Bombay High Court
Sanjay S/O Manikrao Ingle vs Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate ... on 2 May, 2024
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
2024:BHC-NAG:5227-DB
1 941wp6120.2018..odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 6120 OF 2018
with
WRIT PETITION NO. 164 OF 2020
WRIT PETITION NO. 6120 OF 2018
Sanjay s/o. Manikrao Ingle,
age 49 yrs, Occ. Service,
R/o. Bhawani Vesh, Daryapur,
Tahsil Daryapur, District Amravati .....PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee Irwin Chowk,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
Through its Vice Chairman/Jt. Commissioner,
2. Education Officer, (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Amravati
3. Shri Shivaji Education Society,
Amravati, Through its secretary,
Gadge Nagar, Amravati .... RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION NO. 164 OF 2020
Aditya S/o. Sanjay Ingle,
age 18 yrs, Occ. Student,
R/o. Bhawani Vesh, Daryapur,
Tahsil Daryapur, District Amravati .....PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee Irwin Chowk,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
Through its Vice Chairman/ Jt. Commissioner
2. Maharashtra Council of Agriculture ]
Education & Research, 132/B Bhamburda, ]
Bhosale Nagar, Pune 411 007 ]
through its Director General ]
]
3. Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh, ] Respondent Nos. 2,3,4
Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola ] deleted as per Court
through its Registrar ] order dated 21.12.2022.
2 941wp6120.2018..odt
4. College of Agriculture, Akola, ]
Tq. & Dist. Akola, through its Principal. ] ....RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. H.D. Dangre, counsel for the petitioners,
Ms. Kalyani Marpakwar, AGP for respondent Nos. 1& 2/State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- NITIN W. SAMBRE &
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE : 02.05.2024
JUDGMENT (Per: Abhay J. Mantri, J.)
These petitions arise out of an order dated 01.08.2018,
passed by the Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Amravati Division, Amravati (for short- " the Committee"), thereby
negating the claim of the petitioners that they belong to ' Thakur'
Scheduled Tribe, therefore, both petitions are heard and decided
together.
2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6120/2018 has
obtained a caste certificate dated 01.07.1986 from the Executive
Magistrate, Daryapur, District Amravati that he belongs to the
'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe. Based on the said certificate, he was
appointed to the post of Laboratory Attendant at respondent No. 3
Education Society on 02.02.1993. After joining the duties, he
submitted a proposal for verification of his caste claim. The
Headmaster of Shivaji Vidyalaya vide letter dated 15.12.2003 has
forwarded his caste certificate along with documents to respondent
3 941wp6120.2018..odt
No.1 Committee for verification of his caste claim.
3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 164/2020 has also
obtained a caste certificate from the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Daryapur, District Amravati dated 02.06.2016 that he belongs to the
'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner has submitted a proposal
for verification of his caste claim to the College. The college vide
letter dated 21.06.2017 forwarded the proposal for verification of
his caste claim to the Committee along with necessary documents.
4. The Committee, being dissatisfied with the documents,
forwarded the case to the Vigilance Cell. Accordingly, the Vigilance
Cell conducted an enquiry and submitted its report to the
Committee. The Committee, after considering the report as well as
the documents on record, vide order impugned has invalidated the
petitioners' claim that they belong to the " Thakur" Scheduled Tribe.
Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred these
petitions.
5. Mr. H.D. Dangre, the learned counsel for the petitioners
has vehemently argued that the petitioners in support of their claim
have produced as many as 28 documents out of which 7 documents
4 941wp6120.2018..odt
are of the pre-independence era from the year 1938 to 1950
pertaining to their ancestors, however, the Committee has not
considered the same in its proper perspective and gave undue
importance to the single document of the year 1935 and outrightly
rejected the claim of petitioners that they belong to ' Thakur'
Scheduled Tribe. To buttress submissions, he has relied upon the
following Judgments:
(i) Jaywant Dilip Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others,
2018(5) ALL MR. 975;
(ii) Pallavi d/o. Prakashrao Pawar Vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste
Scrutiny Committee, Amravati and Others, 2019(4)Mh. L.J. 855;
(iii) Tatya Vishnu Ranshur Vs. The State of Mah. and Others,
2020(1)All MR 612;
(iv) Amarnath s/o. Madanlal Thakur Vs. The Scheduled Tribe
Certificate Scrutiny Committee and Another, 2022(3) ALL MR 254;
(v) Harshal s/o.Rajendra Thakur Vs. The State of Mah. Dept.
