Bombay High Court
UDAYSING RAMESH SWAMIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPT. AND ORS.
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the petitioner failed to prove his belonging to the Beda Jangam Scheduled Caste, and the Committee’s order stands.
Summary
The petitioner, Udaysing Ramesh Swami, claimed belonging to the Beda Jangam Scheduled Caste and sought validation of his 2010 caste certificate. The Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee rejected his claim after examining older documents, including pre‑constitutional records showing his ancestors as Jangam, Lingayat or Hindu Lingayat, and a vigilance report that did not support his claim. The petitioner argued that Lingayat is a sect, not a caste, and relied on earlier validity certificates issued to his father and cousin. The Court held that under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000, the petitioner bore the burden of disproving the adverse entries, which he failed to do. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Committee’s findings and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner has discharged the burden under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000 to prove he belongs to the Beda Jangam Scheduled Caste.
- Whether the order of the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee dated 07‑11‑2015 is liable to be set aside.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De‑notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backwards Classes and Special Backwards Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 — s. 8
Subjects
- caste certificate
- Scheduled Caste
- Section 8 burden of proof
- validity certificate
- vigilance report
- pre‑constitutional documents
- Beda Jangam
Judgment
(1) wp4221.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4221 OF 2016
Udaysing Ramesh Swami,
Aged-36 years,
Residing at 299, Danamma Ayya Swami Math,
Main Road, Panhala, Tal. Panhala,
Dist. Kolhapur ...PETITIONER
Digitally
signed by
SHAILAJA VERSUS
SHAILAJA SHRIKANT
SHRIKANT HALKUDE
HALKUDE Date:
2026.09.29 1. The State of Maharashtra,
19:00:00
+0530 Through its Secretary, Social Justice
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
2. Divisional Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee No.2, Kolhapur,
Through its Member Secretary, Having its
Office at Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Samajik Nyay Bhavan,
2nd Floor, Vichare Mal, Kolhapur, Dist. Kolhapur
3. Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue),
Karveer Sub-Division, Karveer,
Dist. Kolhapur
4. Executive Engineer, Irrigation,
Ratnagiri Irrigation Division,
Ratnagiri, Dist. Ratnagiri ...RESPONDENTS
…..
Mr. Drupad Patil i/b Mr. Rugwed Kinkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Atul Vanarase, AGP for the Respondents/State.
…..
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL &
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 09th SEPTEMBER, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 29th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
1 of 21
(2) wp4221.16.odt
JUDGMENT :[Per ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.]:
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally
with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties.
2. The Petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated
07-11-2015 passed by Respondent No. 2- Divisional Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee No.2, Kolhapur [for short ‘the Committee’],
thereby invalidating the claim of the Petitioner that he belongs to
‘Beda Jangam’, a Scheduled Caste. The Petitioner also seeks a
declaration that the caste certificate dated 01-01-2010, issued by
Respondent No. 3 in his favour, is valid, legal, and subsisting.
FACTUAL ASPECT :-
3. The Petitioner claims that he belongs to ‘ Beda Jangam’, a
Scheduled Caste. Accordingly, Respondent No. 3-Sub Divisional
Officer (Revenue) [for short ‘the SDO’] had issued a caste certificate
in his favour on 01-01-2010. Based on the caste certificate, he was
appointed as Assistant Engineer Grade-II in the office of Respondent
No. 4, Irrigation Department. He submitted his caste certificate, along
with the documents, to Respondent No. 4, his employer, who
forwarded them to Respondent No. 2, the Committee, for verification.
2 of 21
(3) wp4221.16.odt
4. The Committee had issued a validity certificate in favour
of his father on 02-12-2009. He also possessed the documents
demonstrating that he belongs to ‘Beda Jangam’, a Scheduled Caste.
