Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Based on this, the Committee sets out that since the caste "Thakur" is also found in other communities, merely relying on the documentary evidence can benefit the pseudo claimants who intend to take benefit of their caste entries as "Thakur" in the school records and other records and due to mass awakening, such claimants are trying to grab benefits meant for the weaker sections by taking advantage of similarity of nomenclature and pass themselves as "Thakur", Scheduled Tribe. Respondent No.1-Committee observe that it would be imperative to rely upon the affinity test to verify whether the claimant is really belonging to Thakur, Scheduled Tribe or not and that the applicant will have to establish his affinity and ethnic linkages towards "Thakur", scheduled tribe community at serial no. 44. As regards the validity certificate, on which the petitioner, has placed reliance in respect of the one Sunildatta Dattatraya Pawar, issued by the Scheduled Tribe spb/ 908WP-07-14J.doc Caste Certificate Committee at Nashik dated 28.08.2000. The Committee observed that the validity holder has not filed any affidavit and /or nor produced any documentary evidence to establish his blood relation with the applicant and it also further observed that the said certificate was issued by the Committee on the basis of the law laid down by the High Court in writ petition nos. 2746 of 1998, 5454 of 1998 and 856 of 1989 and the law laid down by the High Court at that relevant time was based on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Palghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya Samrakshana Samithi and Anr. Vs. State of Kerala and Anr. (1994 (1) SCC 359). The Committee further concludes that while deciding the case of Sunil Murlidhar Thakur, the Apex Court has observed that the view taken by the High Court was not right and that the High court was not justified in disposing of the writ petition by merely making reference to the decision of the Apex Court in Palghat Jill Thandan Samudhya Samrakshan Samithi & Ors.. The Committee therefore, did not attach any importance to the said validity spb/ 908WP-07-14J.doc certificate. Then the Committee very boldly observed in para 21 as under :

6 Coming to Issue no. 3 - viz. "whether the applicant has established affinity test towards "Thakur", scheduled tribe appearing at serial no. 44"; the Committee relied on the observations made by the Hon'ble Full Bench of the High Court at Bombay in the case of Shilpa Thakur to set out that it is indispensable for the Scrutiny Committee to take into consideration the affinity test while deciding the tribe claims of the claimants. The committee then proceeds to make certain observations on the basis of personal hearing which it offered to the applicant and the information supplied by him during the course of hearing in reference to dialect, family deity, festivals, surnames of the applicant's relatives, etc.. The committee then observes that on perusal of the information furnished to the Committee by the applicant and his father, the spb/ 908WP-07-14J.doc information furnished is not consistent with "Thakur", scheduled Tribe community which appears at serial no. 44. So it is also revealed that neither the applicant nor his family is ordinary resident of the area of habitat-ed scheduled tribes "Thakur". Then the Committee in its usual stride extracts observations from various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this court, and derives a conclusion that the school record of the applicant reveals that the caste recorded of his father is "Hindu Thakur" and/or "thakur" but the applicant has failed to show that he belongs to "thakur", scheduled tribe, an entry at serial no. 44 in the scheduled tribe order and also the applicant has failed to establish the affinity and ethnic linkages towards the "Thakur" scheduled tribe community. 7 We do not find that the committee while rejecting the claim of the applicant had adopted any subjective approach to the claim of the petitioner. We had an occasion to deal with several writ petitions, challenging the orders passed by the respondent no.1-committee so also other committees, spb/ 908WP-07-14J.doc empowered to verify the claims of the scheduled tribe in different parts of the State, particularly "Thakur", the scheduled tribe. We have noticed that the reasoning adopted by the Committee in rejecting the claim of the persons belonging to "Thakur" Scheduled tribe are almost identical and the claims are scrutinized mostly under three heads namely (i) sufficiency of documentary evidence (ii) existence of area restrictions with the effect "Thakur", who were original residents of 5 districts, as mentioned in Scheduled Tribe Order (1956), being entitled to claim themselves as "Thakur" scheduled tribe and (iii) affinity test, which would connect claimants to "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe.

          spb/                                                          908WP-07-14J.doc


         8                 This court had an occasion  to deal with the matters 

where the verification committee have invalidated the claims of "Thakur" and such orders were assailed in writ petitions before this court.

