A caste or sub-caste seeking quota benefits under the OBC category can enjoy the benefit only if it is recognised by the state government concerned,and mere similarity of names does not automatically entitle a person to the benefits in another state,the Supreme Court has ruled. A bench of justices P Sathasivam and J Chalameshwar said similarities of names between main caste and sub-caste also does not grant a person the benefit unless it is officially recognised by the state for granting the quota benefits. The apex court passed the ruling while dismissing the appeal filed by Bharati Balkrishna Dhongade,a Mumbai civic corporator whose 2007 election was challenged by her rival Safia Parveen Abdul Munaf,on the ground that she had contested the election on an OBC ticket though she belonged to the 'Namdeo Shimpi' which was not recognised. After the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the Bombay High Court held that Dhongade did not belong to OBC as 'Namdeo Shimpi' was not recognised by the state of Maharashtra,she appealed in the apex court. She argued that 'Namdeo Shimpi' was a sub-caste of the main caste 'Shimpi' which was an OBC and submitted that the former was also a recognised as an OBC in the neighbouring state of Karnataka. "We are satisfied that before arriving at such conclusion they considered the entire material on record including the distinction between the list of OBCs in the state of Karnataka as against the list of OBCs in state of Maharashtra and recorded a finding that the appellant who belongs to 'Namdeo Shimpi' caste does not belong to OBC of 'Shimpi' caste in Maharashtra. "When it is not so expressly or specifically included in the government resolution/order along with the main caste,in such case,even if it is synonymous to the one mentioned in the order,it is not permissible to avail such benefit of reservation," Justice Sathasivam writing the judgement said. Citing a number of its earlier judgements,the apex court said,"It is well known that a caste may fall under the category of OBCs in one state,but the said caste may not be classified as OBC in other state." Further,the bench said,Dhongade had also not led any specific evidence to discharge the burden of proof on her under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes,Scheduled Tribes,De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis),Nomadic Tribes,Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category Caste Certificate Act,2001 to prove her OBC status. "Inasmuch as the burden of proof under Section 8 of the said Act being on the person who claims to belong to that caste,tribe,or class,in view of the factual conclusion by the Committee based on relevant acceptable material and the decision of the division bench,we are unable to accept the claim of the appellant. "On the other hand,we are satisfied that the committee and the division bench of the high court have considered the entire material in the light of the decisions of this court and came to a finding of fact that the appellant does not belong to caste 'Shimpi' (OBC) and belongs to 'Namdeo Shimpi' caste which is not OBC in the state of Maharashtra," the apex court added.