5. Since the committee was dissatisfied with the documents
submitted by the Petitioner, it had forwarded the same to the Vigilance
Cell for a detailed enquiry. Accordingly, the Vigilance Cell conducted
the enquiry and submitted its report to the Committee on 30-10-2012,
observing that some adverse entries were found against the Petitioner
during the enquiry, i.e., in the school record his father’s caste was
mentioned as ‘Hindu Lingayat’. The Committee, vide show cause
notice dated 25.06.2015, called upon the Petitioner to submit his
explanation to the said adverse entries. In response, he had submitted
an explanation before the Committee.
6. In the explanation to the notice, he contended that,
inadvertently, due to lack of knowledge while recording the caste of
his father in the school record, the same was recorded as ‘Hindu
Lingayat’, which is not a caste but a sect and therefore, no entry
regarding the caste of the father of the Petitioner had been recorded in
the school leaving certificate. Therefore, said document cannot be
taken into consideration. He further explained that his ancestor’s
3 of 21
(4) wp4221.16.odt
occupation was performing the duties of a priest, funeral rites and
death ceremonies. Therefore, he urged that it be granted validity.
7. Regarding the document of the year 1885, he submitted
that the occupation of his Great-Great-Grandfather was mentioned as
‘begging alms’ and, therefore, the document supports the Petitioner's
claim. However, he failed to explain the adverse entries in documents
at Sr. No. 10 and 11, i.e., the affidavit dated 20-03-1885 of his Great-
Great-Grandfather, wherein he affirmed his caste as ‘Jangam’.
8. Pursuant to the notice, the Petitioner appeared before the
Committee for hearing. After affording the Petitioner an opportunity
of hearing and considering the Vigilance Cell’s report and documents
on record, Respondent No. 2-Committee, vide impugned judgment
and order dated 07-11-2015, rejected the Petitioner's claim that he
belongs to ‘Beda Jangam’, a Scheduled Caste. Hence, this Petition.
9. Respondent No. 2-Committee has filed a reply and denied
the contents of the Petition in toto. It is contended that the Committee
observed that the Petitioner relied on one revenue document of the
year 1885 issued by the Archaeological Department, Kolhapur, which
pertains to the Petitioner's great-great-grandfather. He himself
recorded a statement on oath dated 20-03-1885, in which he stated his
caste as ‘Jangam’. Therefore, the observations in Anand v. Committee
4 of 21
(5) wp4221.16.odt
for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and others, reported
in (2012) 1 SCC 113, are not helpful to the Petitioner. Lastly, it is
contended that the Petitioner failed to discharge the burden as per
Section 8 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-
notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backwards
Classes and Special Backwards Category (Regulation of Issuance and
Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 [for short ‘ the Act’] and
therefore, the Committee has rightly passed the order, and no
interference is required in it and hence urge to dismiss the petition.
10. In response to the reply, the Petitioner has filed an
Affidavit-in-Rejoinder wherein he averred that during pendency of
this petition the Committee issued a validity certificate in favour of his
cousin brother Dhanraj Swami vide order dated 08.03.2017. He
annexed the same with the Rejoinder. Therefore, it is propounded that,
in view of the issuance of the validity certificate in favour of his father
and cousin brother and in view of the law laid down in Apoorva D/o.
Vinay Nichale Vs Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee
No.1 and others reported in 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401, the Petitioner is
entitled to get the caste certificate. In support of his contention, he
relied on the judgment in K. Shankariah versus The District Collector
5 of 21
(6) wp4221.16.odt
and others in Writ Petition No.19883 of 1994 dated 11-07-2015 and,
hence, urged that the Petition be allowed.
SUBMISSIONS :
11. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner vehemently
contended that all three Vigilance Cell reports supported the claim of
the Petitioner. Their traditional occupation was Bhikshuki/
Vibhutidhari, to perform funeral rites and rituals and death ceremonies
in the houses of Shudras-Girijanas, etc. Therefore, the Committee
earlier issued a caste validity certificate in favour of the Petitioner's
father and cousin brother. After conducting the due enquiry, the said
certificates were issued, and therefore, there is no necessity to conduct
further enquiry while granting validity. Based on the said caste
validity certificates and in view of the dictum laid down in Apoorva
(supra), the Petitioner is also entitled to a caste validity certificate, as
the Committee did not observe that those certificates were obtained by
playing a fraud upon the Committee/Authority.