9 This court had delivered considerable number of Orders/ Judgments, touching these three issues and tested the invalidation orders passed by the committee on more than one touchstone. As far as the existence of the documentary evidence is concerned, though it is noted that, as in the present case, that the petitioner has heavily relied upon two documents which are of the pre-constitutional period, the committee has recorded a finding in the impugned order that the entry of caste in these documents is mentioned as "Thakur" but it is not mentioned as "Thakur scheduled tribe". We fail to understand the said stand of the committee, as the entry in the scheduled tribe order is "Thakur" and a person has to establish his claim as belonging to caste "Thakur" as finds place in the scheduled tribe order, for the first time spb/ 908WP-07-14J.doc introduced in the year 1950 and the "Thakur" came to be recognized as a scheduled tribe only for the first time in 1950. As such, in the year 1947-48 there could have been no entry as "Thakur scheduled tribe". Even as on today, the caste certificates are not issued as "Thakur' scheduled tribe" by the competent authority but the caste certificates mentions the caste as "Thakur" which is recognized as scheduled tribe since the caste "Thakur" finds place in the scheduled tribe order. Since the scheduled tribe order has come into effect in the year 1950, the documents in existence prior to the inclusion of the caste "Thakur" in the scheduled tribe order, therefore, have attained great significance to establish the genuineness, with a specific object that the claimant has not manipulated the entries intentionally so as to avail benefit of being a "Thakur". It is for this reason that the pre- constitutional documents are given weightage. However, to reject the claim of the claimant like the petitioner on the ground that though the caste is mentioned as "Thakur", it is not mentioned as "Thakur scheduled tribe", is nothing but an spb/ 908WP-07-14J.doc endeavor to defeat the claim of the persons belonging to said caste. Another common ground on which the committee usually reject the claims is that the claimant is not able to establish the affinity test. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anand vs. Committee of Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims & Anr., reported in 2012 (1) Supreme Court Cases 113, has categorically held that the genuineness of the caste claim has to be considered not only on a thorough examination of the documents submitted in support of the claim but also by applying the affinity test, which would include the anthropological and ethnological traits. Further the Apex Court also observed that it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down an absolute rule, which could be applied mechanically to examine a caste claim. However, the Apex Court has also cautioned that while applying the affinity test, a cautious approach has to be adopted, since a few decades ago, when the tribes were somewhat immune to the cultural development happening around them, the affinity test could serve as a determinative factor, however, with the spb/ 908WP-07-14J.doc migrations, modernization and contact with the other communities, these communities tend to develop and adopt new traits which may not essentially match with the traditional characteristics of a tribe and therefore, the affinity test may not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant with a scheduled tribe. 10 The Apex Court has also observed that the claimant cannot be denied benefit of being belonging to scheduled tribe on the ground that his present traits do not match with that of his tribe's peculiar anthropoligical and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies etc., and thus the affinity test can only be used to corroborate the documentary evidence and should not be the sole criteria to reject the claim. 11 As regards the issue of affinity is concerned, from the impugned order, it appears that the petitioner was granted personal hearing on 06.09.2013 and certain information was spb/ 908WP-07-14J.doc elicited from the petitioner. It is reflected from the order that the applicant has furnished the following information :

"a) The applicant is ordinary resident of Anturli Tal.

Bhadgaon, Dist. Jalgaon.

b) The dialect and mother tongue of their community is "Impure Marathi" and "Ahirani".

                 c)        "Mari Aai" is their family  deity.

                 d)        Shimga, Akhaji, Diwali, Dasra are their festivals.

                 e)       Wagh, Pawar, Jadhav, Surwadkar, Deore, Saindane 

etc., are the surnames of applicant's relatives." The Committed in the impugned order observed that on perusal of the information furnished by the applicant, the respondent no.1-committee has come to the conclusion that the information furnished is not consistent with "Thakur", scheduled tribe community appearing at serial no. 44 and he fails to establish the affinity and ethnic linkages towards "Thakur", scheduled tribe appeared at serial no. 44. The spb/ 908WP-07-14J.doc Committee then refers to series of judgments wherein the Hon'ble High Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court have laid emphasis on the conduct of the affinity test when the claimant claims to be belonging to "thakur", scheduled tribe. This is the only reasoning given by the Committee in arriving at a conclusion that the applicant has failed to establish the affinity and ethnic linkages. We are aghast at the observations made by the Committee.