Shocked at the revelation that authorities issued two contrary caste certificates to the same person, the Bombay HC has observed that issuance of these certificates has become a farce.
Shocked at the revelation that authorities issued two contrary caste certificates to the same person, the Bombay high court has observed that issuance of these certificates has become a farce.
"Our experience tells us that in many cases issuance of caste certificates by Competent Authority has become a farce. In this the persons who deserve to get benefit of reservation policy are the losers," said the division bench of justices Ranjana Desai and AA Sayed.
In the present case, the division bench also asked the secretary of social welfare department to conduct a probe.
The petitioner in this case, one Kavita Goel, had challenged Mumbai Caste Scrutiny Committee's decision to invalidate the certificate issued by deputy collector of Thane in August 2004.
The certificate said that she was a Chamar (a scheduled caste) and originally from Maharashtra. She obtained provisional admission to engineering college in the SC quota.
During the hearing in high court, it was revealed that Thane deputy collector had in fact issued two certificates to her. The first certificate, issued in February 2001, said that she was a Chamar, but not originally from Maharashtra, as her father was from Kanpur.
A person who migrates from another state, cannot get benefit of reservations in Maharashtra. Goel applied for a review. In 2004, she was given a fresh certificate, which stated that she was "originally" a resident of Dombivali, Maharashtra.
She took admission to B-Tech course on this basis, and applied to Caste Scrutiny Committee (CSC) for verification of certificate in 2005.
CSC took more than three years to decide her case. In 2008, it invalidated the second certificate issued to her, which she challenged in high court.
High court was shocked to see that same authority issued two contrary certificates. When court sought original record pertaining to 2001 decision, it was told that it was lost. When court asked petitioner to produce copy of her application in 2001, she said it too was lost.
Court observed: "It is indeed a strange coincidence that relevant record of Scrutiny Committee should be lost and at the same time application preferred by the petitioner should also be not available... prima facie it smacks of unholy connivance between the concerned parties."
While refusing to grant any relief to petitioner, court said, "In this case an in depth inquiry needs to be conducted as to how the same Competent Authority issued two contrary certificates, how the record is lost and why Scrutiny Committee took extraordinarily long time to pass order."
The court, in the order passed last week, has asked for report of probe within three months.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}