Bombay High Court

Ku. Kalpana Anandrao Rodge (After ... vs Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny ... on 15 December, 2023

Author: Avinash G.Gharote

Bench: Avinash G.Gharote

2023:BHC-NAG:17279-DB




              Judgment

                                                    140 wp3519.22, 3520.22 & 700.23

                                             1

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

                            WRIT PETITION NO.3519 OF 2022
                                        WITH
                            WRIT PETITION NO.3520 OF 2022
                                        WITH
                            WRIT PETITION NO.700 OF 2023


              WRIT PETITION NO.3519 OF 2022
              Umesh s/o Anandrao Rodge,
              aged 49 years, occupation service,
              r/o Vinkar Vasahat, Raipura,
              Achalpur, tahsil Achalpur, district
              Amravati.                         ..... Petitioner.

                                    :: V E R S U S ::

              1. Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny
              Committee, Near Government
              Circuit House, Sana House, Old
              Bypass Road, Chaprashipura,
              Amravati-444602, through its
              Member Secretary.

              2. Janta High School, Parsapur, tahsil
              Achalpur, district Amravati,
              through its head master.              ..... Respondents.
              ====================================
              Shri Anil S.Mardikar, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri
              M.D.Lakhey, Advocate for Petitioner.
              Shri P.N.Sharma, Counsel for Respondent No.2.
              Shri N.S.Rao, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent
              No.1.
              ====================================

              WRIT PETITION NO.3520 OF 2022
              Ku.Kalpana Anandrao Rodge (after
              marriage Sau.Kalpana Sharad

                                                                            .....2/-
 Judgment

                                    140 wp3519.22, 3520.22 & 700.23

                             2

Warudkar), aged 53 years, occupation
service, r/o 'Sarthak', 47, New
Gilani Nagar, Opposite Dhriv
Primary School, Umarsara,
Yavatmal, district Yavatmal. ..... Petitioner.

                     :: V E R S U S ::

1. Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny
Committee, Near Government
Circuit House, Sana House, Old
Bypass Road, Chaprashipura,
Amravati-444602, through its
Member Secretary.

2. Amolakchand Mahavidyalaya,
Yavatmal, district Yavatmal,
through its Principal.            ..... Respondents.
====================================
Shri Anil S.Mardikar, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri
M.D.Lakhey, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri P.N.Sharma, Counsel for Respondent No.2.
Shri N.S.Rao, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent
No.1.
====================================

WRIT PETITION NO.700 of 2023
Suryakant s/o Anandrao Rodge,
aged about 57 years, occupation service,
r/o plot No.56, Pushpakarna Nagar,
Dhamangaon Railway, taluka
Dhamangaon Railway, district
Amravati.                       ..... Petitioner.

                     :: V E R S U S ::

1. Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny
Committee, Near Government
Circuit House, Sana House, Old
Bypass Road, Chaprashipura,

                                                            .....3/-
 Judgment

                                    140 wp3519.22, 3520.22 & 700.23

                                3

Amravati-444602, through its
Member Secretary.

2. The Principal,
Adarsha Science Jairamdas
Bhagchand Arts and Birla
Commerce Mahavidyalaya,
Dhamangaon Railway, district
Amravati.

3. Dhamangaon Education Society,
through its President, Shashtri
Chowk, tahsil Dhamangaon
Railway, district - Amravati.     ..... Respondents.
====================================
Shri Anil S.Mardikar, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri
M.D.Lakhey, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri P.N.Sharma, Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
Shri N.S.Rao, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent
No.1.
====================================
CORAM : AVINASH G.GHAROTE & URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ.
CLOSED ON : 08/11/2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 15/12/2023


COMMON JUDGMENT : (Per : Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.)

1.         By these petitions, petitioners take exception to

orders dated 30.2.2022 and 9.6.2022 passed by respondent

No.1   -     Caste   Scrutiny   Committee,     Amravati       (the

Committee) invalidating their tribe claim as belonging to

"Halbi" Scheduled Tribe.




