i.e., 21.11.1961.

9. Besides other documents, the appellant produced her

family tree where the name of her father – Gopal Mulchand

and name of her grand-father Mulchand Hemraj Khakhara was

shown. That apart the name of one uncle (father’s brother)-

Ramavatar Mulchand and another uncle-Rajesh Mulchand was

also reflected together with the name of the appellant’s

cousin sister Shraddha [wrongly shown as Sudha]. She also

produced the School Leaving Certificate issued to the 5

appellant’s uncle Ramavatar Mulchand showing his school entry

date as 12.08.1960 and the school leaving Certificate of the

other uncle-Radheshyam Mulchand showing the school entry date

as 18.07.1961. Both School Leaving Certificates show

admission in the Municipal Corporation Hindi Balak School No.

1, Akola (for short, Municipal School at Akola) before the

deemed date of 21.11.1961, mentioned in the 2012 Rules.

10. However, the Scrutiny Committee refused to accept the

School Leaving Certificate issued for the uncle-Radheshyam

Mulchand by observing that his name is not mentioned in the

family tree of the claimant. Surprisingly, no weightage was

given for the School Leaving Certificate of the other uncle

Ramavatar Mulchand by the Scrutiny Committee.

11.1 Mr. Kunal Cheema, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant would submit that the Scrutiny Committee mis-

directed itself by relying on the ratio in Marri Chandra

Shekhar Rao vs Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College & Ors.

Reported in (1990) 3 SCC 130 as the said judgment is

inapplicable for those whose claims are to be considered

under the provisions of the 2012 Rules.

11.2 The appellant then argues that when the School Leaving

Certificate of the uncle Ramavatar was very much available

without being questioned by anyone, the Scrutiny Committee

could not have rejected the appellant’s claim by placing 6

heavy reliance on the family tree which omitted to mention

few relatives.

11.3 The argument of the counsel is that when the

relationship of the appellant with her uncle and grand-father

is established, her status in the State of Maharashtra should

have been determined on the basis of the 2012 Rules.

11.4 Mr. Kunal Cheema, learned counsel contends that the

High Court committed a serious error by wrongly observing

that the appellant’s grand-father Mulchand Hemraj was not

mentioned in the family tree.

12.1 On the other hand, Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, learned

Standing counsel for State would refer to the documents

relied upon by the appellant before the Scrutiny Committee to

point out that most of them are of dates subsequent to the

deemed date of 21.11.1961 mentioned in the 2012 Rules and

therefore, can be of no assistance to the appellant.

12.2 The learned Standing counsel however agrees that

determination of the status of the appellant as a migrant

family from Rajasthan is to be done as per the provisions of

the 2012 Rules.

13. The family tree produced by the appellant clearly

indicates that Mulchand Hemraj is the paternal grandfather

of the appellant. Therefore, the Division Bench obviously

misread the family tree in making the incorrect observation 7

that name of the person Mulchand Hemraj, the appellant’s

paternal grand-father, does not figure in the family tree.

14. The School Leaving Certificate of Ramavatar (son of

Mulchand Hemraj), the appellant’s paternal uncle was made

available before the Scrutiny Committee. The certificate

indicated that Ramavatar took admission in the Municipal

School, Akola on 12.08.1960. Similarly, the other paternal

uncle of the appellant Radheshyam, as is discernible from the

School Leaving Certificate of the same school, took admission

on 18.07.1961. Obviously, at the time when admission was

taken in 1960 and 1961, it must be the grand-father Mulchand

Hemraj who secured admission for his two young sons in the

said Municipal School at Akola.

15. The “relative” as defined in Rule 2(h) of the 2012 Rules

reads as under:

“(h) "relative" means a blood relative from paternal side of the applicant as per the geneology, except any particular tribe which has been notified by the Government from Nomadic Tribes and any particular caste or tribes as notified by the Government, from time to time;”…

16. The primary School Leaving Certificate of a relative from

the parental side is one of the preferred documents for

establishing a claim before the Scrutiny Committee.

Appropriate certificates of the appellant’s two paternal 8

uncles were produced indicating that the appellant’s grand-

father had migrated and set up permanent residence at Akola

on or before the deemed date i.e., 21.11.1961.

17. Notwithstanding the above, the appellant’s claim was

rejected on the erroneous basis that she has not been able to

produce any documents to the effect that her fore-fathers

started residing in Maharashtra, prior to 1961. The two

school leaving certificates of the two paternal uncles clearly

demonstrate that the appellant’s grand-father had got his two

sons (uncles of the appellant) admitted into the Municipal

School at Akola on 12.08.1960 and 18.07.1961 respectively.

This itself would clearly establish that the fore-fathers of

the appellant had migrated and set up residence in Akola in

Maharashtra, prior to the deemed date of 21.11.1961. The

school leaving certificates would also satisfy the condition

for residence mentioned in Rule 3 of the 2012 Rules. Yet a

negative finding was given by the Scrutiny Committee which not

only ignored the Enquiry Report of the Vigilance Squad made

available on 27.12.2014 but also ignored the two school

leaving certificates of the paternal uncles of the appellant.

18. The materials on record suggest that the appellant’s

grand father- Mulchand shifted to Akola sometime in the year

1960 and the two paternal uncles of the appellants were

admitted to schools in Akola on 12.08.1960 and on 18.07.1961 9

well before the deemed date of 21.11.1961.

19. The Scrutiny Committee relied on the judgment in Marri

Chandra Shekhar Rao (supra), but all we need to say is that

the judgment is distinguishable as it was not concerned with

the 2012 Rules but was concerned with the circular dated

22.02.1985 issued by the Government of India which indicated

that migrants from one state to another will be entitled to

derive benefits from the state of origin and not from the

state to which the individual migrates. This judgment

therefore can have no application in the facts of the present

appeal.

20. The upshot of the above discussion is that the Scrutiny

Committee and the High Court erred in rejecting the

appellant’s claim as belonging to the Nomadic Tribe-Lohar. The

High Court additionally fell into an error by recording that

the appellant’s grand-father Mulchand’s name does not figure

in the family tree. In consequence, the decision of the

Scrutiny Committee dated 06.03.2017 and also the High Court’s

impugned judgment dated 18.09.2018 are found to be

unsustainable. Looking at the linkage demonstrated with her

paternal grandfather who settled in Maharashtra prior to the

deemed date i.e., 21.11.1961, the appellant should in our

opinion be considered as belonging to the Nomadic Tribe-Lohar.

It is declared accordingly. The appeal is allowed with such 10

finding. In consequence, since the appellant has completed her

education in BDS course from Yogita Dental College and

Hospital (respondent no.3), by virtue of the present judgment,

her results should now be declared. All consequential reliefs

will follow.

….……………….……………J. [HRISHIKESH ROY]

……………………………..…J. [SANJAY KAROL] New Delhi October 11, 2023.

11

ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.7 SECTION III

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No(s). 7524/2019

ASTHA GOPAL KHAKRA Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s)

(IA No. 158389/2023 - EARLY HEARING APPLICATION)

Date : 11-10-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL

For Appellant(s) Mr. Kunal Cheema, AOR Mr. Apoorv Shukla, Adv.

Mr. Raghav Deshpande, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR (R-1 & 2) Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv.

Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv.

Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR(R-4) Mr. Manan Daga, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

The appeal is allowed in terms of signed order.

Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

(INDU MARWAH) (KAMLESH RAWAT) COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed order is placed on the file)