Bombay High Court
Vidya S/O Bhandudas Ingle vs The Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary, ... on 15 October, 2024
Author: M.S. Jawalkar
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote, M.S. Jawalkar
2024:BHC-NAG:11559-DB
wp 2687-2021 +1.odt 1/26
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2687/2021
Vidya s/o Bhanudas Ingle,
Aged about 45 years,
Occupation Service,
R/o Santoba Nivas,
Near Sanskrutik Bhavan,
Mahsul Colony, Jalgaon Jamod,
Tehsil- Jalgaon Jamod,
District Buldhana.
....PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. The Vice-Chairman/
Member-Secretary
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee,
Chaprashipura, Amravati.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Buldhana.
...RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4997/2021
Ravindra S/o Bhanudas Ingle
Aged about 50 yrs, Occ. Nil,
R/o Ganesh Nagar, Dabki Road,
Akola, Distt. Akola
....PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
wp 2687-2021 +1.odt 2/26
The Vice-Chairman/
Member-Secretary
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee,
Chaprashipura, Amravati.
...RESPONDENT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms Preeti Rane, Advocate for petitioners
Mrs. Shamsi Haider, AGP for respondent/State
Mrs. Vaishali Khadekar, Advocate for respondent No.2 in WP No. 2687/2021
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND
SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, JJ..
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 27/09/2024
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 15/10/2024
JUDGMENT (PER SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
Rule.
2. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent
of learned Counsel for the respective parties.
3. Writ Petition No. 2687/2021 is filed by Vidya Bhanudas
Ingle whilst Writ Petition No. 4997/2021 is filed by Ravindra
Bhanudas Ingle. Both the petitioners are real brother and sister.
Since Writ Petition No. 2687/2021 is taken as lead petition, the
facts and contentions of the said Writ Petition are referred herein
below for deciding the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions.
4. The present petition raises question to the order passed
by the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the claim of the
petitioners belong to 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe. Petitioners submit
that they belong to 'Thakur' Schedule Tribe which is enlisted at
Serial No.44 of the Scheduled Tribe (Constitutional Order) 1950. It
is submitted that Tribe certificate dated 18/07/1990, was issued to
the petitioner by the competent authority. The petitioner came to
be selected on merits as 'Assistant Teacher' by the respondent
employer and to that effect appointment order dated 29/07/1997
came to be issued to the petitioner. Therefore, the employer
forwarded his proposal to the Scrutiny Committee along with
necessary documents. The Scrutiny Committee forwarded the
claim to the Vigilance Cell for inquiry, the report was completely
favorable to the petitioner. The Vigilance officer of the Committee
conducted second inquiry in case of petitioner in the year 2019
and accordingly the said vigilance report favors the case of the
petitioner. On affinity part, the finding of the research officer is
negative. The Scrutiny Committee vide order dated 01/07/2021,
(posted on 02/07/2021), and received by the petitioner on
05/07/2021. The tribe claim of the petitioner came to be
invalidated on the grounds viz. the documentary evidence,
affinity and area restriction. Hence, the present petition. This is
the forth round of litigation.
5. The petitioner has filed the following documents before
the Scrutiny Committee :-
Name Relation Document Date of Caste
Document
Bhanudas Petitioner's School Leaving DOB mentioned Thakur
Natthu Ingle father Certificate Std. (IV) as 01.07.1945
Bhanudas Petitioner's School Leaving DOB mentioned Thakur
Natthu Ingle father Certificate Std. (V) as 01.07.1945
Bhanudas Petitioner's Extract of Land 22/03/1948 Thakur
Natthu Ingle father Record
Bhanudas Petitioner's Extract of Revenue 1950 Thakur
Natthu Ingle father Record
Narayan Raghu Petitioner's School Leaving DOB Thakur
uncle Certificate mentioned
12.10.1913 and
admission in
school dated
15/06/1921
Yamuna D/o Petitioner's School Leaving 1926, 1934, 1941 Thakur
Raghu paternal Certificate
aunt
Son of Natthu petitioner's Birth certificate 1944 Thakur
Tukaram grandfather
Ku. Suman Petitioner's School Leaving 1947 Thakur
Narayan Ingle cousin Certificate
sister
6. The genealogy tree is as under:
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the
Vigilance Cell so also the Committee deliberately arrived at an
adverse finding and failed to give any substantial reasons for
rejecting the entries of 'Thakur' and moreover not even making a
whisper of the same in its proper perspective in the impugned
order. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Committee is
liable to be quashed and set aside being illegal, bad in law and
unreasonable.
8. Needless to mention here that after her appointment as
Assistant Teacher, the proposal for verification was forwarded in
the year 2005 along with all relevant documents and caste
certificate dated 18/07/1990. The Vigilance Officer had initially
conducted Vigilance Enquiry in respect of petitioner's caste claim
way back in the year 2007, that report was not served to the
petitioner which was completely in favour of petitioner. Even
finding of Research Officer was in consonance with the
petitioner's claim. The same was dated 28/12/2007 (Annexure 11).
The Vigilance Officer again conducted second enquiry in the year
2019, which was in favour of the petitioner, however, so far as the
document's part is concerned, on affinity part it was negative. The
said Vigilance Report is dated 03/04/2019 (Annexure 12). The
said Vigilance Report was duly replied by the petitioner. The
Scrutiny Committee invalidated caste claim of the petitioner on
the ground of documentary evidence, affinity and area
restrictions. In the said decision for the first time the Scrutiny
Committee had concluded that the tribe certificate of the petitioner
is not authentic. It is the contention of the petitioner that the
Scrutiny Committee failed to appreciate that the genealogy placed
by the applicant is not at all contrary to the genealogy produced
by other relatives before the Scrutiny Committee. Doubting the
relationship of the petitioner with Vikas, Narayan, Prakash is
erroneous as Prakash also relied on similar documents placed by
the petitioner. It is contended that the Scrutiny Committee have
not given due weightage to the old documents of the pre
independence period. The finding of the Scrutiny Committee that
the entries as shown is 'Thakur' and not 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe
is misconceived and illegal. The only entry in the Constitution
Scheduled Tribe Order is 'Thakur'. It is settled law that entry of a
tribe in the list of Scheduled Tribe has to be read as it is and no
authorities including any Court, can add or subtract anything
from such entry. Even the Scrutiny Committee have not followed
the guidelines while applying affinity test.
