Bombay High Court
Shyam S/O Gajanan Bhuyar vs S.T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny ... on 18 January, 2024
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
2024:BHC-NAG:1137-DB
1 wp 7485.22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No.7485/2022
Shyam Gajanan Bhuyar,
Aged 18 years, Occ. Student,
R/o Asara Colony, Akot, Dist. Akola .... Petitioner.
-Versus-
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Old By Pass, Chaprashipura, Amravati
Division, Amravati, through its Vice Chairman/
Jt. Commissioner. .... Respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R.S. Suryawanshi, Adv. for petitioner.
Mr. A.A. Madiwale, AGP for respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram : Nitin W. Sambre & Abhay J. Mantri, JJ.
Dated : 18-01-2024.
J U D G M E N T (Per Abhay J. Mantri, J.)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard
finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The challenge is to the order dated 11-04-2022,
passed by the respondent-Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Amravati (for short - the 'Scrutiny
Committee'), thereby invalidating the claim of the petitioner
that he belongs to 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe category, has
preferred this petition.
2 wp 7485.22.odt
3. It is a case of the petitioner that he belongs to the
'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe which is listed at Serial No.44, in the
Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. On
30-06-2016, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Daryapur, District
Amravati, issued a certificate in favour of the petitioner that he
belongs to the 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe.
4. On 10-03-2021, he submitted his tribe claim to the
respondent-Scrutiny Committee along with necessary
documents prior to 1950, so also, he produced five Caste
Validity Certificates issued in favour of his blood relatives for
verification. He claimed that since the documents of the
pre-constitutional era have more probative value, the petitioner
is entitled to the 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe claim.
5. The Scrutiny Committee being dissatisfied with
the documents referred the petitioner's case to the Vigilance
Cell under the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 of the
Scheduled Tribe (Regulation of Issuance of Verification of
Certificate) Rules, 2003 for a detailed enquiry into his Tribe's
claim.
6. The Vigilance Cell, accordingly, conducted the
enquiry and submitted its report to the Committee observing
that the petitioner failed to prove affinity test to demonstrate
that he belongs to the 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe as well as he
failed to show that he belongs to the 'Thakur' caste.
3 wp 7485.22.odt
7. As a sequel of the above, the petitioner was served
with a show cause notice by the respondent-Scrutiny
Committee, calling upon him to explain the aforesaid
discrepancy. The petitioner appeared before the Scrutiny
Committee for a hearing on 12-11-2021, gave his statement,
and submitted the documents in support of his claim.
8. The Scrutiny Committee after considering the
Vigilance Cell Report, as well as a statement of the petitioner,
and evaluating the material placed on record vide impugned
order invalidated the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to
the 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe. Being aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner has preferred this petition.
9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently
submitted that the petitioner in support of his claim has
produced documents from the years 1915 to 1950 of his great-
grandfather and grandfather on record. However, the
respondent- Scrutiny Committee failed to consider those
documents in its proper perspective and gave undue importance
to the documents of the years 1920, 1922, 1924, and 1929.
Wherein his great-grandfather's caste was shown as
Bhat-ji-Bra/Bhat (HkkV@HkV). The respondent-Scrutiny
Committee failed to consider the oldest documents of the year
1915, wherein the great-grandfather's caste was shown as
'Thakur' so also the respondent-Scrutiny Committee failed to
consider the five Validity Certificates granted in favour of his
4 wp 7485.22.odt
blood relatives by the respective Scrutiny Committees and
thereby erred in rejecting his claim. He has invited our attention
to the orders of this Court passed in various petitions granting
caste claims in favour of his blood relatives and submitted that
he proved his caste that he belonged to the ' Thakur' Scheduled
Tribe. Hence, he urged that the petition be allowed by setting
aside the impugned order passed by the respondent- Scrutiny
Committee.
10. To buttress his submissions, the learned Counsel for
the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat
Swarakshan Samiti vs State of Maharashtra and others, reported in
AIR 2023 SC 1657 and the orders passed in various writ petitions
by this Court.
11. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader
canvassed that the petitioner failed to give an explanation in
respect of four documents of the years 1920, 1922, 1924, and
1929, wherein the caste of his great grandfather was shown as
Bhat-ji-Bra/Bhat and therefore passing of the order by the
respondent-Scrutiny Committee is just and proper. He further
submitted that this Court has rejected the petition of one
Pushpsheela Bhuyar who is in blood relation to the petitioner.
Against the said order, Pushpasheela preferred a Special Leave
Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the same is
pending. Therefore, he urged that passing of the orders by this
5 wp 7485.22.odt
Court in other petitions is not helpful for the petitioner in
support of his claim. He has further propounded that the
petitioner failed to prove the affinity test. Lastly, he has
submitted that 'Thakur' has different meanings i.e. 'Thakur' is a
caste, 'Thakur' is a tribe, 'Thakur' is an Honourable title to high
caste people, 'Thakur' is a title to 'Rajput', Maratha, and
Kshatriya people and 'Thakur' is also second name/title of 'Bhat
and Brahmabhat' caste people and therefore the petitioner failed
to prove that he belongs to 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe. Hence,
he has prayed for the dismissal of the petition.
12. We have appreciated the submissions of the learned
Counsel for both parties as well as gone through the judgment
in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti
(supra) and the orders passed in various writ petitions by this
Court.
13. On perusal of documents on record it seems, that
the petitioner has produced the documents dated 01-03-1915,
14-07-1915, 29-03-1927, 27-09-1929, 06-07-1955,
08-07-1955, 18-06-1942 and 29-06-1946 which pertain to his
ancestors i.e. grandfather, great-grandfather, uncle, and cousin
uncle. In all those documents, the caste of his ancestors is
mentioned as 'Thakur'. It is pertinent to note that the
respondent-Scrutiny Committee or vigilance cell has not
disputed those documents. However, the respondent-Scrutiny
Committee while considering the claim of the petitioner has
6 wp 7485.22.odt
given undue importance to the documents of the years 1920,
1922, 1924, and 1929 in respect of his great-grandfather and
grandfather, wherein the caste of his great-grandfather was
shown as Bhat-ji-Bra/Bhat. It is to be noted that as per the law
laid down in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan
Samiti (supra), and Anand vs Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of
Tribe Claims and others, reported in 2011(6) Mh.L.J. 919 the respondent-
Scrutiny Committee bound to consider the oldest documents of
the year 1915 as those documents have greater probative value
than the other documents. The Vigilance Cell has also inspected
those documents and found that the entries therein are correct.
However, the respondent- Scrutiny Committee ignored those
documents while considering the claim of the petitioner.
14. The second crucial point is that the petitioner has
produced five caste Validity Certificates issued by the various
Committees in favour of his blood relatives. However, the
respondent-scrutiny Committee ignored those Validity
Certificates. In fact, as per the dictum laid down in the case of
Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale vs Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee
No.1 and others (2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401), the respondent Scrutiny
committee ought not to have rejected the claim of the petitioner
without assigning any cogent reason but it was incumbent on
the respondent-Scrutiny Committee to issue Validity Certificate
in favour of the petitioner.
15. In the aforesaid background, having regard to the pre-
7 wp 7485.22.odt
constitutional entries of 'Thakur' in the blood relations of the
petitioner as well as the issuance of the caste Validity Certificates
in favour of the blood relatives of the petitioner, it is revealed
that the petitioner's claim for caste validity ought not to have
been rejected when; (a) the relationship with the aforesaid
persons is not in dispute and (b) the affinity test cannot be
termed as a litmus test in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat
Swarakshan Samiti (supra).
Furthermore, as per the law laid down in the
aforesaid judgment "affinity test cannot be termed as a litmus
test particularly; when the Pre-Constitutional documents are
existing and placed on record. Moreover, the said test cannot be
said to be conclusive to find out whether the petitioner belongs
to the 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe or not".
