Satish Janardan Thakur And Anr vs Scheduled Tribe Caste ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6522 Bom

                                                            wp-3770-2017.doc


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                        WRIT PETITION NO. 3770 OF 2017
 1.       Satish Janardan Thakur,                    )
          age about 51 years,                        )
          Occupation : Service                       )

 2.       Anirudh Satish Thakur,                     )
          age about 20 years,                        )
          Occupation: Student                        )
          Both residing at Block No.24               )
          Shree Guru Siddheshwar Housing             )
          Society, Vishram Nagar, Hotgi Road         )
          Solapur                                    )        ...Petitioners

                  Versus
 1.       Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate          )
          Verification Committee, Pune Division      )
          Pune through its Member, Secretary         )

 2.       The State of Maharashtra                   )
          through its Secretary,                     )
          Tribal Development Department              )
          Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032                 )

 3.       Deputy Director of Education,              )
          Pune Region, Pune                          )

 4.   The Principal, Walchand College         )
      Ashok Chowk, Solapur                    )...Respondents
                                    ......
 Mr.Shikur G. Kudle for the Petitioners.
 Mrs.A.A.Purav, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
                                 ......




 Trupti                                                                  1/28




::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2021                ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2021 19:07:06 :::
                                                              wp-3770-2017.doc


                               CORAM    : R.D.DHANUKA &
                                          V. G. BISHT, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 2nd MARCH, 2021

PRONOUNCEMENT ON : 20th April, 2021

JUDGMENT : (PER : V. G. BISHT, J.)

1. By this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, the petitioners have impugned the judgment and order

dated 15th June, 2016 of the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate

Verification Committee, Pune Division, Pune, respondent No.1

herein invalidating the claim of petitioners by issuing appropriate

writ, order and seek that respondent No.1 be directed to validate

the tribal claim of the petitioners holding that they belong to

Thakar (ST -44) (Reserved Category).

2. Facts necessary for the purpose of deciding this Writ Petition

are as under :

Petitioner No.1 is working as a Senior Clerk in the office of

Superintendent Pay and Provident Unit (Secondary), Solapur.

Petitioner No.2 is son of petitioner No.1 and he is a collage going

Trupti 2/28

wp-3770-2017.doc

boy. The petitioners submit that the Caste Certificate came to be

issued on 28th August, 2003 by the Competent Authority showing

that both the petitioners belong to Thakar (ST-44).

3. It is the case of petitioner No.1 that his Caste Certificate was

submitted on 21st July, 2007 to respondent No.1 Committee and

Caste Certificate of petitioner No.2 on 2nd May, 2013 for the

purpose of verification of the tribe claim along with necessary

documents in support of their tribe claim. However, respondent

No.1 Scrutiny Committee rejected the tribe claim by said

impugned judgment and order.

4. According to petitioners, in the school record of petitioner

No.1's father, his caste is shown as Hindu- Thakar and the same is

the case with petitioner No.1's uncles and the said evidence is

much prior to the Presidential Order of the year 1950 and thus,

the said evidence has got the probative value but same was not

taken into consideration. The father of petitioner No.1 was born

on 19th July, 1923 and the said birth and death extract maintained

by Gram Panchayat Madha, Taluka - Madha, District- Solapur was

Trupti 3/28

wp-3770-2017.doc

collected by the Vigilance Cell and respondent No.1 Scrutiny

Committee has not given any reason as to why the said evidence

was discarded.

5. It is the further case of the petitioners that respondent No.1

Committee has utterly failed to appreciate the documentary

evidence on record which is in existence much prior to the

Presidential Order of the year 1950. There is no single document

to substantiate the tribe claim but several documents which are of

the pre-independence era. No valid reasons are advanced while

discarding the said documentary evidence which was collected by

the Vigilance Cell. The entire case has been approached

erroneously and without having any application of mind. In the

circumstances, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set

aside. Therefore, the present Petition.

