Harshvardhan Ramkrushna ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 16845 Bom

                                     1              wp 6394-2019.odt



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          WRIT PETITION NO. 6394 OF 2019

 Harshvardhan Ramkrushna Baviskar                                .. Petitioner

          Versus

 The State of Maharashtra and others                             .. Respondents

 Mr. Sushant C. Yeramwar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
 Mr. P. S. Patil, Addl. G. P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
 Mr. A. B. Girase, Advocate for Respondent No. 3.

                               CORAM :    S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
                                          R. N. LADDHA, JJ.

DATED : 04th December, 2021.

PER COURT:-

. Mr. Yeramwar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner has appeared for MHT-CET examination and is exploring

possibility of admission to the MBA course. The admission process has

commenced.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cousin

uncle of the petitioner namely Chandrashekhar s/o Ulhas has been

issued with the validity certificate of "Thakur" (Scheduled Tribe).

Consistent school record of the petitioner's grandfather, his sister and

cousin grandfather records tribe as "Thakur". The said record is since

1 of 3

2 wp 6394-2019.odt

the year 1918. The learned counsel submits that affinity test is not the

litmus test. He relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of

Anand Vs. Committee reported in (2012) 1 SCC 113. The learned

counsel submits that area restriction has also been removed. The tribe

claim is invalidated only on the ground of affinity test and area

restriction.

3. The learned Addl. G. P. submits that the petitioner does not

reside at a place where normally "Thakur" (Scheduled Tribe) persons

reside. The petitioner has failed in the affinity test also.

4. The learned counsel submits that in view of the conflicting

judgments, the Government has moved the Apex Court for considering

the area restrictions and affinity.

5. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned

counsel for respective parties.

6. The record in favour of the petitioner's fore-fathers, father and

himself is as under :

 jDr ukrsokbZd

  v- nLr,sotkps uko            nLr,sotkaojhy O;Drhps vtZnkjk"kh jDr Tkkrhph uksan      izos"[email protected]
  dz-                          uko                   ukrs                              fnukad
  1    tUe e`R;w uksan         rqG"kh cki ek.kdk       pqyr pqyr        Bkdwj          25-10-1918
       jft'Vj                  efgir                   vktksckaph cfg.k
  2    tUe e`R;w uksan         :ih =acd eghir          pqyr pqyr        Bkdwj          15-11-1926
       jft'Vj                  Bkdwj                   vktksckaph cfg.k

                                                                                                2 of 3





                                                     3                  wp 6394-2019.odt


  3    tUe e`R;w uksan         xksih ek.kdk efgir       pqyr pqyr        Bkdwj          10-01-1930
       jft'Vj                                           vktksckaph cfg.k
  4    "kkGk lksMY;kpk         mRre ek.khd Bkdwj        pqyr pqyr        Bkdwj          03-06-1941
       nk[kyk                                           vktksck
  5    "kkGk lksMY;kpk         "kadj :iyk ckfoLdj       pqyr vktksck     fganw Bkdwj    05-10-1957
       nk[kyk
  6    "kkGk lksMY;kpk         foBkckbZ :iyk Bkdwj      vktksckph cfg.k fganw Bkdwj     02-08-1960
       nk[kyk
  7    "kkGk izos"k fuxZe      jked`'.k ukjk;.k         oMhy             fganw Bkdwj    tUe fnukad
       mrkjk                   ckfoLdj                                                  01-06-1970
  8    "kkGk izos"k fuxZe      g'kZo/kZu jked`'.k       vtZnkj           Bkdwj          02-06-2003
       mrkjk                   ckfoLdj

7. It appears that the, consistent school record of the paternal

relatives of the petitioner since the year 1918 stands as "Thakur". The

record is of pre-presidential notification and pre-constitutional period.

The same has evidentiary value. The Apex Court in a case of Anand Vs.

Committee (supra) has observed that affinity test is not the litmus test.

8. Considering the above, we pass the following order.

9. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The committee

shall issue validity certificate to the petitioner of "Thakur" (Scheduled

Tribe).

10. Writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

 ( R. N. LADDHA )                                                ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA )
      JUDGE                                                                JUDGE

 P.S.B.




                                                                                                3 of 3