Tribal Development Thr. Secretary and Anr (Writ Petition No.
11342/2019);
(vi) Rahul S/o. Ramesh Shinde Vs. The State of Maharashtra and
Ors (Writ Petition No. 7500/2022);
(vii) Yogesh Macchindra More Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
(Writ Petition No. 434/2016 and
(viii) Ranjit Dadosa More Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (W. P.
No. 4941/2022).
In view of the above, he would urge for allowing the petitions.
6. Ms. Kalyani Markpakwar, the learned AGP has contended
that the birth record of Ramkrushna, the great-grandfather of the
petitioner Sanjay shows that he belongs to the ' Bhat' caste. The said
5 941wp6120.2018..odt
entry appears contrary to the entries in other documents. According
to her, this anomaly would show that the petitioners do not belong
to the 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe. In support of her submissions, she
has relied upon the judgments cited in an affidavit in reply.
Furthermore, she submitted that the petitioners had failed to prove
the affinity test as well as they were residents of the area mentioned
in the Presidential Order, 1956. Thus, he would urge that passing of
the order impugned is just and proper, and no interference is
required in it.
7. We have appreciated the rival submissions. Perused the
impugned order, documents, and record. We have gone through the
Judgments relied upon by both parties.
8. The record shows that except for one adverse entry of the
birth record which depicts that one Ramkrushna belongs to the
'Bhat' caste, however, the entries in the rest of the 28 documents
show that the petitioners and their ancestors belong to the " Thakur"
caste. Out of the 28 documents, 7 documents are of the pre-
constitutional era i.e. from the year 1938 to 1950. Those documents
support the claim of the petitioners.
6 941wp6120.2018..odt
9. It further reveals that the Vigilance Cell alleges that
Ramkrushna is the great-grandfather of petitioner Sanjay. However,
by filing a reply before the Committee, the petitioners categorically
disputed the entry of the year 1935 and denied the said document.
The petitioners further candidly denied that alleged Ramkrushna is
the grandfather of petitioner Sanjay, rather they claimed that the
father of petitioner Sanjay was born on 10.11.1932. Therefore, it is
not possible that the entry about the birth of his grandfather
Ramkrushna was of the year 1935. Therefore, they denied the said
document. It is also averred that till this date; no caste validity
certificate has been obtained by their relatives nor any case for a
grant of validity has been rejected. A perusal of said document
denotes that one female Baby was born on 03.02.1935. The name of
the father of said baby was shown as Ramkrushna. The name of
Ramkrushna's father is not mentioned therein, but in the bracket,
'Bhat' is mentioned.
10. A perusal of entry in the school admission register, for the
year 1940 depicts that the father of petitioner Sanjay was born on
10.11.1932 and his caste was shown as "Thakur." The said entry
appears before the entry of the year 1935. The said document along
7 941wp6120.2018..odt
with 6 other pre-independent era documents or their genuineness is
neither disputed nor denied by the Committee or vigilance Cell, as
such, there is no reason to disbelieve the entries in said documents.
The said 7 documents are from the year 1938 to 1950 and in all
those documents, a caste of the ancestors of the petitioners is shown
as "Thakur." The said documents have more probative value.
11. The main controversy arises whether a single
indeterminate entry in the ambiguous document would prevail over
the other undisputed entries in 7 pre-constitutional era documents.