6. Respondent No.1 Scrutiny Committee by filing affidavit in

reply contends that the Research Officer attached to the Vigilance

Cell has given remarks on the enquiry report dated 29 th

September, 2007 which are against the petitioners' tribe claim. It

Trupti 4/28

wp-3770-2017.doc

has been clearly stated that the information regarding traits,

customs and tradition of the petitioners' community through

enquiry report do not match with original Thakar, Scheduled

Tribe. Since the petitioners have not proved their tribe claim by

way of documentary evidence as well as on the point of cultural

affinity, the Scrutiny Committee has rightly invalidated the tribe

claim of the petitioners as Thakar, Scheduled Tribe. Merely

because validity is granted in favour of the blood relatives of the

petitioners that by itself would not be a ground for validation of

subsequent claim. In the circumstances, the Petition deserves to be

dismissed with costs, urged respondent No.1.

7. Mr.Kudle, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted

before us that respondent No.1 Scrutiny Committee has failed to

attach importance to birth extract of the father of petitioner No.1

and also the records which is in existence much prior to the

Presidential Order of the year 1950. Similarly, the validity

certificates of the blood relations of the petitioners have been

deliberately ignored by respondent No.1 Scrutiny Committee

without any valid reason and thereby committed an error causing

Trupti 5/28

wp-3770-2017.doc

substantial legal injury to the petitioners.

8. The learned Counsel took us through the various documents

filed on record and then urged that the impugned order deserves

to be set aside. He placed reliance on the judgment of this Court

in case of Ms.Snehal Dilip Gaikwad Vs Scheduled Tribe Caste

Certificate Verification Committee, Pune Division, Pune & Ors. &

Ors.1.

9. Per contra, Mrs.Purav, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to

3, on the other hand, canvassed before us that the contents of

enquiry report were duly taken into consideration by the Scrutiny

Committee and rightly arrived at a conclusion that the petitioners

had failed to prove their tribe claim not only on the basis of the

documentary evidence but also from the point of view of the

cultural affinity, traits, and tradition of the petitioners' community.

In the circumstances, there was no reason for respondent No.1

Scrutiny Committee to issue certificate of validity of the tribe

claim of the petitioners. There being no merit in the Petition, the

Trupti 6/28

wp-3770-2017.doc

same is liable to be dismissed with costs, argued learned AGP.

10. Mr.Kudle, learned Counsel for the petitioners, invited our

attention to the School Leaving Certificates of not only the

grandfather of petitioner No.1 but also the cousin grandfather of

petitioner No.2, namely, Vasant Gopalrao Gaikwad, Suryakant

Gopalrao Gaikwad and Mahadev Gopalrao Gaikwad.

11. The petitioners' have come with a case that they belong to

Thakar (ST-44) and accordingly the Caste Certificates to that

effect came to be issued on 28th August, 2003 by the Competent

Authority. Subsequently, they submitted the Certificates to

respondent No.1 Scrutiny Committee for the purpose of

verification of their Tribe Claim along with necessary documents

before Vigilance Cell. These documents are as under :

(a) Extract of General School Register of the father of

petitioner No.1, namely, Janardan Gopal Gaikwad, inter

alia, showing his date and place of birth and Caste;

 Trupti                                                                    7/28





                                                                wp-3770-2017.doc


          (b)     Extract of General School Register of the uncle of

          petitioner No.1;

          (c)     Village Namuna No. 14 pertaining to father of

          petitioner No.1;


          (d)     School Leaving Certificate of Satish Janardan Gaikwad

          i.e. petitioner No.1;


          (e)     School Leaving Certificate of Satish Janardan Gaikwad

          i.e. petitioner No.1;


          (f)     Affidavit of petitioner No.1 filed before the Executive

          Magistrate, Solapur;


          (g)     Caste Certificate of petitioner No.1 issued by Sub

Divisional Officer, Madha Division, Kurdwadi on 28th August,

2003;

