Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.

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 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.