12. He further canvassed that Lingayat is a sect and not a
caste. Caste is always recognised from occupation, and the occupation
of the ancestors of the Petitioner was/is Bhikshuki, as supported by the
affidavit of the villagers. Likewise, the word ‘Beda’ means ‘Begging
for Alms’. The Vigilance Cell Authority, in its report, observed that the
6 of 21
(7) wp4221.16.odt
Petitioner's grandfather was a beggar and, therefore, the Petitioner
proved that he belongs to ‘Beda Jangam’, a Scheduled Caste.
13. He drew our attention to the first page of the service book
of Petitioner’s father dated 12-12-1983 wherein his caste was recorded
as ‘Beda Jangam’. Lastly, he submitted that the Committee ignored
two caste validity certificates issued in favour of Petitioner’s father
and his cousin brother, as well as the first page of Petitioner’s father's
service book, and erred in rejecting the Petitioner's validity claim. He
argued that pre-constitutional documents of 1885 of his great-great-
grandfather denote his caste as ‘Lingayat’, and his father’s school
leaving certificate denotes his caste as ‘Hindu Lingayat’. He
contended that Lingayat is not a caste; therefore, the Committee's
findings are contrary to the documents produced on record.
14. Lastly, he propounded that the Committee did not
consider the mandate laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Anand
(Supra) and drew our attention to para 22 of the said judgment. In
Yogesh Madhav Makalwad Vs State of Maharashtra, and Others
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1679, he pointed out para-Nos. 8
and 9 of the said judgment. He argued that the affinity test is relevant
and germane to determining the claimants' social status. Accordingly,
as per the dictum laid down in Apoorva (supra), the Petitioner is also
7 of 21
(8) wp4221.16.odt
entitled to a validity certificate. Therefore, the impugned judgment and
order is liable to be quashed and set aside, and he urges that the Petition be
allowed.
15. While countering the above submissions, the learned
AGP has strenuously argued that the pre-Independence document of
1885 pertains to the great-great-grandfather of the Petitioner, which
denotes that he belongs to ‘Lingayat’ caste, and Petitioner’s father’s
school leaving certificate indicates that his caste was ‘Hindu
Lingayat’. Said document is of the year 1967. Both documents are the
oldest ones. The document of 1885 has more probative value than the
subsequent documents. Therefore, based on these documents, the
Committee rightly rejected the Petitioner's claim that he belongs to
‘Beda Jangam’, a Scheduled Caste.
16. He further contended that the Vigilance Cell report
categorically indicates that his ancestors were performing Priestly
duties, which were performed by the people from the ‘Jangam’ caste.
Therefore, they were called as ‘Swami’. The people from the
‘Jangam’ caste used to perform priestly duties and beg alms, and in
the name of the Petitioner and his family members, their surnames are
shown as ‘Swami’. Accordingly, the Vigilance report does not support
the Petitioner's claim. Therefore, he submitted that passing of the
order by the Committee is just, legal and proper and no interference is
8 of 21
(9) wp4221.16.odt
required. To buttress his submission, the learned AGP has relied upon
the judgment of this Court in Mahesh Mahadev Turbathmath Vs
State of Maharashtra and others in WP/2627/2026 dated 07-09-
2026.
17. We appreciated the rival contentions of the learned
Advocates for the parties. We perused the record and the impugned
judgment and order, as well as the judgments relied upon by the
learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned AGP. We have
perused the Committee's original record and returned it.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
18. Thus, the short question that falls for consideration is
‘whether the Petitioner proves that he belongs to a ‘Beda Jangam’
Scheduled Caste?’ And ‘whether the order passed by the Committee
requires any interference?’.