                                                            .....4/-
 Judgment

                                      140 wp3519.22, 3520.22 & 700.23

                               4

2.          The petitioners are real brothers and sister.

Petitioner 'Umesh' is serving as 'Assistant Teacher' in

respondent No.2 - Janta High School, Parsapur, tahsil

Achalpur, district Amravati.       Petitioner 'Ku.Kalpana', was

serving as 'Teacher' in respondent No.2 Amolakchand

Mahavidyalaya, Yavatmal, district Yavatmal.              Petitioner

'Suryakant',   was   serving   as    'Associate    Professor'      in

respondent No.2 - Adarsha Science Jairamdas Bhagchand

Arts and Birla Commerce Mahavidyalaya, Dhamangaon

Railway, district Amravati, who has been terminated from

services for want of Caste Validity Certificate.


3.          A proposal of caste claim of petitioner 'Umesh'

was forwarded by respondent No.2 - Janta High School,

through    Headmaster,   Parsapur,    tahsil   Achalpur,    district

Amravati on 11.1.2007, a proposal of caste claim of

petitioner 'Ku.Kalpana' was forwarded by respondent No.2 -

Amolakchand Mahavidyalaya, through Principal, Yavatmal on

29.7.2013, and a proposal of caste claim of petitioner

'Suryakant'    was   forwarded      by    respondent       No.3     -

Dhamangaon Education Society,            through its President,


                                                              .....5/-
 Judgment

                                             140 wp3519.22, 3520.22 & 700.23

                                      5

Dhamangaon Railway, district Amravati on 22.7.2013. The

petitioners have relied upon as many as 47 documents out

of   which     7     documents       are    pre-constitutional.        The

petitioners have submitted their genealogical tree along with

other documents from which it reflects that their great-

grandfather        namely        'Raoji    Rodge'    and     grandfather

'Ramchandra Raoji" are recorded as "Halbi".                       As per

petitioners,       there   are     consistent    entries    during     pre-

independence era showing their forefathers belong to

"Halbi". The Tribe claim of one of brothers of petitioners viz.

Rajesh has been validated in view of order of this court in

Writ Petition No.2300/2007 on 7.9.2020.


4.           Learned Senior Counsel Shri Anil S.Mardikar, for

petitioners submitted that as per family tree, caste of 'Raoji

Rodge', great-grandfather of petitioners, is recorded as

"Halbi" who has one son viz. 'Ramchandra Raoji' who is

recorded as "Halbi".        Said 'Ramchandcra Raoji' has three

sons and two daughters who are also recorded as "Halbi".

The petitioners have submitted family tree to the Vigilance

Cell also and there is no dispute as to the fact that 'Raoji'


                                                                     .....6/-
 Judgment

                                            140 wp3519.22, 3520.22 & 700.23

                                  6

has son viz. 'Ramchandra' who is grandfather of petitioners.

Thus,   petitioners   great-grandfather          'Raoji';   grandfather

'Ramchandra', and father 'Anandrao' are recorded as "Halbi".

The school records and birth extracts of brothers and sisters

of Anandrao also show they belong to "Halbi". Thus, there

are consistent entries during pre-Independence era and

thereafter also. The Committee had considered two adverse

entries in the names of 'Maroti Raoji' and 'Pandurang

Ramchandra' who are recorded as "Koshti" and invalidated

the claim.     The petitioners, while replying show cause

notice, explained these two entries that these persons are

not related to their family.          Learned Senior Counsel for

petitioners   submitted    that       the     Committee        had      not

considered that one of brothers of petitioners viz. 'Rajesh'

was granted Tribe Validity in view of order of this court. This

court, while deciding the Tribe Claim of 'Rajesh', considered

and scrutinized all documents and granted Tribe Validity to

'Rajesh' which had attained finality.          In view of the above,

orders impugned of the Committee are arbitrary, illegal, and

liable to be set aside.



                                                                     .....7/-
 Judgment

                                    140 wp3519.22, 3520.22 & 700.23

                              7

5.         In support of his contentions, learned Senior

Counsel Shri Anil S.Mardikar for petitioners placed reliance

on following decisions:


           (1) Vinod s/o Mahadeorao Shrote vs. State of
           Mah., thr.its Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Welfare
           and Social Justice Department, Mantralaya,
           Mumbai and ors (Writ Petition No.2549/2021
           decided by this court on 1.3.2022;

           (2) Tejas s/o Ramesh Katole vs. The Scheduled
           Tribes Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
           thr.its Member Secretary and Deputy Director,
           Amravati and ors (Writ Petition No.3758/2020
           decided on 7.10.2021);

           (3) Mukesh Pandurang Bastav and anr vs. State
           of Maharashtra and ors, reported in 2018(2)
           Mh.L.J.180;

           (4) Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional
           Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.2 and
           ors, reported in 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401, and

           (5)    Maharashtra    Adiwasi    Thakur  Jamat
           Swarakshan Samiti vs. State of Maharashtra and
           ors, reported in 2023(2) Mh.L.J. 785.



