Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of V.G. Bisht and S.S. Shinde, JJ. allowed a writ petition by quashing and setting aside the order passed by Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, De- notified Tribe (Vimukt Jatis), Nomadic Tribe, Other Backward Class and Special Backward Class Category Caste Scrutiny Committee No. 1, Solapur, by which petitioner’s claim of belonging to Muslim-Mulani (OBC-340) was invalidated.

In the present case, petitioner challenged the legality, validity and propriety of impugned Judgment passed by respondent 2 – Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, De-notified Tribe (Vimukt Jatis), Nomadic Tribe, OBC and Special Backward Class Category Caste Scrutiny Committee No. 1, Solapur that invalidated the caste claim of petitioner as belonging to Mulani (OBC).

Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on the post reserved for OBC Category which had been duly approved by Education Officer (Primary) Solapur. The appointment was on reserved post for OBC Category. Respondent 1 forwarded her caste certificate for verification to Respondent 2 — Caste Scrutiny Committee.

The above-stated committee referred the matter to the Vigilance Cell for verification. Vigilance Officer recommended to the committee that the Petitioner is entitled to get the caste certificate to the effect that the Petitioner belongs to Mulani caste.

Caste Scrutiny Committee issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner alleging that all the documents produced by the petitioner show that the petitioner belongs to Muslim caste and not Mulani caste. The committee by its impugned order rejected the caste claim of the petitioner. Hence, the petition was filed.


Division Bench stated that it is required to be noted that in spite of Vigilance Cell Reports in favour of the petitioner, Committee in the impugned decision observed that since the committee is not agreeing to vigilance cell reports, therefore, said report is kept out of consideration. But the bench in view of the stated held that findings of the Committee are unacceptable for the reason that when such vigilance cell’s report is their the Committee is bound to consider the same and there is no reason to disbelieve the same.

The matter is remanded back to respondent 2 for de novo consideration.[Kumari Shaikh Shashim Mhamulal v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 383 , decided on 09-03-2020]

Must Watch

SCC Blog Guidelines

Justice BV Nagarathna

call recording evidence in court


Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.