ANALYSIS :
19. While determining the controversy whether the Petitioner
belongs to ‘Beda Jangam’, a Scheduled Caste or else, it would be
appropriate to reproduce the documents produced by the Petitioner
before the Committee as under:
v-dz- iqjkO;kapk ri’khy ueqn tkr mesnokjk’kh ukrs
1 mifoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh djohj foHkkx dksYgkiwj ;kauh csMktaxe Lor%
fn-01-01-2010 jksth ,e,th-,lvkj-353@09 ;k
dzekadus Lokeh mn;flag jes’k ;kaP;k ukos fuxZfer
dsysyk tkrhpk nk[kyk-
9 of 21
(10) wp4221.16.odt
2 eq[;k/;kid] iUgkGk fon;keafnj iUgkGk ;kauh fn-13- csMktaxe Lor%
06-1997 jksth Lokeh mn;flag jes’k ;kaP;k ukos
fuxZfer dsysyk 'kkGk lksMY;kpk nk[kyk- ;ke/;s
jftLVj ua-5340] tUe fn-21-03-1980] 'kkGk izos’k
fn-12-06-1989 o tUe LFkG iUgkGk vls ueqn vkgs-
3 izkpk;Z] foosdkuan T;q-dkWyst dksYgkiwj ;kauh fn-06- csMktaxe HkkÅ
06-1995 jksth Lokeh ijkx jes’k ;kaps ukos fuxZfer
dsysyk 'kkGk lksMY;kpk nk[kyk- ;ke/;s jft ua-
8224] tUe fn-24-03-1978] 'kkGk izos’k fn-28-06-
1993 o tUe LFkG iq.kk vls uewn vkgs-
4 eq[;k/;kid] iUgkGk fon;keafnj iUgkGk ;sFkhy jes’k fganq oMhy
ckcqjko Lokeh ;kaP;k ukokph ukasn vlysyk tujy fyaxk;r
jft-mrkjk ;ke/;s jft- ua-1967 o tUe fn-25-06-
1953] 'kkGk izos’k fn-13-06-1967 o tUe LFkG-
lkax#G rk- djohj ueqn vkgs-
5 foHkkxh; ou vf/kdkjh] dksYgkiwj ;kauh fn-29-04-1986 csMktaxe oMhy
jksth lka{kkadhr dsysyh jes’k ckcqjko Lokeh ;kaP;k
lsokiqLrdkP;k ifgY;k ikukph izr] ;ke/;s tkr fganq
csMktaxe] tUe fn-25-06-1953 uewn vkgs-
6 Tkkr izek.kirz iMrkG.kh lferh dz-2 dksYgkiwj ;kauh csMktaxe oMhy
fn-02-12-2009 jksth dzekad 16633 ;k dzekadkus jes’k
ckcwjko Lokeh ;kaps ukaos fuxZfer dsysys tkr oS/krk
izek.kirz-
7 Rkgflynkj iUgkGk] ;kauh fn-13-06-2008 jksth ekS- & vktksck
djatQs.k rk-iUgkGk ;sFkhy fuxZfer dsysyk lu
2006&07 e/khy 7@12 mrkjk ;ke/;s Jh- egknso
ogh@ ckcw clfyaxk taxe ;kaP;k ukokph uksan vkgs-
8 Rkgflynkj iUgkGk ;kauh fn-02-07-2008 jksth & i.ktksck
fuxZfer dsysys gDd uksan.khps irzd ;ke/;s tfeuhpk
[kkrsnkj fdaok buke tfeuhpk /kkj.k dj.kkj lOgsZ ua-
33 ns-b- ;k buke tfeuhoj clfyaxk dykik
taxe ;kaP;k ukokph uksan vkgs-
9 rgflynkj iUgkGk ;kauh fn-05-07-2008 jksth & vktksck o
fuxZfer dsysY;k eglwyh iqjkO;ke/;s nsoLFkku Jh i.ktksck
egknso ;klkBh clfyaxk dykik taxe ;kaps ezwR;wuarj
ljG okjl eqyxk ckcw clfyaxk taxe ;kaP;k ukokph
iqtk] vpkZ o uSosn; lkBh uksan dsysyh vkgs-
10 vfHkys[kkf/kdkjh iqjkfHkys[k] dk;kZy; dksYgkiwj ;kauh fyaxk;r [kkij i.ktksck
fn-11-12-2007 jksth jes’k ckcwjko Lokeh ;kaPks ukos
fuxZfer dsysys ekS-djatQs.k rk-iUgkGk ;sFkhy
