(Per M. M. Sathaye, J.)

1. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent waives service. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the Order dated 28.11.2019 passed by the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Mumbai city, invalidating the Petitioner’s caste claim of ‘Hindu-Tamboli’ - Other Backward Class (OBC) Entry No. 195.

3. In this Judgment, The Maharshtra Scheduled Castes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Catgory (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 is referred to as “the said Act”. Government Resolution is referred to as “GR”.

CASE & SUBMISSIONS

4. The Petitioner obtained a certificate dated 27.05.2004 from Deputy Collector, Mumbai City under section 4 of the said Act, which was sent to the Respondent Scrutiny Committee for verification under section 6 of the said Act. Petitioner relied upon various documents, including documents of his father Nathulal, cousin-uncle Makkhanlal and cousin-brother Shashikant Surendrakumar Chaurasia. The Scrutiny Committee came to the conclusion that the document of Petitioner’s cousin-uncle Makkhanlal is a school document of 08.06.1963 which shows caste as ‘Tamoli’ and the same being prior to deemed date, has great probative value. Vigilance Cell report was considered, which reported that Petitioner’s native place is Sahzadpur, Taluka Sirathu, District Allahabad (Uttar Pradesh) and his family was involved in cultivation and sale of paan. The committee concluded that Petitioner’s forefathers were belonging to ‘Tamoli’ caste from Uttar Pradesh and therefore there is only similarity of caste name, however it is not the same caste as ‘Tamboli (OBC Entry No. 195)’ in Maharashtra. The committee also noted that Hindu-Tamoli is not included in OBC Entry No. 195 in Maharashtra and therefore the Petitioner’s caste claim was invalidated.

5. The Member Secretary as well as Research Officer & Member Secretary of the Respondent Scrutiny Committee both have filed affidavits-in-reply dated 02.03.2023. Both of them have stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed various State Governments to form their respective list of State Backward classes and accordingly State Governments have power to include and exclude any caste from their list of backward class category as per their social and economical backwardness. It is contended that the government of Maharashtra has formed its own Other Backward Class (OBC) list. It is contended that every state has different status when it comes to educational and social backwardness and therefore it is incorrect to say that people from a particular caste residing in two different states have same educational or social backwardness status. It is contended that Petitioner’s family is migrant from the State of Uttar Pradesh. A Government Resolution (GR) dated 13.02.1978 is relied upon and it is contended that Tamoli caste in the list of Uttar Pradesh at Sr. No. 117 is not similar to Tamboli - OBC Sr. No. 195 in the State of Maharashtra. On these grounds, the petition is opposed.

6. The concerned OBC Entry No. 195 for Maharashtra reads as “rkacksGh, ¼eqLyhe /kehZ; ikuQjks’k½”

7. During the course of the hearing, an order was passed on 16.01.2025, with following direction :-

“Considering entry 195 appended to the Maharashtra State Goverment Circular dated 26th September, 2008, we call upon the learned AGP to take instructions and make a statement as to whether the comma after the word 'Tamboli', has been consciously inserted by the State Government and if yes, why is the bracket thereafter, which envelopes the words ‘eqLyhe /kehZ; ikuQjks’k’, has not been removed.”

8. Thereafter on 06.02.2025, following order was passed :-

“1. The learned AGP submits that he has received certain documents, just yesterday and considering the conspectus of the matter, an affidavit in reply would be necessary.

2. Let such reply be filed, on or before 25th February, 2025.

3. Rejoinder affidavit, if desired, be filed, on or before 7th March, 2025.”

9. Accordingly thereafter an affidavit-in-reply is filed by Deputy Secretary, Other Backward Bahujan Welfare Department, Government of Maharashtra on 24.02.2025, contending inter alia that Government of Maharashtra has reviewed the GR dated 13.02.1978 (which was referred in the earlier Affidavit-in-Reply). By referring to GR dated 29.01.1983, GR dated 09.08.1995, unanimous recommendation of State Backward Class Commission (SBCC) Report No. 19, a cabinet meeting dated 12.06.2008, GR dated 25.06.2008 issued by Department of Social Justice and Special Assistance (DSJ&SA) of government of Maharashtra and consequent communication dated 26.09.2008, a stand is taken in paragraph 7 as under :

“7. I say that vide above said communication dated 26.09.2008 for easy reference a consolidated list of caste was published. I further say that in "Tamboli" caste at Entry No.195 includes all religions where as in ‘(Muslim Religion Panfarosh)’ only Muslim Religion is included. Therefore, there is coma (,) inserted between the main caste "Tamboli" and corresponding caste to Tamboli i.e. '(Muslim Religion Panfarosh)'. I say that if the said coma (,) is removed from Entry "[Tamboli, (Muslim Religion Panfarosh)]" then the benefit will be applicable to 'Muslim Religion Tamboli and Panfarosh'. Further, the purpose for inserting the entry of 'Tamboli' for all religion and corresponding entry of 'Tamboli' for 'Muslim Religion Panfarosh' will not be achieved. Hence, coma (,) is necessary in the Entry No.195 "[Tamboli, (Muslim Religion Panfarosh)]".