16. Besides, it reveals that the applicant in support of his
claim has produced five caste Validity Certificates issued in
favour of his blood relatives by the respective Scrutiny
Committees. The Vigilance Cell or the respondent-Scrutiny
Committee have not disputed the said certificates but only
contended that the applicant failed to produce a pedigree to
show that those Validity Certificate holders are not blood
relatives of the petitioner. However, it appears from the record
that on 18-02-2021, the petitioner produced the pedigree of his
great-grandfather namely Ambadas along with the affidavit,
wherein the names of the five Validity Certificate holders are
8 wp 7485.22.odt
mentioned as his blood relatives. It also seems from the opinion
dated 31-12-2021 given by the Vigilance Officer that he has
received the pedigree submitted by the petitioner. The
respondent-Scrutiny Committee in its order mentioned that
they have received the affidavit (Namuna-'F' )(at sr. no.4) of the
applicant dated 04-03-2021. In uequk&'Q' (Namuna-'F' ) he has
mentioned the pedigree, however, the respondent-Scrutiny
Committee has not considered the said pedigree in its proper
perspective.
Furthermore, the Scrutiny Committee ignored the
five Validity Certificates issued in favour of the blood relatives
of the petitioner. In fact, the case in hand covered by the dictum
laid down in the case of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale (supra), they
ought not to have refused to grant Validity Certificate in favour
of the petitioner. But The Scrutiny Committee is required to
issue a caste certificate in favour of the petitioner unless the
Scrutiny Committee finds that the validity certificates of such
relatives have been obtained by fraud or were issued without
any jurisdiction. In such eventuality, there is no reason for the
Scrutiny Committee to discard those certificates.
17. In addition, the petitioner has produced the orders
passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.929/2018 (Atul), Writ
Petition No.4957/2019 (Smt. Sarita and another vs. The
Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and
another) and Writ Petition No.5186/2019 (Aalok vs. Scheduled
Tribes Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and another).
9 wp 7485.22.odt
Perused the said orders/ judgments. It appears that in all the
above three judgments, this Court after considering the claim of
the petitioners therein has set aside the orders passed by the
respondent-Scrutiny Committee and allowed the petitions, and
directed the respondent-Scrutiny Committee to issue Validity
Certificate in their favour. The names of the above-mentioned
petitioners in those petitions are mentioned in the pedigree
given by the petitioner as his blood relatives and therefore also,
in our view, the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for.
18. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion and
documents on record, to sum up, it clearly reveals that the
petitioner in support of his claim has relied upon the document
dated 01-03-1915 i.e. the extract of the Revenue/Birth Register
of his great-grandfather, wherein the caste of his great-
grandfather was mentioned as 'Thakur". The said document is
the oldest one in all the documents. Therefore, it has a greater
probative value than the other four documents on which the
respondent-scrutiny Committee has relied. Secondly, the
petitioner has produced five caste Validity Certificates issued in
favour of his blood relatives, and therefore as per the law laid
down in the case of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale (supra), the
petitioner's claim ought not to have been refused and the same
status shall be awarded to the petitioner that he belongs to
'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe. Thus, his case is covered by the law
laid down in the said judgment. Likewise, this Court in three
writ petitions mentioned above has passed the orders by
10 wp 7485.22.odt
directing the Scrutiny Committees to issue Validity Certificates
in favour of the petitioners therein who are in blood relations of
the petitioner. As a result, it seems that the findings given by the
respondent-Scrutiny Committee are contrary to the documents
on record and the law laid down by this Court in the case of
Apoorva Nichale (supra), as well as the orders passed in other writ
petitions mentioned above. Therefore, based on the said
finding, the order cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law and
the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.
19. Needless to clarify, the respondent-Scrutiny
Committee has mentioned that the Special Leave Petition is
pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court against the order
passed by this Court in the case of Pushpsheela. Hence,
considering the aforesaid fact, we deem it appropriate to allow
the petition in the following terms :-
(a) The impugned order dated 11-04-2022 passed by
the respondent-Scrutiny Committee is hereby quashed and
set aside.
(b) It is declared that the petitioner has proved that he
belongs to the 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe category.
(c) Within four weeks from the receipt of a copy of this
judgment, the respondent- Scrutiny Committee shall issue
a Caste Validity Certificate in favour of the petitioner.
(d) It is made clear that the issuance of the Caste Validity
11 wp 7485.22.odt
Certificate in favour of the petitioner would be subject to
the outcome of the Special Leave Petition
No.026471/2018, pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
20. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no
order as to costs.
(Abhay J. Mantri, J.) (Nitin W. Sambre, J)
Deshmukh
Signed by: Mr. S.Deshmukh
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 30/01/2024 14:58:08