(h) Affidavit of petitioner No.1 filed before the Executive

Magistrate, North Solapur;

 Trupti                                                                     8/28





                                                                wp-3770-2017.doc


          (i)     Maharashtra Government Gazette in respect of change

          of surname of petitioner No.1;

          (j)     Caste Certificate of father of petitioner No.1 and

grandfather of petitioner No.2 dated 24 th June, 1977 issued

by Tehsildar and Executive Magistrate, North Solapur;

(k) School Leaving Certificate of father of petitioner No.1

and grandfather of petitioner No.2;

(l) School Leaving Certificate of cousin of petitioner

No.1's father, namely, Chandrakant Gopal Gaikwad;

(m) School Leaving Certificate of cousin grandfather of

petitioner No.2, namely, Vasant Gopalrao Gaikwad;

(n) School Leaving Certificate of cousin grandfather of

petitioner No.2, namely, Suryakant Gopal Gaikwad;

(o) School Leaving Certificate of cousin grandfather of

petitioner No.2, namely, Mahadeo Gopal Gaikwad;

(p) Affidavit of cousin of petitioner No.1 filed before the

Special Executive Magistrate, Solapur;

 Trupti                                                                     9/28





                                                                  wp-3770-2017.doc


          (q)     Certificates of validity issued by the Scheduled Tribe

Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune Division to :-

                  (i)      Mangesh Arun Gaikwad (real cousin of
                           petitioner No.2)
                  (ii)     Arun Chandrakant Gaikwad (real cousin
                           uncle of petitioner No.2)

(iii) Sanjay Suryakant Gaikwad (real cousin uncle of petitioner No.2)

(iv) Rupesh Ramesh Gaikwad (cousin uncle of petitioner No.2) and

(v) Ganesh Bholenath Gaikwad (uncle of petitioner No.2)

(r) Genealogy tree of family.

12. We have carefully gone through all the above noted

documentary evidence. We have also perused the impugned order.

13. It is pertinent to note from the School Leaving Certificate of

Janardan Gopal Gaikwad, who is father of petitioner No.1 that he

was born on 18th July, 1923 and Column No.2 of the School

Leaving Certificate shows him as Hindu-Thakar. Similarly, the

Trupti 10/28

wp-3770-2017.doc

School Leaving Certificate of cousin grandfather of petitioner

No.2, namely, Vasant Gopalrao Gaikwad also shows him having

born on 20th July, 1929 with Column No.2 of the School Leaving

Certificate showing him as belonging to Thakar.

14. Similar is the case with cousin grandfather of petitioner

No.2, namely, Vasant Gopalrao Gaikwad, who was born on 2 nd

April, 1937 and Mahadev Gopal Gaikwad, who was born on 21 st

November, 1934. However, the School Leaving Certificate of

Suryakant Gopal Gaikwad, who was born on 18th May, 1939

shows him as Hindu Thakur.

15. The learned Counsel during the course of argument also

invited our attention to School Leaving Certificates of petitioner

No.1 issued by Nutan Marathi Vidyalay, Marathi Shala, Solapur

and Haribhai Deokaran High School, Solapur. The column No.2 of

the said School Leaving Certificates shows him belonging to

Hindu-Thakur. However, this ambiguity, according to learned

Counsel, was cleared by the petitioner No.1 by filing his affidavit

before the Executive Magistrate, North Solapur by stating that

Trupti 11/28

wp-3770-2017.doc

because of inadvertent insertion of a corrupted word, the Caste

was shown as Hindu-Thakur instead of Hindu-Thakar.

16. The learned Counsel then invited our attention to paragraph

No. 6 of the impugned order wherein the Scrutiny Committee

inspected the School Leaving Certificates of petitioner No.1 and

relatives and pin pointedly pointed out the discrepancy of the

Caste shown as Hindu Maratha. The Scrutiny Committee was of

the opinion that these notings of Hindu Maratha could not be

overlooked and thus came to opinion that the petitioners had not

proved beyond reasonable doubt their Caste as 'Thakar".