6.         Learned   Assistant    Government      Pleader     Shri

N.S.Rao for the Committee, stressed upon the adverse

entries and canvassed that petitioners could not prove their

Tribe Claim. He invited our attention to Vigilance Report and


                                                            .....8/-
 Judgment

                                     140 wp3519.22, 3520.22 & 700.23

                                8

submitted that the Vigilance Cell collected documents during

enquiry which show that one of ancestors 'Maroti Raoji' is

recorded as "Koshti" as well as 'Pandurang Raoji' is also

recorded as "Koshti".       These adverse entries are pre-

independence era which sufficiently create a doubt about the

claim of petitioners.     He further reiterated that the Tribe

Claim of one of sisters viz. 'Hemlata' was invalidated and the

said fact is suppressed by petitioners. In view of above facts

and circumstances, the Committee has rightly passed orders

impugned. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance

on following decisions:


           (1) Narayan Dinbaji Jambule and ors vs. The
           Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
           Gadchiroli and ors (PIL No.102/2012 and another
           connected PIL decided by this court on
           15.4.2016);

           (2) Raju Ramsing Vasave vs. Mahesh Vasave
           (Civil Appeal No.5308/2008 decided by the
           Honourable Apex Court on 29.8.2008);

           (3) Urmila Chandrakant Baviskar vs. The State of
           Mah., thr.its Secretary Health and Science
           Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and ors (Writ
           Petition No.4432/2023 decided by this court on
           11.9.2023);




                                                             .....9/-
 Judgment

                                            140 wp3519.22, 3520.22 & 700.23

                                   9

             (4) Rushikesh Bharat Garud vs. The State of
             Mah., thr.its Secretary, Tribal Development
             Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and ors (Writ
             Petition St.No.11536/2021 decided at Principal
             Seat at Bombay on 29.6.2021);

             (5) Priyanka d/o Dilip Rekulwad vs. The State of
             Maharashtra    (Writ    Petition No.10827/2023
             decided by this court at Aurangabad Bench on
             20.9.2023);

             (6) S.P.Chengal Varaya Naidu (dead) by LRs vs.
             Jagannath (dead) by LRs and ors, reported in
             (1994)1 SCC 1, and

             (7) A.V.Payappa Sastry and ors vs. Govt. of A.P.
             and ors, reported in (2007)4 SCC 221.



7.           Undisputedly, brother of petitioners viz. 'Rajesh'

was granted Tribe Validity Certificate in view of order of this

court in Writ Petition No.2300/2007 on 7.9.2020. The Tribe

Validity   Certificate   granted       to   him   is   not   challenged

subsequently.      The relationship between petitioners and

'Rajesh' is not disputed. There is no dispute as to the family

tree.   While considering the claim of 'Rajesh, co-ordinate

bench, (one of us Shri Avinash G.Gharote, J. was member),

considered all documents and allowed the petition directing

to issue Tribe Validity Certificate.



                                                                  .....10/-
 Judgment

                                    140 wp3519.22, 3520.22 & 700.23

                             10

8.         Perusal of the entire material on record reveals

that in support of the claim, petitioners have placed reliance

on following documents of independence era:


           1. birth register extract showing birth date as
           26.6.1921 of daughter of 'Ramchandra' wherein
           'Ramchandra' is recorded as "Halbi";


           2. birth register extract showing birth date as
           7.10.1928 of son of 'Ramchandra' wherein
           'Ramchandra' is recorded as "Halbi";


           3. School Leaving Certificate of uncle of
           petitioners viz. 'Janardan' showing his birth date
           as 20.6.1921 who was admitted in school on
           12.7.1934 and was recorded as "Halbi";


           4. birth register extract showing birth date as
           19.8.1939 of son of 'Ramchandra' viz. 'Anandrao'
           (father of petitioners) was recorded as "Halbi";


           5. copy of sale deed showing grandfather of
           petitioners purchased a house on 3.5.1932
           wherein also 'Ramchandra' was shown to be
           "Halbi", and


           6. School Leaving Certificate of daughter of
           'Ramchandra' was recorded as "Halbi".




                                                          .....11/-
 Judgment

                                     140 wp3519.22, 3520.22 & 700.23

                               11

9.         Besides    the   pre-constitutional    entries,    death

register extract dated 24.7.1974 showing 'Ramchandra' as

"Halbi" and birth extract of daughter of 'Ananda' dated

29.9.1972 recording 'Ananda' as "Halbi".         Thus, there are

consistent entries during pre-independence era showing

forefathers of petitioners to be "Halbi".


