Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The petitioner produced before the Committee 14 documents in support of his claim as a candidate belonging to Halba / Halbi and the document No.2 which is the Birth Registration Extract of a male child born to one Zalba was recorded as "Halbi" entered on 09/11/1939. The another document produced was the Death Registration in respect of the same person, who is the grand-father of the petitioner in which the caste "Halbi" entered on 20/12/1958. All other documents produced indicate the caste as "Halba" or "Halbi" and there is not a single document available on record of the Committee or even 3 204-J-WP-4283-05.odt obtained the Police Vigilance Cell indicating the caste of the petitioner other than "Halba" / "Halbi".

3. The Committee rejects the claim of the petitioner on the basis of documents recording the findings in respect of the old documents as under :-

A. The document quoted at Sr. No.5, 6 & 7 are copies of school record in respect of the candidate, caste recorded as Halba. In view of Vigilance Cell report and affinity test these documents are rejected.
B. The documents quoted at Sr. No.2, 3, 8, 9, 10 & 11 are copies of birth and death registration in respect of paternal side relatives of the candidate showing their caste as Halba / Halbi. In cases where synonymous entries are there i.e. Scheduled Tribe synonymous with other, then in such cases old documentary of caste has no relevance because the synonymous caste which is not Scheduled Tribe also show the same entry even prior to reservation proclamation. Therefore as per the settled principles of Law, the test of characteristic, customs, ethnic linkage etc. plays vital role. Therefore in such cases only the documentary evidence can not be relied upon. Hence on the basis of Vigilance Cell report, affinity test and affinity placed at the time of hearing these documents are rejected.

4. The Committee in categorical terms records the finding that the entries in the documents are either of Halba or Halbi. Undisputedly, the documents pertain to the blood relatives of the petitioner. The document of 09/11/1939 in the name of 4 204-J-WP-4283-05.odt child born to blood relative Zalba indicates the caste / tribe as 'Halbi'. There is not even a single document showing the caste / tribe of the petitioner or his blood relative other than 'Halba, Halbi'. In the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anand Vrs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and others, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 113, the guidelines are laid down in para Nos.22 and 23 to test the claim and same are produced below :-

7. What we understand from the decision of the Apex Court in Milind's case is that the decision of the High Court holding that it was permissible to enquire whether 'Halba-Koshti' is a sub-division or synonym of main tribe 'Halba, Halbi' as per Entry No.19 in the Scheduled Tribes Order was wrong. The first thing which is required to be seen is the exact entry in the Scheduled Tribes Order, which, in the present case, is also 'Halba, Halbi'. The Entry No.19 'Halba, Halbi' has to be read as it is and no enquiry is permissible and no evidence can be let in to establish that 'Koshti' or 'Halba-Koshti' are the part or group within the tribe 'Halba, Halbi', though they are not specifically included in the Presidential 8 204-J-WP-4283-05.odt Order. It was held that the earlier decisions of the Apex Court in Bhaiya Ram Munda and Dina's cases, relied upon by the High Court for its view that the evidence is admissible for the purpose of showing what entry in the Presidential Order was intended to be while stating that entry in the Presidential order, were overruled.