17. We have also carefully seen and inspected the School

Leaving Certificates of petitioner No.1 and his relations. In our

opinion, the Scrutiny Committee erroneously put on record the

above said observations. It lost sight of the fact, which we have

already mentioned by referring to affidavit of petitioner No.1, that

under what circumstances the Caste of petitioner No.1 was shown

Hindu Thakur in School Leaving Certificates. These certificates

Trupti 12/28

wp-3770-2017.doc

nowhere show his Caste as Hindu - Maratha as is noted by the

Scrutiny Committee.

18. Similarly, it appears to us that the Scrutiny Committee

totally ignored the contents of School Leaving Certificates of

Janardan Gopal Gaikwad (father of petitioner No.1), Chandrakant

Gopal Gaikwad (uncle of petitioner No.1), Vasant Gopalrao

Gaikwad (uncle of petitioner No.1) and Mahadev Gopal Gaikwad

(uncle of petitioner No.1). In all these School Leaving

Certificates, Caste is shown as Thakar and not Hindu-Maratha as

is indicated by the Scrutiny Committee.

19. There are extracts of School General Register. The first such

extract at Serial No. 17 shows the name of Janardan Gopal

Gaikwad with date of birth as 18th July, 2023 and Caste Thakar.

The column No. 7 of the said extract shows date of admission as

19th July, 1928. Second extract at serial Nos. 1, 3 and 4 shows the

names of uncles of petitioner No.1 viz. Vasant Gopalaro Gaikwad,

Chandrakant Gopal Gaikwad and Mahadev Gopal Gaikwad with

their date of birth as 2nd April, 1937, 20th July, 1929 and 21st

Trupti 13/28

wp-3770-2017.doc

November, 1934 respectively and Caste as Thakar. The column

No.7 shows their date of admission as 20th July, 1942, 4th July,

1934 and 4th July, 1940 respectively.

20. The entries in School Leaving Certificates of the father and

uncles of petitioner No.1 being pre-independene period, it bear

"great probative value" wherein they declared themselves to be

Thakar. The school record, comparatively, is not only oldest but it

being the record pertaining to theirs' admission to school prior to

independence, it carry greatest probative evidentiary value.

However, the Scrutiny Committee adopted an erroneous view and

reflected an improper approach to the issue in question. There

was no proper scrutiny as far as School Leaving Certificates of

petitioner No.1's father and uncles are concerned.

21. We now have the certificates of validity issued to Mangesh

Arun Gaikwad (cousin nephew), Arun Chandrakant Gaikwad

(relative), Sanjay Suryakant Gaikwad ( cousin), Rupesh Ramesh

Gaikwad (cousin) and Ganesh Bholenath Gaikwad (cousin). As far

as certificates of validity of Arun Chandrakant Gaikwad, Sanjay

Trupti 14/28

wp-3770-2017.doc

Suryakant Gaikwad and Rupesh Ramesh Gaikwad are concerned,

the Scrutiny Committee at paragraph No. 18 of the impugned

judgment found that these persons secured certificates of validity

by suppression of facts/ misrepresentation.

22. Taking recourse to ratio laid down in case of Apoorva d/o

Vinay Nichale Versus Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny

Committee No.1 & Ors.2 , the Scrutiny Committee in the case in

hand opined that the ratio so laid down in the case of Apoorva

d/o Vinay Nichale (supra) was applicable to the case of present

petitioners' and therefore, refused to acknowledge the certificates

of validity relied upon by the petitioners.

23. The learned Counsel for the petitioners heavily criticized the

approach of Committee by submitting that the observations of the

Committee were ill-founded inasmuch as those person were

neither heard nor their certificates of validity are invalidated till

the time of recording of said observations. According to learned

Counsel, the certificates of validity of the said relatives are very

2 2010 (6) Mh.LJ 401

Trupti 15/28

wp-3770-2017.doc

much in operation. This statement of learned Counsel is not

disputed by the learned AGP.