10.        The Committee referred the claim of petitioners

for vigilance.   The Vigilance Report indicates two adverse

entries; viz. (1) Dakhal Kharij Register Extract dated

10.9.1914 showing one Maroti Raoji as "Koshti" and

relationship with petitioners as cousin grandfather and (2)

birth entry as 29.6.1944 of daughter 'Mankarna' of one

'Pandurang Ramchandra' recording as "Koshti".


11.        After receipt of the Vigilance Report, Show Cause

Notices were issued to petitioners which were replied by

them denying the relationship with 'Maroti Raoji' and

'Pandurang Ramchandra'.        The Vigilance Report nowhere

discloses that on what basis these two persons are shown to

be related with petitioners.    The family tree submitted by



                                                             .....12/-
 Judgment

                                    140 wp3519.22, 3520.22 & 700.23

                               12

petitioners, along with their Tribe's Claim and family tree

submitted to the Vigilance Committee, nowhere reflects

these both names in the family tree.      If the Vigilance cell

shows these two persons as relatives of petitioners, the

documents must be collected to support the same. As the

Committee placed reliance on these documents, there ought

to have been some material showing connection between

petitioners and these names.


12.        It is, however, material to note that though the

Vigilance Cell Report specifically mentions about the entry in

the register of births and deaths of October 1928 in which a

male child born to 'Ramchandra Raoji' is shown to have died

wherein his caste is recorded as "Halbi", the entry in the

register of births and deaths of 9.8.1939 in which male child

'Ananda' is shown to have born to 'Ramchandra Raoji', the

grandfather of petitioners, which records caste as "Halbi"

and the entry in the School Leaving Certificate, in respect of

maternal aunt of petitioners (Kumari Godu Ramchandra

Rodge), dated 12.7.1955 was recorded her caste as "Halbi".

The Committee has totally ignored these entries while


                                                          .....13/-
 Judgment

                                   140 wp3519.22, 3520.22 & 700.23

                             13

deciding the Tribe Claim of petitioners. The rejection of the

Tribe Claim of petitioners, on the basis of these adverse

entries, ignoring documents of pre-independence era, is

completely unjustified.   The Committee has laid a great

stress on the correction made in the caste of 'Ananda

Ramchandra Rodge', the father of petitioners, in the High

School Admission Register of "Rashitraya High School &

Junior College of Science" where earlier entry of his caste

recording as "Koshti" was changed to "Halbi". Perusal of this

entry at Sr.No.148 in the High School Admission Register of

the said school clearly indicates that the entry of the caste

of the father of petitioners as "Koshti" was corrected by the

school authorities as per order No.14797 dated 23.12.1957

and order No.74797 dated 23.12.1957.         The explanation

given by petitioners for this change, that the correction was

made by the school authorities by duly passing order, has

been brushed aside by the Committee. The reasoning given

by the Committee has no basis whatsoever as it ignores the

pre-independence entries of the years 1928 and 1939 in

respect of grandfathers of petitioners recording caste as



                                                         .....14/-
 Judgment

                                            140 wp3519.22, 3520.22 & 700.23

                                      14

"Halbi". It is nobody's case that there was any reservation

facility available during pre-independence so as to bring

entries of the years 1928 and 1939 in disrepute.                      The

position is otherwise. This is more so, as the entry of the

caste in respect of 'Godu Ramchandra Rodge', the paternal

aunt of petitioners, in the School Leaving Certificate issued

by the Headmaster, Zilla Parishad, Primary Marathi Girls

School, Achalpur City dated 12.7.1955 has recorded her

caste as "Halbi" which has been duly verified by the

Vigilance Cell.


