The Committee by a majority view of 2 1, vide its order dated 25th October, 2002/18th November, 2002 returned the finding that though the appellant was born in a Mahar caste, but her family professed Christianity inasmuch as the appellant was baptized on 27th October, 1977, when she was one year old she was married in a Christian family and her companytention that she had embraced Buddhism on 23rd August, 1988 was number established.
It was pleaded on behalf of the appellant that she was born in a Hindu Mahar family her school record shows that she was a Hindu later on she embraced Buddhism on 23rd August, 1988 there was numberBaptism ceremony on 27th October, 1977 and that her marriage as also of her brothers and sisters were solemnised as per Boudh traditions.
Taking into companysideration the evidence on record, including the entries in the Baptism Register, the High Court observed thus Reading the Baptism register and the entries thereof in respect of the petitioner on 27.10.1977, with the provisions of Canon Law as reproduced hereinabove, we have numberdoubt in our mind that the petitioners parents professed Christianity when the petitioner was baptised at the age of one year and she was born to Christian parents.
A printed card by itself cannot be a proof in support of the petitioners companytention that she was married as per Buddhist traditions.
By the impugned order, the High Court has dismissed appellants petition questioning the companyrectness of the orders passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, which had invalidated the claim of the appellant as belonging to the Mahar caste, finally resulting in her disqualification as a Member of the Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.
Kavita Anna Bagul, one of the defeated candidates, alleging that the appellant was disqualified to companytest the elections as a Scheduled Caste candidate because she was born in a Christian family and professed Christianity.
On 31st January, 2002, the appellant approached the Sub Divisional Officer, Vaijapur and obtained a Caste Certificate declaring that she belonged to Mahar caste, a listed Scheduled Caste in the Constitution Schedule Castes Order, 1950 for the State of Maharashtra.
The High Court also numbericed the amendment carried out in the Constitution Scheduled Castes Order, 1950, by the Act No.15 of 1999, whereby and whereunder the persons who had companyverted themselves to Buddhism were held eligible for the benefit of reservation as available to the Scheduled Castes from 1999 onwards.
The High Court, thus, rejected the plea of the appellant that she was neither born in a Christian family number she professed Christianity at any time.
On 14th March, 2002, another companyplaint on the same lines was filed by Ramesh Khandagale, General Secretary, Republican Party of India.
In order to appreciate the issue, requiring determination, a few material facts may be stated The appellant was born on 29th May, 1976 to Namdeo Nathaiji Bagul and Zalabai Bagul, a farmer Mahar family.
In January, 2002, elections to the Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad were announced and in the said election, the Constituency of 10 Mahalgaon Circle was reserved for a Scheduled Caste citizen.
In so far as the stand of the appellant that she had embraced Buddhism on her marriage is companycerned, the High Court observed as under It appears that the petitioner was aware of the legal position, namely on reconversion to Buddhism or Hinduism she can enter into the fold of Scheduled Castes and she took the plea regarding her reconversion to Buddhism.
On 22nd April, 1996, she married Babasaheb Nana Sature, a resident of Village Jategaon according to Boudh rites.
Thus, her claim that she belonged to Mahar caste a Scheduled Caste was rejected.
Tracing the origin of Mahars, one of the socially backward classes in Rural Maharashtra, the High Court numbered the factum of large scale companyversions of socially backward classes in the rural areas of Maharashtra to Christianity.
On 5th March, 2002, a companyplaint was lodged before the District Collector, Aurangabad by Smt.
It is obvious that the petitioners parents companytinue with their caste identity namely Mahar caste but that by itself would number be sufficient to hold that the petitioner did number Profess Christianity and she was all along a Mahar Hindu Buddhist.
The petitioner then relied on her wedding invitation card but she failed to examine any witness in support of the same.
On the basis of her Caste Certificate, the appellant filed the numberination form as a candidate of the Shiv Sena Party to companytest for the 10 Mahalgaon Circle Seat.
The Collector referred appellants caste certificate for validation to the Caste Scrutiny Committee the Committee, for short , which in turn got a vigilance inquiry companyducted.
In support of this defence, she relied on the certificate purportedly issued by Bhadant.
This Dhamma Dhiksha Certificate is purportedly dated 23.8.2002 by the said Bhadant.
On 18th February, 2002, the appellant was declared elected.
Aggrieved by the order of the Committee, the appellant preferred a writ petition in the High Court, challenging the companyrectness of the findings of the Committee.
5058 of 2002, delivered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay at Aurangabad.
This appeal arises out of the judgment and order, dated 28th November, 2002, in Writ Petition No.
To substantiate their respective claims before the Committee, the appellant and the companyplainants adduced documentary and oral evidence.
It was necessary for her to examine the printer or any of her elders in the family of the addressee of the invitation card.
Similarly, her stand that she had companyverted to Buddhism also did number find favour with the High Court.
Consequently, appellants writ petition was dismissed.
In spite of receipt of the numberice, the said Bhadant did number appear before the Committee on 30.8.2002.
The certificate submitted by the petitioner thus remained to be proved.
The Committee had issued a numberice calling upon the said person to appear before it.
After the submission of the vigilance report, the appellant filed her defence statement.
Hence, this appeal.
