Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Writ Petition No.4779 of 2008 is filed by Adivasi Gond Govari (Gowari) Seva Mandal, which is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the challenge is to the caste validity certificates issued in the name of the respondent Nos.4 to 19 WP4032.09+.odt as Gond Gowari. The ground of challenge is that the Vigilance Cell report in respect of the respondent Nos.4 to 19 reveals that the entries in the documents of the period prior to 1950 clearly show them as Gowari and merely on the basis of affinity test, they have been granted validity as 'Gond Gowari Scheduled Tribe'. The only affinity test applied is of the surnames and the Gond Gowaris are identified only by surnames as Salame, Naitam, Holi, Gota, Madavi, etc.

78. Perusal of the aforesaid material produced by the Scrutiny Committee in response to our order clearly shows that out of 136 claimants, 98 claimants did not produce any document indicating their caste or tribe as Gond Gowari. The documents produced by them indicate their tribe as Gond or Gowari or Gowara. If the claimant establishes his affinity with tribe Gond, he need not establish that he belongs to Gond Gowari in order to avail the concessions and benefits meant for the Scheduled Tribes. Only such Gowaris or Gowaras, who satisfied the affinity test under the Government Resolution dated 24-4-1985, were granted validity certificates as Gond Gowari. If the documents having probative value produced indicate the caste or tribe as Gowari or Gowara, it is impermissible, as a general principle of law, to hold by leading evidence in the form of affinity test that it is a sub-tribe or synonym of Entry Gond Gowari in the Scheduled Tribes Order. If this is to be done, then the decision remains based on the sole and complete WP4032.09+.odt criteria of the affinity test.

80. In the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, reported in 2011 (6) Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 919, it is made clear in Para 22 that while dealing with the documentary evidence, greater reliance may be placed on the pre-Independence documents, because they furnish a WP4032.09+.odt higher degree of probative value to the declaration of status of a caste as compared to the post-Independence documents. It adds that in the event of a doubt on the credibility of the document, its veracity has to be tested on the basis of oral evidence, for which an opportunity has to be afforded to the applicant. In respect of the 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 the tribe. It holds that the affinity test may not be regarded as a 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 the claim.

82. In our view, the guidelines laid down in the Government Resolution, prescribing the affinity test, are not prepared as per the procedure prescribed in Guideline No.5 of the decision in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case. The traits, characteristics, customs, rituals, etc., prevailing in the community of Gond Gowari, have not been collected by making enquiry and recording statements of the persons of that community. Even if any statement is recorded, its veracity is not tested by cross-examination at the instance of any claimant. As such, there is no authenticity to the guidelines contained in the Government Resolution dated 24-4-1985. In our view, in the present matters, the Scrutiny Committee has regarded the affinity test as a litmus test for establishing the link of Gowaris with Gonds, and as per the decision in Anand's case, cited supra, the affinity test is to be used only as a corroborative piece of evidence WP4032.09+.odt and it is not to be used as a sole criteria to reject a claim.