eksMfyihrhy eglwyh nLr,sot- ;ke/;s Jh-
egknsokps ukos mRiUu vlY;kdkekoj dykik fcu
vkik taxe ;kapk fn-20 ekpZ 1885 jksth uksanfoysY;k
tckcke/;s uko dykik ckikps vkik mQZ lnkf’ko
taxe tkr fyaxk;r /kank fHk{kk ekx.kspk vlw ueqn
vkgs- rlsp R;ke/;s R;kaph oa’kkoGgh nk[kfoysyh
vkgs- lnjps nLr,sot gs eksMhfyihrhy vlwu
R;kaps ,Q-,e- gwlsu ;kauh nsoukxjhe/;s fyI;karj
dsysys vkgs-
10 of 21
(11) wp4221.16.odt
11 ojhy iqjkO;ke/;s fn-20 ekPkZ 1885 jksth dykik taxe [kkij i.ktksck
vkik taxe ;kaps iq<hyizek.ks izfrKkirz vkgs-
ek>s uko dykik ckikps uko vkik vMuko ekghr
ukgh tkr taxe] mej o"kZ 40 dk- fHk{kk ekx.ks]
jkg.kkj iukyk] fygwu nsrks dh] ekS- djatQs.k
cksjxko ;sFkhy egknso nsoLFkkuckcr ekfgrh fyghyh
vkgs-
20. Similarly, it would be appropriate to reproduce the
genealogy tree given by the Petitioner.
Oak’kkoG
cl;k taxe ([kk-[kk-[kk-[kk- i.ktksck) eqG iq#"k
vkikcko taxe (pq-[kk-[kk-[kk- i.ktksck) flofyaxk taxe ([kk-[kk-[kk-i.ktksck)
vkik mQZ lnkf’ko flofyaxxk taxe
([kk-[kk-i.ktksck)
dYykIik vkik mQZ lnkf’ko taxe
([kk-i.ktksck)
clfyaxk dYykIik taxe (i.ktksck)
ckcw clfyaxk taxe (vktksck)
panz’ks[kj ckcwjko Lokeh (pqyrs) jes’k ckcwjko Lokeh (oMhy)
ijkx jes’k Lokeh (HkkÅ) mn;flax jes’k Lokeh (Lor%)
bZ’ojh ijkx Lokeh vf[kys’k ijkx Lokeh vksoh mn;flag Lokeh
(iqr.kh) (iqr.;k) (eqyxh)
izkph panz’ks[kj Lokeh Lusgy pkanz’ks[kj Lokeh /kujkt panz’ks[kj Loeh
(pq- cgh.k) (pq- cgh.k) (pq- HkkÅ)
21. At the outset, it is evident that the Petitioner, to
substantiate his claim, has submitted eleven documents. Out of them,
two documents of the year 1885 pertaining to the great-great-
11 of 21
(12) wp4221.16.odt
grandfather are pre-constitutional. The first 1885 revenue document
was issued by the Archaeological Department, Kolhapur, and pertains
to the Petitioner's great-great-grandfather. In it, the Petitioner’s great-
great-grandfather, Kallappa, filed an Affidavit. In the affidavit, he
affirmed on oath on 20-03-1885 that his caste is ‘Jangam’. The second
1885 document indicates that his great-great-grandfather Kallappa’s
surname is mentioned as ‘Jangam’ and his caste as ‘Lingayat’. The
Petitioner himself produced the said documents. These documents are
the oldest and pre-constitutional and therefore have more probative
value than the subsequent documents. The third-oldest document at
Sr. No. 4 is the school leaving certificate of his father, Ramesh, which
indicates that on 13-06-1967 he took admission in Panhala Vidya
Mandir, Panhala, wherein his caste was recorded as ‘Hindu Lingayat’.