24. In case of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale (supra), it has been

held by this Court that if the Committee is of the view that the

earlier certificate is obtained by fraud, it would not be bound to

follow the earlier caste validity certificate and Committee is

entitled to refuse the caste claim and also in addition initiate

proceedings for cancellation of the earlier order. Thus, according

to this Court, if the Scrutiny Committee finds on the evidence that

validity of the certificate of such relation has been obtained by

fraud, then the Scrutiny Committee would not be bound to follow

the said caste validity certificate and it would be entitled not only

to refuse the caste claim but also at the same time would be at

liberty to initiate proceedings for cancellation of the earlier

validity certificate.

25. In case in hand, as already noted, the certificates of validity

of the relatives of the petitioners are not only in very much

operation but the same till date have not been invalidated or

Trupti 16/28

wp-3770-2017.doc

cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee after giving an opportunity

to the concerned relatives of the petitioners. Therefore, in our

considered opinion, the reliance placed by the Scrutiny Committee

on the ratio laid down in Apoorva's case was far fetched and

does not in any manner further the stand taken by the Scrutiny

Committee.

26. There is need to guard again such observation put on record

by the Scrutiny Committee. We have already pointed out how the

Committee blinked the contents of pre-constitutional school

records. Rather, it was expected of Scrutiny Committee to be

more circumspect. We find, instead, approach of Scrutiny

Committee absurd and preposterous. The Scrutiny Committee

could not have proceeded in absence of concrete and clinching

evidence, that too without offering a reasonable opportunity to

these relatives of petitioners whose certificates of validity it was

questioning.

27. We do not find of having unearthed such an evidence by

Scrutiny Committee, which could have disentitled those relatives

Trupti 17/28

wp-3770-2017.doc

of their certificates of validity, during said verification. There is no

perceptible and tangible basis to opine that certificates of validity

of named relations were obtained or secured by suppression of

facts or by misrepresentation. The Scrutiny Committee ought to

have substantiated its belief by cogent and convincing evidence.

28. Before placing the said observations on record, the Scrutiny

Committee ought to have discerned and discovered that in

granting certificates of validity to the relations of petitioners, vital

evidences had been ignored. It is only in that eventuality it could

have decisively differed and observed that certificates of validity

granted to the relations of petitioners were procured by

suppression of facts or misrepresentation.

29. There were similar obtaining facts in the case of Ms. Snehal

Dilip Gaikwad (supra). In this case, the petitioners had placed

reliance on the School Leaving Certificates of Vasant Gopalrao

Gaikwad (paternal grandfather) and Janardan Gopal Gaikwad

(paternal uncle of petitioner's father). It may be noted here that

the above named persons are father and uncle of petitioner No.1

Trupti 18/28

wp-3770-2017.doc

in the present case. There were certificates of validity issued to

Arun Chandrakant Gaikwad, Mangesh Arun Gaikwad, Sanjay

Suryakant Gaikwad and Shrikant Mahadeo Gaikwad, who are

cousins of petitioner. Out of them, Mangesh Arun Gaikwad and

Sanjay Suryakant Gaikwad happen to be cousin and cousin

nephew respectively of present petitioner No.1.

30. This Court (Coram: S.C.Dharmadhikari & Sandeep K.

Shinde, JJ.) after taking into consideration the evidence and in

particular the school records of the petitioner's paternal

grandfather and that of uncle of petitioner's father was of the

opinion that the Scrutiny Committee kept out of consideration

pre-constitutional documents as well as caste validity certificates

of the blood relatives of the petitioner and thus was not justified

in discarding this evidence. This Court further held that the

petitioner therein had proved that she belongs to Thakar tribe.

Thus, facts and the ratio laid down therein are squarely applicable

to the case in hand.

