Bombay High Court
Atul Panjabrao Bhuyar vs The Scheduled Tribes Certificate ... on 18 December, 2023
Author: Anuja Prabhudessai
Bench: Anuja Prabhudessai
2023:BHC-NAG:17637-DB
1 wp929.2018.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.929/2018
Atul Panjabrao Bhuyar,
aged 52 Yrs., Occ. Assistant Teacher,
Gawlipura, (Karanja Lad),
Dist. Washim. ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1. The Scheduled Tribes Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, through its
Principal Secretary, Chaprashipura,
Amravati.
2. The Zilla Parishad,
Washim, through its Chief Executive
Officer. ... Respondents
-----------------
Mr. R.S. Parsodkar, Counsel for the Petitioner.
Mrs. R.V. Sharma, A.G.P. for respondent No.1.
----------------
CORAM :- SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESAI &
MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED :- 18.12.2023
JUDGMENT (Per Mrs. Vrushali V. Joshi, J.)
Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated
6.1.2018 passed by the respondent No.1 invalidating the caste
claim of the petitioner as belonging to "Thakur" (Scheduled
2 wp929.2018.odt
Tribe). The Scrutiny Committee has not considered the validity
certificates issued to the blood relatives of the petitioner while
invalidating his caste claim.
3. The petitioner belongs to "Thakur" (Scheduled Tribe)
which is enlisted at serial No.18 of the The Constitution
(Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. The petitioner was appointed in
Zilla Parishad, Washim as an Assistant Teacher on 11.10.1993.
His caste claim was referred to respondent No.1 Scrutiny
Committee by Zilla Parishad on 5.5.2015.
4. The petitioner has submitted the documents of his
father Panjabrao Bhuyar dated 10.7.1947 in support of his caste
claim of "Thakur", the school leaving certificate of Panjabrao
dated 18.6.1942, dakhal kharij register of father of petitioner
dated 18.6.1942, the entry of grand-father of the petitioner in
death certificate of his son dated 27.9.1929, the birth entry of the
daughter born to Narayan dated 21.10.1929, document showing
son born to Narayan dated 9.11.1933, the caste of great grand-
father Ambadas is also recorded as "Thakur" in the entry dated
3 wp929.2018.odt
1.3.1915 showing son born to him. All these documents
produced by the petitioner are of Thakur entry.
5. The Vigilance Cell obtained birth extract of one
Ambadas, who is stated to be the great grandfather of the
petitioner. The caste of Ambadas is recorded as Bhat and birth
date is recorded as 24.3.1924. The petitioner had relied upon the
birth extracts to show that a son was born to Ambadas on
01.03.2015 and that his great grandchildren i.e. daughter and son
of Narayan were born in the year 1929 and 1933. These
documents reveals that the extract referred to in the vigilance
report is not that of the great grandfather of the petitioner.
Without considering his explanation and only relying on the
document of Ambadas where the entry is shown as Bhat the
Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the caste claim. Another
ground raised is of not matching affinity.
6. During the pendency of this petition the blood
relatives of the petitioner received the validity certificates and by
filing additional affidavit, the petitioner has brought on record
that his five relatives have received the validity certificates. It is
4 wp929.2018.odt
prayed that considering the ratio laid down in the case of
Apoorva Vinay Nichale V/s. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee No.1 and others reported in 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401 the
petitioner be issued the validity certificate.
7. The respondent No.1, has filed reply, stating that the
oldest entry shows the caste of great grandfather of the petitioner
as Bhat. The validity certificate of relatives relied on are issued
after filing of this petition hence cannot be considered. Hence,
respondent No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
8. In view of the additional affidavit filed by the
petitioner stating that five blood relatives have received the
validity certificates of "Thakur" and as per the ratio laid down in
Apoorva Vinay Nichale (supra) the petitioner is entitled for
issuance of validity certificate of "Thakur" (Scheduled Tribe).
The persons whose validity certificates are produced before us by
the petitioner are mentioned in the family tree, therefore, it is
proved that the petitioner belongs to "Thakur" (Scheduled Tribe).
The documents which are filed on record also prove that the
petitioner belongs to "Thakur" (Scheduled Tribe).
5 wp929.2018.odt
9. Insofar as the aspect of affinity is concerned, this issue
has now been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its
decision in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan
Samiti V/s. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2023(2)
Mh.L.J. 785. It has been held therein that report of the Vigilance
Cell cannot be treated as a litmus test. The entire material on
record has to be considered while verifying the tribe claim of a
candidate.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order passed
by the Scrutiny Committee is set aside. The Scrutiny Committee
shall issue validity certificate of "Thakur" (Scheduled Tribe) to the
petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of this
judgment.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no
orders as to costs.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESAI, J.)
Tambaskar.