Certainly, in our opinion consistent entries in 7 undisputed pre-
constitutional era documents would prevail over the ambiguous
single entry as entries in 7 documents have more probative value
than a single ambiguous entry in an indecisive document. Moreover,
the learned counsel has submitted that in view of the dictum laid
down in the judgments in the cases of Harshal s/o.Rajendra Thakur,
Rahul S/o. Ramesh Shinde, Yogesh Macchindra More, and Ranjit Dadosa
More (cited supra) the single entry is not sufficient to discard the
claim of the petitioners that they belong to the ' Thakur' Scheduled
Tribe since the other 7 oldest entries of the pre-constitutional era are
having greater probative value. Besides, it cannot be ignored that the
8 941wp6120.2018..odt
petitioners have categorically denied the entry of the year 1935 as
well as their relationship with the alleged Ramkrushna. Thus, it
appears that the said document is under the cloud. In such an
eventuality, it cannot be said that the said vague document of the
year 1935 vitiates the entries of other documents or claims of the
petitioners as they belong to the "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the
area restriction in the state of Maharashtra for the " Thakur"
community has been removed by the Order (Amendment) Act No.
108 of 1976 therefore in view of the dictum laid down in the cases
of Jaywant Dilip Pawar, Tatya Vishnu Ranshur, and Amarnath s/o.
Madanlal (cited supra) it would not affect the claim of the petitioner
on the ground of area restriction. Similarly, the affinity test cannot
be termed as a litmus test as has been held in the cases of Pallavi d/o.
Prakashrao Pawar and Writ Petition No. 597/2021 Anand s/o. Dattatraya
Kumbhare. (cited supra).
13. It is pertinent to note that by virtue of the Order
(Amendment Act No. 108) of 1976, the area restriction in the State
of Maharashtra for the Schedule Tribe community has been
9 941wp6120.2018..odt
removed. As such, the findings of the Committee with regard to area
restriction are not sustainable in the eyes of the law. Similarly, the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat
Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (AIR 2023 SC
1657) has held that "the affinity test cannot be termed as a litmus
test, particularly, when pre-constitutional documents are existing
and placed on record. Moreover, the test cannot be said to be
conclusive in finding out whether the petitioner belongs to the
'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe." In such an eventuality, the findings of the
Committee that the petitioner failed to prove affinity test is also not
sustainable in the eyes of law. Hence, we find substance in the
contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner in that regard.
14. Furthermore, it would be proper to refer to the
observations made in para 20 of the judgment in the case of
Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (Supra) , which
reads as under:-
"20. It is not possible to exhaustively lay down in
which cases the Scrutiny Committee must refer the
case to the Vigilance Cell. One of the tests is as laid
down in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil 1. It lays
down that the documents of the pre-Constitution
period showing the caste of the applicant and their
ancestors have got the highest probative value. For
example, if an applicant is able to produce
10 941wp6120.2018..odt
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."
15. Thus, to sum up the aforesaid discussion, it clearly
reveals that the petitioners in support of their claim have relied upon
as many as seven pre-constitutional era documents from the year
1938 to 1950. In all those documents, the caste of the ancestors of
the petitioners is mentioned as "Thakur". It also seems that the
oldest entry is of the year 1932 i.e. before the disputed and vague
entry of the year 1935. However, the Committee has not considered
the entries in the other seven documents and has given undue
importance to the entry in one disputed and vague document and
negated the claim of the petitioner.
16. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion and the law
laid down in aforecited judgments, it is apparent that the petitioner
has proved that he belongs to the 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe.
17. In the aforesaid background, in our opinion, based on the
findings given in the order impugned, the same is not sustainable in
11 941wp6120.2018..odt
the eyes of the law. Therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and
set aside. As a result, we held that the Committee had erred in
rejecting the claim of the petitioners.
18. In the light of the discussion supra, we deem it appropriate
to allow the present petitions and proceed to pass the following order:
(i) The Writ petitions are allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 01.08.2018 passed by the
respondent - Committee is hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) It is declared that the petitioners belong to the
'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe.
(iv) The respondent Committee is directed to issue a
Caste Validity Certificate to the petitioners as they belong to
'Thakur' Scheduled Tribes within a period of four weeks
from the production of a copy of this judgment.
(v) As a sequel of the above, respondents No. 2 & 3 are
directed not to take any coercive action against petitioner
Sanjay S/o. Manikrao Ingle, based on the order dated
01.08.2018.
19. Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. No cost.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
Signed by: Mr. R. S. Belkhede
Belkhede
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 03/05/2024 17:27:56