31. The Scrutiny Committee was also of the opinion that the

Trupti 19/28

wp-3770-2017.doc

petitioners or their family members could not prove cultural

affinity vis-a-vis. Thakar Tribe. At paragraph No. 5 of the

impugned judgment, it is noted that, according to petitioners, they

celebrate festival of Diwali, their community God are Khandoba

and deity Bhavani of Tulzapur, traditionally their avocation is to

perform marriages and to give and take wards in marriages to and

from K- Thakar, Ka-Thakar, M-Thakar, Ma-Thakar and Thakar

tribes. Thus, according to Scrutiny Committee, the lifestyle of

petitioners' community is actually different than genuine Thakar

tribe and hence they fail to prove cultural affinity test.

32. In Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of

Tribe Claims and Ors3., the Hon'ble Apex Court held that while

applying the affinity test, a cautious approach has to be adopted.

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 migration,

modernisation and contact with other communities, these

communities tend to develop and adopt new traits which may not 3 2012 (1) SCC

Trupti 20/28

wp-3770-2017.doc

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.

33. The Apex Court in the said judgment also observed that the

petitioner could not be denied benefit on the ground that his

present traits do not match his tribe's peculiar anthropological 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.

34. At the cost of repetition, we reiterate that the Committee not

only overlooked the pre- constitutional school records of father of

petitioner No.1 and his relatives but also the caste certificates

issued in favour of the petitioners and caste validity certificates in

favour of various relatives of the petitioners.

35. In our considered view, rejection of claim of petitioners' on

the ground of failure to establish cultural affinity was absolutely

Trupti 21/28

wp-3770-2017.doc

unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of case and therefore

that finding cannot be sustained.

36. The Scrutiny Committee then found that since beginning the

petitioners claimed that the original place of residence of their

family is Madha, Taluka- Madha, District Solapur. Even school

records of blood relations since 1916 prove that petitioners' family

members were permanent residents of Madha. According to

Scrutiny Committee, before Area Restriction Removal Order of

1976 came into force, petitioners' village/ Taluka Madha had no

connection even remotely to the areas where the tribe Thakar

presumed to have been resided. Similarly, the petitioners' could

not produce any evidence to show that their ancestors migrated,

before the Removal of Area Restriction, from the area of Thakar

Tribe to present place of residence.

37. By an order dated 5th December, 2009, Writ Petition No.

2152 of 2007 filed by Jaywant Dilip Pawar v. State of Maharashtra

and Others came to be rejected on the premise that the petitioner

had failed to show that the real brother of the petitioner was

Trupti 22/28

wp-3770-2017.doc

granted validity certificate after applying affinity test and

therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner would not be

entitled to rely on that certificate.

38. The order of this Court dated 5th December, 2009 was

carried in Appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court. It would be

pertinent to reproduce the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex

Court dated 8th March, 2017 which reads thus :-

"1. The short point raised by learned counsel for the appellants in these appeals is that after 'The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976' (Act No.108 of 1976) was published in the Gazette on 20.09.1976, the area restriction of Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra for the Thakur community has been deleted and all members of Thakur, Thakar, Ka Thakur, Ka Thakar, Ma Thakur and Ma Thakar community are treated to be Scheduled Tribes. The Scrutiny Committee has negated the claim of the appellants on the ground that the relatives of the appellants were not residents of the areas mentioned in the Presidential Order, 1956 and further they were

Trupti 23/28

wp-3770-2017.doc

not able to give any details of customs and traditions being observed by the said community.

2. In our considered opinion, that is wholly irrelevant. The appellants have only to establish that they belong to the community mentioned at Serial No.44 of Part IX of Second Schedule of Act No.108 of 1976.

3. The High Court has dismissed the Writ Petitions preferred by the appellants only on the ground that the Scrutiny Committee had given detailed reasons and the Court will not go into the merits of the matter afresh.

4. In our considered opinion, the approach of the High Court was totally erroneous. It ought to have considered the Act No.108 of 1976 and given its own reasoning.

5. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and remand the matter back to the High Court for expeditiously deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law.