These three documents are the oldest ones. The entries in those
documents do not depict the Petitioner's caste as ‘Beda Jangam’. But
they indicate that his great-great-grandfather and father belonged to
‘Jangam’, ‘Lingayat’ and ‘Hindu Lingayat’, respectively.
22. It is a settled principle of law that a person gets his/her
caste by birth. It is trite law that pre-constitutional documents have
more probative value than subsequent documents. Accordingly, the
entries concerning the great-great-grandfather as ‘Jangam’, ‘Lingayat’
12 of 21
(13) wp4221.16.odt
and ‘Hindu Lingayat’ were recorded. The Petitioner owes an
explanation, which the Petitioner has failed to furnish. Section 8 of the
Act casts a burden on the Petitioner to prove that the aforesaid entries
are incorrect or that he belongs to ‘Beda Jangam’, a Scheduled Caste.
The Fact remains that the Petitioner has failed to discharge such
burden. On the contrary, he does not dispute the said entries but
admitted that the same are correct. However, to justify his contentions,
he argued only that ‘Lingayat’ is a sect and not a caste. Therefore, it
cannot be said that the Petitioner belongs to the ‘Lingayat’ caste.
However, we do not find merit in his contentions in that regard, as the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of judgments, has categorically
held that entries have to be read as they are.
23. In Maroti Vyankati Gaikwad and Others Vs Deputy Director
& Member-Secretary, the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Amravati and others [W. P. No.12/2022 decided on 17-04-2023]
full bench of this court, after considering the various judgments of the
Supreme Court as well as this court, has categorically held that
‘entries in the documents have to be read as they are and the same cannot
be read differently’. It would be appropriate to reproduce para 17.7 of
the said judgment which reads thus:
17.7. It would thus be clear that any claim by any tribe,
sub-tribe or parts of such tribe or sub-tribe, whether
13 of 21
(14) wp4221.16.odt
having any similarity, prefix/suffix, synonymity, with the
name of the tribe as mentioned in the Presidential (ST)
Order 1950, of being included in such Scheduled Tribe,
would not be permissible. No enquiry in respect of such a
claim is permissible. No enquiry of any nature
whatsoever is permissible with reference to any material,
whatever it may be and in whatever form, to interpret or
construe the entries in the Presidential (ST) Order 1950,
which have to be read as it is. The Scheduled Tribe
‘Mana’ in Entry 18 has to be read as only and only
‘Mana’ and not as an umbrella or community and
therefore, tribes with similar/synonymous names or
names with a prefix/suffix to ‘Mana’ cannot claim any
social status of a Scheduled Tribe. Thus, persons
belonging to tribes or sub-tribes such as ‘Badwaik
Mana’, ‘Khand Mana’, ‘Kshatriya Mana’, ‘Kshatriya
Badwaik Mana’, ‘Kunbi Mana’, ‘Maratha Mana’,
‘Gond Mana’, ‘Mani’/ ‘Mane’, ‘Mane Ku’, ‘Mana Ku’,
‘Ku Mana’, ‘Mana Kunbi’, ‘Patil Mana’, etc cannot be
held to be included in the Scheduled Tribe ‘Mana’, in
entry 18 in the Presidential (ST) order 1950 and thus
cannot claim the Status of a Scheduled Tribe.
24. Upon bare perusal of the above dictum, it appears that
this court has categorically held that the person belonging to Tribes or
sub-tribes etc. cannot claim the status of a Schedule tribe.
25. Apart from that, the Vigilance Cell, after conducting the
enquiry, submitted its report to the Committee, wherein the
Committee opined that people belonging to the ‘Jangam’ caste are
from the ‘Lingayat Sect’ and perform duty as priests and, therefore, are
called as ‘Swami’. Undisputedly, the surname of the Petitioner and his
14 of 21
(15) wp4221.16.odt
ancestors is ‘Swami’, which indicates that they belong to the ‘Jangam’
caste and not ‘Beda Jangam’ as claimed. Therefore, in our opinion, the
said Vigilance Cell’s report does not support the Petitioner’s claim.
