THE CHIEF REGIONAL OFFICER Vs. PRADIP
LAWS(SC)-2020-1-84
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on January 27,2020

The Chief Regional Officer Appellant
VERSUS
PRADIP Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RAMESH SURESH KAMBLE V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
GANESH RAMBHAU KHALALE V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
ARUN V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. MILIND [REFERRED TO]
KAVITA SOLUNKE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
SHALINI VS. NEW ENGLISH HIGH SCH. ASSN. [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR FCI AND ORS. VS. JAGDISH BALARAM BAHIRA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

SRUSHTI D/O GANESH DIKONDWAR VS. JOINT COMMISSIONER & VICE-CHAIRMAN, SCHEDULE TRIBE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE [LAWS(BOM)-2021-3-193] [REFERRED TO]
PURSHOTTAM PATWAR VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-6-45] [REFERRED TO]
LEELA DINESHSINGH CHAUHAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-10-125] [REFERRED TO]
LEELAMRUT VS. MORMUGAO PORT TRUST [LAWS(BOM)-2022-1-193] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

DHANANJAYA Y.CHANDRACHUD,J - (1.)Delay condoned.
(2.)Leave granted.
(3.)The first respondent was appointed as an Assistant by the appellant on the basis of a claim that he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe, namely, the Dhangad community. As the record shows, he belongs to the Dhangar community (a nomadic tribe) and not to the Dhangad community (listed as a Scheduled Tribe for Maharashtra). The first respondent claimed the benefit of belonging to a Schedule Tribe on the basis of a caste certificate dated 17 August 1984 issued by the Executive Magistrate, Hingna. The appellant called upon the first respondent to submit the caste certificate by a letter dated 15 February 2011. The appellant then addressed a communication on 14 July 2011 to the issuing authority which, by a communication dated 9 May 2014, informed the appellant that the caste certificate was not registered in its records. In August 2014, the first respondent was called upon to submit a fresh caste certificate. The first respondent did not submit a fresh caste certificate, but approached the issuing authority and then submitted a letter dated 14 August 2014 to the appellant whereby the issuing authority had stated that the caste certificate had been issued from the office of the Executive Magistrate. On 3 August 2015, the first respondent applied for verification of his caste certificate to the Scrutiny Committee. The first respondent submitted an application before the Scrutiny Committee on 15 February 2016. By an order dated 25 April 2016, the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the claim. The Scrutiny Committee noted, in the course of its order, that the first respondent had submitted an application on 15 February 2016 merely seeking protection of his service. The Scrutiny Committee observed that the first respondent was well aware of the fact that he did not belong to the Dhangad Scheduled Tribe, but belonged to the Dhangar Community, which is a nomadic tribe. It noted that the documents which had been submitted by the first respondent pertained only to the Dhangar Community and not to the Dhangad Scheduled Tribe. The documents pertaining to the first respondent and his father were scrutinized by the Committee which came to the conclusion that there was no merit in the claim of the first respondent of belonging to the Dhangad Scheduled Tribe.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.