 Trupti                                                                        24/28





                                                             wp-3770-2017.doc

6. The Civil Appeals as well as the Special Leave Petitions are disposed of in the above terms".

39. The Hon'ble Apex Court has thus observed that these

petitioners have only to establish that they belong to the

community mentioned at Serial No.44 of Part IX of Second

Schedule of Act No.108 of 1976 and in that light record reasons

and decide the matter afresh and in accordance with law.

40. In our view, if a Thakar was declared by the parliamentary

enactment to be a Scheduled Tribe and if the documentary

evidence before the Scrutiny Committee showed that the

petitioners are Thakar, except only one document as we have

noted earlier which showed that the petitioners were Hindu

Thakar, such evidence was not inconsistent with the petitioners

claim that they belonged to the Thakar Scheduled Tribe. Since the

Thakars have been entered under Entry 44 of the 1976 of the

enactment to be a Scheduled Tribe and the documentary evidence

on record clearly shows that the petitioners belong to the

Scheduled Tribe of Thakar, the petitioners are entitled to succeed.

 Trupti                                                                  25/28





                                                           wp-3770-2017.doc

41. There is one more reason. We have also pointed out during

earlier part of our discussion that certificates of validity of the

close relations were also relied on by the petitioners before

Scrutiny Committee but for some observations, which we have

already dealt with, the Scrutiny Committee refused to give

weightage to those certificates of validity. During the course of

discussion, we have pointed out how the observations of the

Scrutiny Committee were misplaced and absurd.

42. The Division Bench of this Court in case of Apoorva d/o

Vinay Nichale (supra) held that if the caste claim of the candidate

has been held to be belonging to Scheduled Tribe, then other close

blood relatives cannot be denied the validity certificate. In the

light of ratio laid down by this Court in case of Apoorva d/o Vinay

Nichale (supra) as the petitioners' real cousins are already granted

caste validity certificates as belonging to Thakar- Scheduled Tribe,

in that view of the matter, the present petitioners also deserve the

similar certificates of validity.

43. We may usefully draw attention to the judgment of this

Trupti 26/28

wp-3770-2017.doc

Court (Coram : R.D.Dhanuka & Madhav J. Jamdar, JJ.) in case of

Smt. Jayshree d/o Subhash Suryawanshi @ Smt. Jayshree w/o

Nitin Thakur Versus The State of Maharashtra and others in Writ

Petition No. 2230 of 2013 decided on 8th January, 2021. After

adverting to judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court given in case of

Jaywant Dilip Pawar (supra), this Court held that the Scrutiny

Committee thus could not have relied upon the provisions of the

Bombay Reorganization Act, 1960 while rejecting the caste claim

of the petitioner on the ground of area restriction and the view of

the Scrutiny Committee was found to be ex facie contrary to the

principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of

Jaywant Dilip Pawar (supra). We are respectfully bound by the

observations so made by this Court.

44. For the aforesaid reasons, we do no find merits in the

submission of learned AGP that caste claim of the petitioners was

totally considered in the light of documentary as well as other

evidence like affinity test and area restriction.

45. In our view, the impugned order dated 15th June, 2016

Trupti 27/28

wp-3770-2017.doc

passed by the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the claim of the

petitioner is totally perverse and is unsustainable.

46. We, therefore, pass the following order :-

ORDER

(i) The impugned order dated 15th June, 2016 passed

by the respondent No.1- Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate

Verification Committee, Pune Division, Pune (Exhibit-B to

the petition) is hereby quashed and set aside;

(ii) Respondent No.1- Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate

Verification Committee, Pune Division, Pune is hereby

directed to issue caste validity certificates in favour of the

petitioners as "Thakar (ST-44)" within a period of four

weeks from the date of communication of this order;

(iii) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.

(iv) There shall be no order as to costs.

     (V. G. BISHT, J.)                              (R.D.DHANUKA, J.)



 Trupti                                                                     28/28