Pradeep S/O Himmatrao Wankhade vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1884 Bom

                                                                   5jud wp 3841.2005.odt
                                           1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                    WRIT PETITION (WP) NO. 3841/2005

         Pradeep s/o Himmatrao Wankhade
         Aged about years, Occupation : service,
         R/o Near Ram Mandir, Karanja (Lad)
         District : Akola                                       ..... PETITIONER

                                   // VERSUS //

1.       State of Maharashtra
         Through the Secretary
         Trible Development Department
         Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

2.       Caste Scrutiny Committee for Scheduled Tribe
         Through its Members and Chairman,
         Amravati Division, Amravati

3.       The Divisional Controller,
         Maharashtra State Transport Corporation,
         Akola.                                              .... RESPONDENT(S)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ms. P.D. Rane, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Kalyani R. Deshpande, AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 2/State Shri A.D. Sonak, Advocate for respondent no. 3

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               CORAM :        A.S. CHANDURKAR AND G.A. SANAP, J.J.
               DATED      : 24/02/2022

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER:- A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

The challenge raised in this writ petition is to the order

passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Amravati dated 06.06.2005

thereby invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner of belonging to

SMGate 5jud wp 3841.2005.odt

"Thakur" Scheduled Tribe.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he and his forefathers

belong to "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner came to be

appointed as a Labourer with the respondent no. 3 - Corporation on

01.03.1988 initially on daily wages. By a subsequent order on

25.02.1989 the petitioner was continued in service. His services were

confirmed on 01.10.1992. The Caste Certificate of the petitioner dated

10.04.1981 was submitted for verification before the Scrutiny

Committee. During the course of scrutiny the petitioner relied upon

various documents prior to 1950 which indicated his tribe to be

"Thakur" as mentioned therein. The said documents were verified by the

Vigilance Cell and in its report, it was stated that entry "Thakur" was

consistently found in all the old documents. In its report dated

18.10.2003, the Vigilance Cell however observed that the petitioner and

his family members did not have affinity with "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe.

The Scrutiny Committee after considering the material on record held

that mere entries of "Thakur" in the old documents was not sufficient to

grant a validity certificate to the petitioner. Since the petitioner and his

family members did not indicate affinity to "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe, by

the order dated 06.06.2005 the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the tribe

claim of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the said order has been

SMGate 5jud wp 3841.2005.odt

challenged in this writ petition.

3. Ms. P.D. Rane, the learned Counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the Vigilance Cell having found that all the documents

indicated the presence of the entry "Thakur" therein it was not open for

the Scrutiny Committee to ignore such old pre-costitutional documents.

The oldest document was of the year 1919 followed by various other

documents. It was not permissible for the Scrutiny Committee to observe

that though the entry "Thakur" was found in the old documents, it was

likely that the petitioner and his forefathers belonged to "Thakur"

community from the higher caste. She further submitted that on the

basis of the affinity test the claim of the petitioner could not have been

rejected especially when the numerous pre-constitutional documents

consistently showed the entry "Thakur". It was therefore submitted that

the impugned order passed by the Scrutiny Committee was liable to be

set aside. The learned Counsel invited attention to an affidavit dated

17.02.2022 filed by the petitioner in which it was stated that various

blood relatives had been issued validity certificate by the Scrutiny

Committee. On this ground also the claim of the petitioner was liable to

be allowed. The petitioner was in service with respondent no. 3 -

Corporation and had now superannuated. He was thus entitled to

receive all service benefits if the Court upheld his claim.

SMGate 5jud wp 3841.2005.odt

4. Ms. Kalyani R. Deshpande, the learned Assistant

Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 supported the

impugned order and opposed the aforesaid submissions. She submitted

that even if the entry "Thakur" was found in the old documents that by

itself was not sufficient to uphold the claim of the petitioner. The

petitioner and his family members were unable to satisfy the Vigilance

Cell on the affinity test. The same was also material and opinion of the

Vigilance Cell could not be easily brushed away. She further submitted

that the various relatives indicated in the affidavit filed by the petitioner

were not known to be related to the petitioner for the reason that there

was no family tree submitted before the Scrutiny Committee. Hence the

issuance of validity certificate to the persons named in the affidavit was

of no consequence. It was thus submitted that there was no case made

out to interfere with the adjudication of the Scrutiny Committee.

Shri A.D. Sonak, the learned Counsel for the respondent no. 3

submitted that it was necessary for the petitioner to have his tribe claim

examined and therefore the Corporation had sought verification of the

petitioner's certificate.

5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length

and with their assistance we have gone through the record of the case. It

is seen that during the course of scrutiny the petitioner relied upon

SMGate 5jud wp 3841.2005.odt

various pre-constitutional documents. Documents dated 12.06.1925,

09.01.1931 and 19.01.1931 were verified by the Vigilance Cell and it

was reported that the said documents were found in the original records.

In these documents the entry "Thakur" can be found. The Vigilance Cell

in its report has also opined about genuineness of these documents. It is

an admitted position that no other document having any contrary entry

was found by the Vigilance Cell during the process of verification. It is

well settled that the documentary evidence based on pre-constitutional

documents has to be given more weightage than documents after 1950.

Since all consistent old entries refer to "Thakur" the petitioner cannot

be deprived of the benefit flowing from the old records. Moreover, when

old documents are available on record and have been scrutinized, it

would not be permissible to reject the claim of the petitioner only on the

ground that the petitioner has failed to indicate his affinity to "Thakur"

Scheduled Tribe as observed by the Vigilance Cell. In Anand Vs.

Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and Others

[(2012) 1 SCC 113]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the

affinity test cannot be the sole litmus test for determining caste/tribe of

the claimant. If pre-constitutional documents are produced they would

have greater probative value than the affinity test. We therefore find that

the presence of various old documents on record support the claim of the

petitioner.

SMGate 5jud wp 3841.2005.odt

6. Coming to the affidavit filed by the petitioner alongwith

statements that various blood relatives have been issued the validity

certificates, it is found that when the claim of the petitioner was verified

there was no family tree submitted to the Scrutiny Committee as a result

it would be difficult at this stage to grant benefit to the petitioner solely

on the ground that some blood relatives have been issued validity

certificates. There is no material on record to hold that the persons

named in the affidavit are related to the petitioner. Be that as it may, on

the strength of old records which is prior to 1950 we are satisfied that

the petitioner has proved his case that he and his forefathers belong to

"Thakur" Scheduled Tribe. The Scrutiny Committee despite noticing

these old documents failed to give due weightage and probative value to

the old documents and relied upon only the affinity test for denying the

certificate of validity to the petitioner. It is found that the impugned

order is not sustainable and it is thus liable to be set aside.

7. In the light of the aforesaid discussion following order is

passed:-

i. The order dated 06.06.2005 passed by the Scrutiny

Committee is set aside.

ii. It is declared that the petitioner belongs to "Thakur"

Scheduled Tribe. The Scrutiny Committee shall issue a SMGate 5jud wp 3841.2005.odt

validity certificate to the petitioner within a period of four

weeks from the production of this order. As a result of

this adjudication, the petitioner would be entitled to receive

his service benefits from the respondent no. 3.

iii. It is informed that the petitioner has superannuated

from service. Service benefits to be released in favour of the

petitioner within a period of three months from the

production of this order before the respondent no. 3.

8. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order

as to costs.

                                JUDGE                           JUDGE



            Digitally
            signed by
            SANDIP
SANDIP      MAHADEV
MAHADEV     GATE
GATE        Date:
            2022.02.25
            17:20:38
            +0530




   SMGate