When the development is not available during the pendency of the suit and it holds the potential to affect the case significantly an opportunity should be given again to the petitioner to place these documents before the respondent to prove his claim. In the present case, A division-judge comprising of Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Justice Anil S. Kilor adjudicated the matter of Dharamdas v. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee (WRIT PETITION NO. 2421 OF 2014 )dealt with the issue where petitioner had questioned the legality and correctness of the order dated 12/03/2014 passed by respondent invalidating the claim of the petitioner as he belonging to Scheduled Tribe “Mana”.
During the pendency of the petition, a new development has emerged which was in the nature of grant of Validity Certificate by the same Scrutiny Committee i.e. respondent to Pragati Dharamdas Galmale(daughter of Petitioner).The name of Pragati did not find any mention in the genealogical tree that was placed before the Scrutiny Committee by the petitioner.
The Petitioner contended that at the time when the impugned order was passed, the circumstances being different, there was no need for the petitioner to have included names of his children in the genealogical tree. But that does not mean that the contention that Pragati is the daughter of the Petitioner is accepted. It needs to be proved appropriately by the Petitioner.
The Position that emerges is that if Pragati is the daughter of the petitioner, who is a person belonging to “Mana”, Scheduled Tribe by the Scrutiny Committee of the competent jurisdiction, in the ordinary course of circumstances, the contention should go a long way in supporting the case of the petitioner.
The certificate not being available for its appropriate consideration at the time when the impugned order was passed, an opportunity should be given again to the petitioner to place these documents before the respondent to prove his claim by relying upon such documents that he too belongs to Scheduled Tribe Mana.
Because if the documents are not reconsidered, the social status of a person has the consequences which may continue to affect that person for his entire life. Several benefits under the law flow from the reservation policy of the State and if a person is deprived of an effective opportunity of proving his caste claim, the effect would be disastrous for such a person in time to come. Therefore, in such a case, in spite of the fact that a piece of evidence, which is the certificate of validity issued to Pragati, claimed to be his daughter by the petitioner was not placed before the Committee for the reason of it being not available, is required to be placed before the Judgment respondent Committee for its appropriate consideration by remanding this matter to the respondent Committee. This would also call for conduct of the proceedings afresh from the stage of production of the documents by the petitioner.
The petitioner, apart from questioning the legality and correctness of the impugned order passed by the Scrutiny Committee, is also seeking other relief in the nature of quashing and setting aside the new appointment order. However, at this stage, we are not inclined to consider this prayer and we grant liberty to the petitioner to raise his grievance in this regard, if any, after the Scrutiny Committee takes its appropriate decision afresh in the matter.
Accordingly, we pass the following order:
- The petition is partly allowed.
- The impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside.
- The matter is remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee for its fresh consideration and decision in accordance with law from the stage of consideration of the documents which are now permitted to be placed on record by the petitioner.