13.          It is well settled that entries of pre-independence

era have probative value.             Sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 of the

Maharashtra       Scheduled      Castes,    Scheduled      Tribes,    De-

notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other

Backward       Classes     and        Special   Backward        Category

(Regulation of Issuance & Verification of) Caste Certificates

Act, 2000 (Act No.23 of 2001) provides that only if the

Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with documentary

evidence produced by applicant, it shall forward application

to    the   Vigilance    Cell   for    conducting    enquiry.        While


                                                                  .....15/-
 Judgment

                                     140 wp3519.22, 3520.22 & 700.23

                              15

interpreting the said Rule, the Honourable Apex Court in the

case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan

Samiti vs. State of Maharashtra and ors (supra) held that,

"in every case, as a matter of routine, the Scrutiny

Committee cannot mechanically forward the application to

Vigilance Cell for conducting an enquiry. When sub rule (2)

of Rule 12 contemplates that only if the Scrutiny Committee

is not satisfied with the documents produced by the

applicant that the case should be referred to Vigilance Cell, it

follows that the Scrutiny Committee is required to pass an

order recording brief reasons why it is not satisfied with the

documents produced by the applicant. Before referring the

case to the Vigilance Cell, application of mind to the material

produced by the applicant is required and therefore, the

application of mind must be reflected in the order sheets of

the Scrutiny Committee.


14.        Perusal of the record nowhere reflects that the

Committee recorded its reasons as to dissatisfaction of the

record and its reasons for referring the application to the

Vigilance Cell.    The Committee placed reliance on the


                                                           .....16/-
 Judgment

                                        140 wp3519.22, 3520.22 & 700.23

                              16

documents collected by the Vigilance Cell showing adverse

entries in the names of 'Maroti Raoji' and 'Pandurang

Ramchandra'. The petitioners have denied the relationship

with both the entries.    Neither the Vigilance Cell nor the

Committee placed any documents on record to show that

these entries are related to forefathers of petitioners and the

petitioners have suppressed the same.


15.          Thus, nothing is on record to show that these

two persons are related with petitioners.         The respondents

could not point out through any documents that the said

entries relate to family members of petitioners.


16.        It is common knowledge that several persons could

be found of the similar names in one villageWhen the

Committee came with a specific case that these adverse

entries are regarding family members of petitioners, the

Committee has to show the connection.


17.          As   observed   earlier,      that    pre-constitution

documents showing the caste of petitioners and their

ancestors are of highest probative value.          The Honourable


                                                              .....17/-
 Judgment

                                           140 wp3519.22, 3520.22 & 700.23

                                 17

Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat

Swarakshan Samiti vs. State of Maharashtra and ors (supra)

held in para No.20 that one of the tests is as laid down in

the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another vs. Additional

Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, reported in

AIR 1995 SCC 94. It lays down that the documents of the

pre-constitution period showing the caste of applicant and

their ancestors have got highest probative value.                     For

example, if an applicant is able to produce authentic and

genuine documents of the pre-constitution period showing

that he belongs to a tribal community, there is no reason to

discard    his   claim   as   prior   to   1950,     there    were    no

reservations provided to the Tribes included in the ST order.

In such a case, a reference to Vigilance Cell is not warranted

at all.


18.          In the present matter, such is not the case. On

the contrary, the Committee ought to have considered that

on the basis of similar documents, the Tribe Validity

Certificate is granted to real brother of petitioners viz.

'Rajesh'. The Committee must be mindful of the fact that it


                                                                 .....18/-
 Judgment

                                    140 wp3519.22, 3520.22 & 700.23

                              18

is not an appellate authority to test correctness of order of

validation issued by this court after scrutiny of the material.

The Committee, while examining the claim of petitioners,

ought to have considered that the Tribe Validity Certificate is

granted to the family member of petitioners in view of

judgments of this court after verifying and scrutinizing the

documents. The said judgment has attained finality as the

same was not challenged.       The Tribe Validity Certificate

granted to the family member of petitioners can only be

ignored in the event of receiving evidence that the Tribe

Validity Certificate has been obtained by playing a fraud. It

is only in such cases, in case fraud is established, the

Committee can re-examine the facts.


19.        In the present case, it is nowhere contended by

the Committee that earlier the Tribe Validity Certificate

granted is either obtained by fraud.    The Committee must

understand that such approach would result into anomaly in

the family if its members have different social status. The

Committee is under obligation to rely upon the Tribe Validity

Certificate granted in view of the judgments of this court


                                                          .....19/-
 Judgment

                                     140 wp3519.22, 3520.22 & 700.23

                              19

and cannot adopt an approach as if it is sitting in appeal

over the judgment of this court.


