A.B. Chaudhari JUDGMENT
S.A. Bobde, J.
1. Leave to amend. Amendment be carried out forthwith. Amended slip be served on the respondents.
2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for parties.
3. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.1.2010 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating the caste certificate to the effect that she belongs to Kanjar Bhat - Nomadic Tribe. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the caste certificate to the effect that she belongs to Kanjar Bhat-Nomadic Tribe ought not to have been invalidated in view of the undisputed fact that the certificate of petitioner's sister to the same effect has been validated by the Caste Scrutiny committee. According to learned Counsel the sister is blood related from the paternal side and there was no reason for invalidating the caste certificate of the petitioner. The learned Counsel relied on the Govt. Resolution dated 22.8.2007 issued by the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, which provides that where during the course of enquiry or scrutiny of a caste claim it is seen that the caste claim of a blood relative, such as father, son, daughter, brother and sister has been scrutinized and accepted, the caste claim of the applicant should be allowed without insisting on any other proof.
4. We have considered the matter and we are of the view that the petitioner's caste claim that she belongs to Kanjar Bhat - Nomadic Tribe ought to have been accepted by the Committee merely on the basis that identical caste claim of her sister that she belongs to Kanjar Bhat has been allowed by the Committee, even apart from the Government Resolution. We are of the opinion that the guidelines provided by the said Govt. Resolution are sound and based on sound principles. It would indeed be chaotic otherwise. If the relationship by blood is established or not doubted, and one such relative has been confirmed as belonging to a particular caste, there is no reason why public time or money should be spent in the committee testing the same evidence and making the same conclusion unless of course the Committee finds on the evidence that the validity of the certificate of such relation has been obtained by fraud.
5. The Division Bench of this Court in Mahesh Pralhadrao Lad v. State of Maharashtra 2009(2) Mh.L.J. 90 has observed that in the absence of any power under the Rules conferred on the Government to issue a Govt. Resolution, the Govt. Resolution cannot be said to be binding on the committee nor the committee in exercise of its jurisdiction is bound to follow the same. The Division Bench further observed that the Government Resolution may be considered in the context of Rule 12 of the Rules and if the committee while exercising jurisdiction is satisfied that the caste validity certificate issued to a blood relative is genuine then instead of calling the Vigilance Cell Report it may proceed to issue the caste validity certificate. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench. We would further add that the committee would be entitled to refuse to follow the caste validity certificate granted to a blood relative if it appears to the committee that the earlier caste certificate has been scrutinized by a Committee without jurisdiction or the validity order is obtained by committing fraud on the Committee.
6. The Supreme Court has laid down this position in the judgment in Raju Ramsing Vasave v. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar and Ors. MANU/SC/3754/2008 : (2008) 9 SCC 54. Para 30 to 38 of the said judgment reads as follows:
30. The principle of res judicata is undoubtedly a salutar........