26. In Anand’s case (supra), in para 22, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that “while dealing with the documentary evidence, greater
reliance may be placed on the pre-independence document because
they furnish a higher degree of probative value to the declaration of
status of a caste as compared to post-independence documents.”
Therefore, in our view, the said law laid down in para 22 does not help
the Petitioner. On the contrary, it supports the committee's decision.
27. In Yogesh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in para 8,
observed that, “insofar as the applicability of the affinity test is
concerned, a cautious approach has to be adopted.” Para 9 deals with
“whether there is interpolation in the document or not”. However, the
facts in the present case differ from those in Yogesh (supra).
Therefore, the dictum laid down therein does not apply to the case at
hand, as there is no question of interpolation. But the Petitioner
himself relies on the document of the year 1885.
28. In Mahesh (supra), this Court, after considering the
material on record, in para 16 held that “the school entry of the
Petitioner’s father does not show the caste as ‘Beda Jangam’ but
15 of 21
(16) wp4221.16.odt
shows the religion and caste as ‘Hindu Lingayat Beda Jangam.”
Therefore, said document does not support the Petitioner’s claim as
‘Beda Jangam’. In para 17, it was held that “the affidavits of the
villagers cannot form the basis to validate the Petitioner’s claim by
ignoring the documentary evidence, and therefore it was held that the
Petitioner failed to prove that he belongs to ‘Beda Jangam’ and
dismissed the Petition.” In the case at hand, the Petitioner also relies
on the villagers' affidavit. However, in view of the dictum in Mahesh
(supra), it cannot form the basis for validating the Petitioner’s claim
by ignoring the documentary evidence.
29. Perused the judgment and order passed by the Committee
dated 27-02-2017 whereby a validity certificate was granted in favour
of Dhanraj, cousin brother of the Petitioner. It reveals that the
Committee, though it referred to eleven documents in the table, did
not consider the documents at Sr. No. 3, 4, 10 and 11 in their proper
perspective, wherein the document at Sr. No. 3 was the school leaving
certificate of father Dhanraj, wherein his father's caste was recorded as
‘Lingayat’. The school leaving certificate indicates that his father took
admission in the school on 10-06-1969 and that entry was taken at that
time. The document at Sr. No. 4, the school leaving certificate,
pertains to the petitioner's father and shows that he took admission in
16 of 21
(17) wp4221.16.odt
the school on 13-06-1967, when his caste was recorded as ‘Lingayat’.
Documents at Sr. No. 10 and 11 pertain to the petitioner's great-great-
grandfather. The Archaeological Department, Kolhapur, issued the
first revenue document in 1885. The Petitioner’s great-great-
grandfather, Kallappa, filed an Affidavit. In the affidavit, he affirmed
on oath on 20-03-1885 that his caste is ‘Jangam’. The second 1885
document indicates that his great-great-grandfather Kallappa’s
surname is mentioned as ‘Jangam’ and his caste as ‘Lingayat’. These
two documents at Sr. No. 10 and 11 are pre-constitutional documents
and therefore have greater probative value. The Committee did not
consider those documents in their proper perspective, and it erred in
granting validity. Therefore, in our opinion, the said judgment and
order, and the Committee's issuance of the validity certificate in
favour of Dhanraj, are not helpful to the Petitioner in support of his
claim, as the Committee ignored those crucial documents.