20.        Learned    Assistant    Government      Pleader     Shri

N.S.Rao for the Committee, vehemently argued that the

earlier Tribe Validity Certificate was obtained by fraud. The

plea of 'Fraud' is one of facts and has necessarily to be

determined on the basis of evidence to be led.           This has

never been done.     The Committee nowhere records in its

finding in the order impugned that earlier Tribe Validity

Certificate was obtained by a fraud. He placed reliance on

catena of decisions wherein it is held that if fraud is noticed,

Caste Validity Certificates can be revoked while exercising

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in

order to prevent abuse of provisions of the Constitution.


21.        In the present matter, neither there is a finding

recorded by the Committee nor any evidence is adduced to

show that earlier Tribe Validity Certificate has been obtained

by a fraud and, therefore, the submission of learned




                                                           .....20/-
 Judgment

                                      140 wp3519.22, 3520.22 & 700.23

                               20

Assistant Government Pleader for the Committee cannot be

accepted.


22.          Insofar as affinity test is concerned, learned

Assistant Government Pleader for the Committee submitted

that petitioners could not prove their affinity test.


23.          In the case of Anand vs. Committee for Scrutiny

and Verification of Tribe Claims and ors, reported in (2012)1

SCC 113, wherein the judgment in the case of Shilpa Thakur

supra was referred to, it was held that the affinity test is not

a litmus test and that document of pre-constitutional era is

of highest probative value in the eyes of law.          The same

view is reiterated by the Honourable Apex Court in the

recent judgment in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur

Jamat Swarakshan Samiti vs. State of Maharashtra and ors

supra      wherein in paragraph No.25 it is held that the

Vigilance Cell, while conducting an affinity test, verifies the

knowledge of the applicant about deities of the community,

customs, rituals, mode of marriage, death ceremonies etc.

in respect of that particular Scheduled Tribe.        By its very



                                                            .....21/-
 Judgment

                                      140 wp3519.22, 3520.22 & 700.23

                               21

nature, such an affinity test can never be conclusive. It is

further held that question of conduct of the affinity test

arises only in those cases where the Scrutiny Committee is

not satisfied with the material produced by the applicant.

While concluding, the Honourable Apex Court held that

affinity test will not be conclusive either way.         When an

affinity test is conducted by the Vigilance Cell, the result of

the test along with all other material on record having

probative value will have to be taken into consideration by

the Scrutiny Committee for deciding the tribe validity claim

and in short, affinity test is not a litmus test to decide a tribe

claim and is not an essential part in the process of the

determination of correctness of a caste or tribe claim in

every case.


24.         In the light of the above, when affinity test is not

an integral part of determination of correctness of claim and

when petitioners had submitted number of documents which

were pre-constitutional having high probative value showing

their tribe as "Halbi" and when a family member holds the

Tribe Validity Certificate, we are of a considered view that


                                                            .....22/-
 Judgment

                                      140 wp3519.22, 3520.22 & 700.23

                               22

the Tribe Claim of petitioners ought to have been considered

by the Committee by giving an appropriate weightage to the

Tribe Validity Certificate issued to the family member of

petitioners by order of this court and also to the pre-

constitutional documents.      The co-ordinate bench of this

court in the case of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional

Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee NO.1 and ors, reported

in 2001(6) Mh.L.J. 401 has held that where tribe claim of a

person     has   been   scrutinized   and   accepted     and    one

Committee has given a finding about validity of his tribe,

another Committee ought not to refuse the same status to

his/her blood relatives who apply subsequently.


25.         In the light of the above facts and circumstances

of the case, since we find that petitions deserve to be

allowed by directing the Committee to issue Tribe Validity

Certificates to petitioners to be "Halbi" Scheduled Tribe,

following order is passed:


                             ORDER
(1) The writ petitions are allowed.
.....23/-
Judgment
140 wp3519.22, 3520.22 & 700.23
(2) The orders dated 30.2.2022 and 9.6.2022 passed by
respondent No.1 - Caste Scrutiny Committee, Amravati
invalidating Tribe Claim of petitioners belonging to "Halbi"
Scheduled Tribe are quashed and set aside.
(3) It is declared that petitioners belong to "Halbi"
Scheduled Tribe and the Committee shall, within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this Court,
issue Caste Validity Certificates to petitioners accordingly.