Case Brief: Niraj v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 11 June 2010

Deciding Authority: Supreme Court of India
Name of the Judges: Justice Deepak Verma, Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan
Date of Judgment: 11 June 2010
Facts of the Case: Appellant feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 21.2.2006 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of  Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, in W.P. No.86/2005, is before us challenging the same. During the pendency of the matter   before this Court, on account of certain developments that took place, appellant filed an interlocutory application for taking additional documents on record. The said documents were: Certificates of Validity, issued by the scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee in favour of the appellant’s father Wadikar Maroti Rukmaji showing him belonging to “Mahadev Koli”- a notified Scheduled Tribe. Similarly, there was yet another certificate issued in favour of the appellant’s real brother. The appellant had not been found to be belonging to the Scheduled Tribe: “Mahadev Koli” by The Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claim, Aurangabad, on the strength of various documents which were available with the said Committee.
Judgment: It was not disputed before the Court that the appellant had secured admission in Engineering College on the strength of the certificate issued by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee and had completed his course in Computer Science during the pendecy of the present appeal. In the light of the certificates, issued in favour of the appellant’s father and brother, describing them as belonging to Scheduled Tribe category: “Mahadev Koli”, it was inconceivable to believe that the appellant was not belonging to the said caste. But learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had vehemently opposed it and submitted that it   would be in the fitness of things, if matter was remitted to The Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claim, Aurangabad, for fresh decision on merits in the light of the aforesaid documents and in accordance with law. The Court accordingly did so as the suggestion made by him was reasonable and appropriate. Keeping in mind that the matter was old and pertained to the career of the appellant, it was desirable that it should be heard and disposed of in accordance with law at an early date by the Committee.
Decision: Parties agreed that they would appear before the said Committee on 7th July, 2010 and would participate in further proceedings. The said Committee would endeavor to record its findings at an early date and preferably within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. With the aforesaid direction, this appeal stood finally disposed of.
 
By:  Roopali Mohan, 2^nd Year, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, New Delhi