MARGAO
In a significant judgement, the Bombay High Court at Goa has ruled that wherever there is no reference to the inclusion of a Christian counterpart in the list of Other Backward Communities (OBCs), it must be held that the Government did not intend to include such a Christian counterpart in the State list of OBCs.
The High Court bench comprising of Justice M S Sonak and Justice Bharat Desphande further asserted that neither the Deputy Collector nor the Caste Scrutiny Committee (CSC) has the right or authority to tinker with the Government notification, or the State list of OBCs notified by the Government vide such notifications.
Setting aside the caste certificate issued by the deputy Collector, Margao to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Benaulim Zilla Panchayat Member Hanzel Fernandes that he belongs to the Vishwakarma/Chari/Mesta community, the High Court said that the scheme is evident that whenever the Government intended to include the Christian counterparts in the State list of OBC, the Government notification said so in positive and clear terms.
The Benaulim ZP member had contested and got elected as Zilla Panchayat member in 2020 from Benaulim constituency reserved for “Other Backward Class” (OBC) based upon the caste certificate dated 05.03.2020 certifying that he belonged to Vishwakarma/Chari/Mesta Community which was recognised as an OBC in the State list and Central list.
While his election was later challenged by Congress candidate Royla Fernandes by filing a disqualification petition, which is now pending before the Administrative Tribunal, a resident of Panjim, Uday Chari later filed a writ petition in the High Court, submitting that the Government notification dated 29.12.2006 only includes “Vishwakarma/Chari/Mesta” in the State list of OBC community.
“Admittedly, the respondent Hanzel belongs to the Christian community, which ordinarily does not profess to follow any caste system. Nevertheless, in the State of Goa, for historical reasons like conversion, certain communities have been specifically included in notifications issued by the Government formulating the State list of OBCs, SCs, STs etc. In all such notifications, however, there is a positive and clear inclusion of members of the Christian community wherever the Government intended them to be included”, the High Court observed.
Petitioner Chari had submitted that notification does not either include or clarify that this entry will also include Christian Vishwakarma/Chari/Mesta. In this respect, the petitioner referred to several Government notifications to point out that whenever it was intended to include Christians in the State list of OBCs, the notifications said so or clarified so in clear terms. “Since there was no reference to Christian in the notification dated 29.12.2006, neither the Deputy Collector who issued the caste certificate dated 05.03.2020 nor the CSC were authorised to issue or verify that respondent Hanzel belongs to the OBC category”, Chari asserted.
Interestingly, the Advocate General submitted that the Government notification dated 29.12.2006 had only classified Vishwakarma/Chari/Mesta in the State list of OBC. “Normally there are no castes among Christians. Therefore, if any Christians were intended to be included in the State list of OBCs, notifications clearly say so by using the expression “Koli/Kharvi (including Christian Kharvi)” or “Agri (including Christian Saleiro/Saleineiro”, the AG submitted.
The AG further submitted that since, in this case, no such expression was used in the notification, it is clear that, at least as of now Christian Vishwakarma/Chari/Mesta cannot be regarded as belonging to OBCs, even as he agreed that caste certificate dated 05.03.2020 issued by the Deputy Collector and the CSCs judgment and order dated 13.02.2023 were indefensible.
Hanzel’s lawyer submitted that the notification dated 29.12.2006 did not exclude Christian Vishwakarma/Chari/Mesta, further submitting that any such exclusion, it would be based solely on Respondent Hanzel’s religion would be ex facie, arbitrary or unconstitutional.
He submitted that Respondent Hanzel should not be deprived of the benefit of the Government’s notification dated 29.12.2006 merely because he belonged to the Christian community.