10. Learned counsel Mr Najmi appearing for Petitioner submitted that if the Entry No. 195 is properly considered, it will be clear that it is supposed to include both Muslim and non-Muslim communities. He submitted that the Petitioner’s caste Tamboli is same as Tamoli caste of Uttar Pradesh who are cultivators of paan. He submitted that if Entry No. 195 is interpreted to include only one religion, then it will be violence with section 2(h) of the said Act in as much as the Centre’s list of OBC showing ‘Tamboli’ at Sr. No. 169 is included in the definition.

11. Learned Assistant Government Pleader (AGP), on the other hand, has relied upon various affidavits-in-reply filed along with various GRs and has prayed for taking appropriate view in the matter.

REASONS & CONCLUSIONS

12. We have carefully considered the submissions and the perused the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.

13. At the outset, it is material to note that a clear stand was taken in the first affidavit-in-reply dated 02.03.2023 by the Respondent State that the caste Tamoli from Uttar Pradesh is not similar to Tamboli OBC at Entry No. 195 in Maharashtra. Based on this, an order was passed by this Court on 23.02.2024, paragraph 2 of which reads as under:

“2. One of the main grievance put forth by the learned Counsel for the Peritioner is regarding the caste validity certificate issued in favour of Shashikant Surendrakumar Chaurasia as belonging to Hindu Tamboli. According to the learned Addl.GP, based on the reply affidavit, by way of an amendment carried out on 13 February 1978, as regards the caste Tamboli, which is at Serial No. 195, is restricted to Muslim religion.”

14. Surprisingly, thereafter next affidavit-in-reply is filed taking a completely opposite stand that OBC caste at Entry No. 195 includes not only Muslims but other religions also. So also, a comma placed in between the word Tamboli and ¼eqLyhe /kehZ; ikuQjks’k½ is also justified to mean that the entry includes all religions.

15. When we asked as to why there is a comma in between the word Tamboli and ¼eqLyhe /kehZ; ikuQjks’k½, the only explanation given by the learned AGP is based on second affidavit-in-reply, that the intention is to include non-muslims in Tamboli.

16. We note that as per the recommendation of SBCC, what it stated is only that in the Entry No. 195, after the word ‘Tamboli’ bracketed portion with words "This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content." included. According to our reading of the said recommendation of SBCC, the words in the bracketed portion are explanatory to the main entry. We also find it worth noting that Tamboli (other than those covered in Entry No. 195) is included in Entry No. 190 which is apparently Hindu. We find it appropriate to reproduce the last paragraph of the SBCC’s recommendation for the purpose of clarity :

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

[Emphasis supplied]

17. There is one more reason for us to arrive at such interpretation. As per GR dated 25.06.2008, the instruction based on SBCC reccomendation reads verbatim as "This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content." . Therefore we find that the instruction dated 26.09.2008 is in tune with SBCC recommendation but while implementing the same, comma has been put in wrong place, leading to this confusion. We sadly note that sufficient care has not been taken before publishing revised entry.

18. In these facts and circumstances, in our considered view, revised OBC Entry No. 195 was not supposed to indicate ‘Tamboli’ as separate and "This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content." as separate. However, according to us, revised OBC Entry No. 195 indicates ‘Tamboli caste for muslim paanfarosh’.

19. Having said that, let us now return to the facts of the present case. In the present matter, admittedly Petitioner is not a Muslim. Petitioner’s surname is Chaurasia and his family belongs to Uttar Pradesh having traditional occupation of cultivation and sale of paan. The entry for such caste in Uttar Pradesh is Tamoli which is different from caste Tamboli OBC Entry No. 195 in Maharashtra. The Scrutiny Committee, in the impugned order, has properly considered this aspect.

20. It is argued on behalf of the Petitioner that definition of OBC under section 2(h) of the said Act includes social and educational backward classes of citizens as declared by government and includes OBC declared by Government of India in relation to state of Maharashtra, which, according to Petitioner includes Tamboli for non-Muslims also, under Entry No. 169. We note that this claim is under Entry No. 169 and not Entry No. 195 as considered by the Scrutiny Committee under impugned Order. Therefore, it is not appropriate to consider the claim of the Petitioner under a different entry, for the first time in Writ jurisdiction as it involves questions of facts, which must pass the procedure and rigors of sections 4, 6 and 10 of the said Act and Rules framed thereunder.

21. So far as the claim of the Petitioner to Tamboli OBC caste Entry No. 195 is concerned, no fault can be found with the findings given in the impugned order. There is no merit in the petition.

22. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged.

23. If at all the Petitioner wants to claim through the list of Central Government (Entry No. 169), he is at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings.

24. It the light of interpretation that we have made above, we find it appropriate to direct the Respondent State to initiate appropriate action as provided under law in respect of Petitioner’s cousin brother Shashikant Surendrakumar Chaurasia’s caste validity certificate, which was relied upon by the Petitioner.

25. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed copy of this judgment.