The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court consisting of Justices Abhay Ahuja and R.D. Dhanuka while dealing with a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner seeking to challenge the legality and validity of the common judgment and order passed by the Scrutiny Committee to issue certificate of validity of the petitioners as belonging to Thakur Scheduled Tribe, held that pre-constitutional/pre-independence documents have probative value to the declaration of the status of a caste/tribe claim and that affinity test is not a litmus test and may be used to corroborate documentary evidence and should not be the sole criteria to reject a claim.
Facts
Admission notice for MBA/MMS for the academic year 2021-22 was issued by the State Common Entrance Test Cell submitting that the scheduled date for the candidates including petitioners to submit the caste/tribe validity certificate was on or before 8th December 2021 upto 5.00 p.m., further corroborated by the learned counsel representing the State Common Entrance Cell. Petitioner no.1 was granted admission to the respondent no.5-college in the direct second year of engineering degree course during the academic year 2018-19 under the reserved category and petitioner no.2 was granted admission to the first year of MBA degree course in respondent no.6 college under the said category during the academic year 2017-18.
Contentions made
It is the case of petitioners that they belong to the Thakur Schedule Tribe. The learned counsel for petitioners took the Court through the genealogical tree and the school admission records being part of the vigilance cell report which clearly indicate that they belong to the Thakur Schedule Tribe. Emphasis was also laid on pre-constitutional documents in favour of the paternal blood relatives as well as close relatives of the petitioners coming from common blood line and which have been duly verified clearly establish petitioners’ claim to the Thakur Schedule Tribe, which the scrutiny committee completely ignored and did not apply its mind. It was stressed while referring to the case of Anand vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims & Ors that while dealing with the documentary evidence, greater reliance ought to 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 the post-independence documents.
On the other hand, the learned AGP for the State, while opposing the above submissions, submitted that the documents submitted by the petitioners do not prove the petitioners’ claim to Thakur Scheduled Tribe as the same cannot be relied upon.
Observations of the Court
The Bench opined that the caste validity certificate issued in favour of near relatives can also to be considered for determination of the caste claim of an applicant which in this case as set out above appears to be completely ignored, in respect of petitioners’ maternal uncle and cousin paternal aunt. It observed that:
“The scrutiny committee failed to consider the vigilance cell report dated 9th August 2018, while rejecting petitioners’ claim to Thakur Scheduled Tribe. The observations with respect to the documents listed at paragraph no. 24 of the vigilance cell report also do not appear to have been appreciated/dealt with by the scrutiny committee. The importance of the pre-independence documents in the case of relatives coming from a common ancestor need not be over emphasised. The scrutiny committee also does not appear to have considered the observations in paragraph 29 with respect to home inquiry.”
Judgment
The bench set aside the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee and remanded the matter back to the scrutiny committee for fresh consideration. It also directed the Committee to decide the claim after considering all the documents and submissions of the parties as soon as possible, but no later than by 7th December 2021, 5.00 p.m. The petitioners were directed to appear before the Committee at 11.00 a.m. on 6th December 2021 along with copy of the order. It was further directed that this order shall not be used as a precedent in any other matter and was passed in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.
Case Name: Rushikesh Deepak Chavan & Anr. vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: WRIT PETITION NO. 9864 OF 2018
Bench: Justice Abhay Ahuja, Justice R.D. Dhanuka
Decided on: 4th December 2021
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
