Bombay High Court
Rajendra S/O Namdeorao Suryawanshi vs The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate ... on 18 February, 2020
Author: Vinay Joshi
Bench: A.S.Chandurkar, Vinay Joshi
Judgment 1 909wp196.18.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 196/2018
Rajendra S/o Namdeorao Suryawanshi,
Aged about 46 yrs, Occ. Service,
R/o. Mahadeo Nagar,
behind Chhangani Nagar,Akali Road,
Amravati,
.... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1. The Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Irvin Chowk, Amravati, through
its Chairman.
2. The Principal,
Adarsh Science Jairamdas
Bhagchand Art's & Birla
Commerce Mahavidyalaya,
Dhamangaon (Rly), Dist. Amravati.
3. The President/Secretary,
Dhamangaon Society,
Dhamangaon (Rly),
Dist. Amravati.
.... RESPONDENTS
___________________________________________________________________
Ms. P. D.Rane, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms. T. H. Khan, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No. 1.
Shri A. S. Dhore, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR AND VINAY JOSHI, JJ.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:- 18.02.2020
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 08:59:27 :::
Judgment 2 909wp196.18.odt
JUDGMENT (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.)
Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent No. 1 Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati dated 30.11.2017, thereby invalidating the claim of the petitioner as belonging to the 'Thakur' caste.
3. The petitioner came to be appointed as Peon with the respondent No. 2 School in Scheduled Tribe Category. The petitioner's caste claim was forwarded by his employer to the respondent No. 1 Committee for verification and issuance of validity certificate. Being dissatisfied with the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner, the Caste Scrutiny Committee forwarded the application along with documents to the Vigilance Cell in terms of Rule of 12(2) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulations of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 for conducting necessary inquiry. On the basis of the information so collected, the Vigilance Cell Officer submitted his report inter alia reporting that the petitioner failed to establish his caste claim and he did not found resemblance with 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe. It is noticed that there are some entries of 'Marathi' caste in the name of the petitioner's forefather. ::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 08:59:27 :::
Judgment 3 909wp196.18.odt
4. A copy of Vigilance Cell report was supplied to the petitioner by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and personal hearing was given. Vide impugned order dated 30.11.2017, the Caste Scrutiny Committee concluded that the petitioner does not belong to 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe. It is held that the petitioner failed to establish his caste claim of 'Thakur' caste on the basis of documentary evidence. The claim was also rejected on account of failure in affinity test and area restriction. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached to this Court challenging the impugned order on various ground inter alia praying for setting aside the impugned order and direction to the Committee to issue caste validity certificate.
5. Heard both sides on the petition. We have gone through the Vigilance Cell Report and other documents tendered on the record. Learned Assistant Government Pleader canvased that there are some old entries of "Marathi" caste and therefore, it is doubtful about the petitioners caste claim. The petitioner has produced in all 16 documents for the evaluation of Committee. These documents are including pre- constitutional documents having entry of 'Thakur' caste relating to the petitioner's parental relations. Particularly, the petitioner has produced Kotwal Book extract of his grand- father Bhonga Ragho of the year 1935, Kotwal Book Extract of grandfather - Bhagwant Ragho about birth entries of his son of the year 1945, School Leaving Certificate of his uncle Mahadeo of the year 1935 and School Leaving Certificate of his another uncle Pundalik of the year 1945. All these ::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 08:59:27 ::: Judgment 4 909wp196.18.odt pre-constitutional document bears the entry of the caste 'Thakur' to the record. The Vigilance Cell has not disputed the genuineness of these documents produced by the petitioner. However, Vigilance Cell has collected two adverse documents relating to petitioner's cousin grandfather namely Pundalik. The record indicates that the Vigilance Cell has only produced one of them of the year 1947 regarding birth entry. The said entry shows that Pundalik son of Raghao had a female child namely Pramina born on 28.03.1947.
6. The Vigilance Cell Report was served on petitioner who in turn has explained adverse entry in Para No. 8 of its reply. Petitioner disowned the entry by stating that the concerned Pundalik/Kundalik is not related to him. It is stated that the petitioner's uncle Pundalik born on 01.09.1935 of which birth extract is produced on record. On said premises, it is submitted that, it is highly impossible to have child to Pundalik/Kundalik in the year 1947 when he was barely 12 years of age. Petitioner's submission is well founded on the basis of birth entry extract of Pundalik/Kundalik of the year 1935. Barring said stray documents there are consistent pre-constitutional documents showing the entries of 'Thakur' caste to the record of petitioner's forefather. There is no reason to discard pre-constitutional entries consistently showing 'Thakur' caste of petitioners uncle and grandfather recorded in the year 1935, 1945 and thereafter. Moreover, we may note that 'Marathi' is not a caste enlisted anywhere therefore, there is possibility of ::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 08:59:27 ::: Judgment 5 909wp196.18.odt mentioning language in these documents.
7. The petitioner's caste claim was denied on the ground that there is no specific entry as 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe. Moreover the claim is rejected on account of failure in affinity test and area restriction. In this regard, the petitioner has relied on certain decisions to support his case. He relied on the reported decisions case of Gajanan S/o Pandurang Shende Vs. Headmaster, Govt. Ashram School, Dongargaon, Salod and others, 2018(2) Mh.L.J. 460, where it is ruled that the entry is to be read as it stands and in case of Jaywant Pawar vrs. State of Maharashtra (2018 (5) All MR 975), it is held that the claim cannot be rejected on the basis of area restriction. In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Anand vrs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and others, [(2012) 1 SCC 113], it has been held that while dealing with the documentary evidence, greater reliance may be placed on pre-independence documents because they furnish a higher degree of probative value to the declaration of status of a caste, as compared to post-independence documents. In respect of affinity test, the Apex Court has laid down that a cautious approach has to be adopted and with the migration, modernization and contact with other communities, these communities tend to develop and adopt new traits which may not essentially match with the traditional characteristics of ::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 08:59:27 ::: Judgment 6 909wp196.18.odt the tribe. It holds that the affinity test may not be recorded as litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant with the Scheduled Tribe. The affinity test is to be used to corroborate the documentary evidence and it is not to be used as the sole criteria to reject a claim.
8. It is apparent that the petitioner has produced pre- constitutional documents of his forefather showing entry of 'Thakur' caste to the record. The Vigilance Cell has not doubted the correctness of those document nor denied the petitioner's relationship. On the canvass of pre-constitutional documents much emphasis cannot be given to isolated entry of 'Marahthi' which is not an enlisted caste. The approach of Committee of sidelining old documents and giving more emphasis on affinity test is erroneous, therefore, the impugned order would not sustain.
9. We find that the petitioner has established his claim 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe. In the result, petition is allowed and we proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed. Order dated 30.11.2017 passed by the respondent No. 1 ::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 08:59:27 ::: Judgment 7 909wp196.18.odt Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati, is hereby quashed and set aside.
(ii) The claim of the petitioner for 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe which is an entry at Sr. No.44 of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 is held to be valid. The Committee is accordingly directed to issue forthwith the Caste Validity Certificate in the name of the petitioner.
(iii) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
.
Gohane
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 08:59:27 :::