30. The next question that arises for consideration is whether
the dictum laid down in the decision in Apoorva (supra) applies to the
case at hand or helps the Petitioner to substantiate his claim that he
belongs to ‘Beda Jangam’. The 1885 document does not show that
the Petitioner’s great-great-grandfather belonged to ‘Beda Jangam’;
nor do the school leaving certificates of the Petitioner’s father and
17 of 21
(18) wp4221.16.odt
uncle of 1967 and 1969 show that they belonged to ‘Beda Jangam’,
but their caste was recorded as ‘Lingayat’, ‘Jungam’, and ‘Hindu
Lingayat’; therefore, they do not help him to prove his claim. As
observed above, while granting the validity certificate in favour of the
Petitioner's father and cousin brother, the Committee ignored those old
documents of 1885, 1967, and 1969 or else the Committee
misconstrued those documents; and granted validity in their favour,
though the same were produced on record; therefore, the validities
granted in favour of the Petitioner’s father and cousin brother are
hardly of any assistance to him in view of the law laid down in
Apoorva Nichale's case. Therefore, in our view, the mandate laid
down in Apoorva (Supra) does not apply to the case at hand or help
the Petitioner to substantiate his claim that he belongs to ‘Beda
Jangam’. Therefore, the mandate laid down in Apoorva (Supra) is
hardly of any assistance to the Petitioner. On the contrary, it reveals
that the oldest entries of the year 1885 pertain to the great-great-
grandfather of the Petitioner, as well as the entries in the school
leaving certificate of the Petitioner's father and uncle, found adverse to
the claim of the Petitioner; therefore, in our view, the Petitioner is not
entitled to get the validity based on the validity certificate issued in
favour of his father and cousin brother."
18 of 21
(19) wp4221.16.odt
31. Perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the
Committee dated 07.11.2015. The Committee, after scrutiny of the
documents on record, has drawn six conclusions. In the conclusion at
Sr. No. 2, it is observed that “in the school leaving certificate of the
father of the Petitioner, his caste was recorded as ‘ Hindu Lingayat’.
Based on the said, it cannot be said that the Petitioner proved that he
belonged to the ‘Beda Jangam’ caste”. In conclusion, at Sr. No. Six, it
is observed that “the school leaving certificates of the petitioner's
father and uncle to which it pertains recorded their caste as
‘Lingayat’.” Therefore, the committee has held that “the oldest entries
do not indicate that the petitioner's ancestors were of the ‘Beda
Jangam’ caste, accordingly, the claim was rejected. The Committee's
findings appear just and proper.
CONCLUSION :
32. To sum up, it reveals that documents of 1885 produced by
the Petitioner pertain to his great-great-grandfather, and school
leaving certificates of the Petitioner’s father and uncle of 1967 and
1969 wherein their caste was recorded as ‘Jangam’, ‘Lingayat’ and
‘Hindu Lingayat’ respectively. These are the oldest entries, and he is
not disputing them. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in a plethora of decisions, the oldest entries
19 of 21
(20) wp4221.16.odt
have more probative value than the subsequent documents; likewise,
in view of the dictum laid down by the Full Bench in Maroti (supra),
“the entries have to be read as they are and the same cannot be read
differently”. In such an eventuality, in our opinion, the Petitioner failed
to discharge the burden cast upon him under Section 8 of the Act to
demonstrate that he belongs to ‘Beda Jangam’. The entries of 1885
and 1967 pertain to his great-great-grandfather, and his father,
recorded as ‘Jangam’, ‘Lingayat’ and ‘Hindu Lingayat’, are adverse
to his claim that he belongs to ‘Beda Jangam’. The Petitioner failed to
explain these adverse entries despite being granted sufficient
opportunity.
33. In such circumstances, in our opinion, the validity
granted in favour of the Petitioner's father and cousin brother is hardly
of any assistance; therefore, the law laid down by this Court in
Apoorva (supra) does not apply to the case at hand. The Petitioner
failed to explain the said adverse oldest entries; therefore, the said
validity certificates are hardly of any assistance to him in support of
his claim. In this background, in our opinion, the Petitioner failed to
prove that he belongs to ‘Beda Jangam’, a Scheduled Caste. Therefore,
in our opinion, the Committee is justified in recording the findings
that the Petitioner failed to establish that he belongs to ‘Beda Jangam’,
20 of 21
(21) wp4221.16.odt
a Scheduled Caste. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion
that no case is made out warranting interference in extraordinary
jurisdiction.
34. Consequently, the Petition, being bereft of merits, stands
dismissed. No order as to costs.
35. The Rule is discharged.
36. The Petition is disposed of.
[ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. ] [RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]
VishalK/wp4221.16.odtok
21 of 21
Checking your session…