9. Learned Counsel for petitioner relied on following
citations:
1) Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification
and Tribe Claims and others 2011(6) Mh.L.J. 919,
2) Chairman and Managing Director, FCI and others
Vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and others, AIR 2017 Supreme
Court 3271,
3) Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti
Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 326,
10. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the
respondent supported the order passed by the Scrutiny
Committee and submitted that the caste certificate which was
placed on record by the petitioner as informed by the Tahasil
Office that it was not issued by the said office. In view thereof, it is
concluded by the Scrutiny Committee that the said certificate was
not authentic one and accordingly passed an appropriate order
which needs no interference, accordingly, prayed for the dismissal
of the present petition.
11. Learned Assistant Government Pleader relied on
following citation :
1) Bhubaneshwar Development Authority Vs.
Madhumita Das & others
12. Heard both the parties at length. Perused record and
proceedings of the Caste Scrutiny Committee. During the hearing,
this Court found it necessary to call the record from Tahsil Office
as one of the reason for rejection is that the caste certificate itself is
doubtful, since it does not bear MRC number. Thus, on
10/07/2024, to remove the confusion, it was directed to produce
both the relevant original registers and also to explain about MRC
No. 81, which has been referred in the letter of Tahsildar dated
02/08/2008. In the meantime, both the petitioners have obtained
and produced the caste certificate in Form -C, issued by the SDO
Balapur. The Committee was directed to submit the report in
respect of caste certificate in Form-C, produced by the petitioners.
This Court observed in order dated 20/09/2024, that the report
dated 06/08/2024, submitted by the Committee is not in
consonance with the order dated 22/07/2024, which directed the
Committee to verify the certificate and submit a report about it, as
the report does not speak about consideration about the
documents relating to the tribe claim of the petitioner and the
opinion of the Committee regarding the genuineness of the
certificate. Report is merely based upon the rejection of the tribe
claim of Gajanan Bhanudas Ingle, when all that was required to be
considered by the Committee was to give an opinion regarding
the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner based upon the
certificates now presented to it and the documents filed by the
petitioner in support of such claim. Therefore, this Court has not
accepted the report as it was not in consonance with the direction
and deemed it appropriate for the petition to be decided on merit.
Considering the documents and Vigilance Report, there is no
doubt that there are as many as eight pre independence entries
showing tribe of the forefathers of the petitioner as 'Thakur'. There
is no adverse entry found by the Vigilance Cell also. As such, there
is documentary evidence on record to establish that the forefathers
of the petitioner were belonging to 'Thakur' Community.
13. So far as objection regarding the certificate placed on
record by the petitioner is concerned, the Caste Scrutiny
Committee concluded that it is bogus as it does not bear MRC
number. The letter issued by the authority is relied on by the Caste
Scrutiny Committee. It is the contention of the Caste Scrutiny
Committee that the certificate even does not bear name of the
issuing authority and therefore, it was treated as not genuine and
is a fraudulent certificate.
14. Learned Counsel for petitioner placed on record one
order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee itself, where there
was some technical deficiencies in the certificate issued in favour
of Shri Subhash Mitharam Baiskar, as belonging to Scheduled
Tribe which was declared as technically illegal and the said
certificate was confiscated and cancelled, however, liberty was
granted to that applicant that he can produce the certificate in
prescribed form as per Act and Rules and to resubmit his claim.
Now question here is that though petitioner pointed out that the
then Tahsildar Shri Vinayak Trimbakrao Pandharikar, who issued
the certificate made an endorsement on the certificate that it is
issued by him when he was holding the office of Tahsildar, and,
mistakenly MRC number remained to be entered into. Similarly,
affidavit of that Tahsildar is also placed on record of the Caste
Scrutiny Committee. Though, this exercise is of no help to the
petitioner but Scrutiny Committee ought to have confiscated the
certificate in question and ought to have granted liberty to place
on record the certificate in proper format. The question here is not
that whether certificate is in compliance with the Act and Rules
governing the same. There is no doubt, the Caste Scrutiny
Committee ought to have proceeded on to decide the tribe claim
on the basis of documents placed on record or affinity test. The
order which was relied on by the petitioner in respect of Subhash
Baiskar, which is passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Verification Committee, Amravati, on 21/08/2016, as such, same
course ought to have been adopted by the respondent Committee.
Instead of that the Committee went on to decide the claim on
merit, in view of the fresh certificate in Form-C, obtained by the
petitioner, this Court directed the Scrutiny Committee to verify its
genuineness and submit the report. However, it appears that the
report submitted is not in consonance with the direction. The
Vigilance Report clearly states that the certificates which were sent
to the Scrutiny Committee to verify it's genuineness were issued
by SDO, Balapur. The Caste Scrutiny Committee again informed
in the report that the tribe claim of real brother Shri Gajanan
Bhanudas Ingle, was also invalidated by the Committee on
31/07/2013, on the basis of bogus caste certificate and this order is
not seemed to be challenged. If order in Gajanan Ingle's matter
passed the by Scrutiny Committee dated 31/07/2013, is perused,
it was not decided on the documentary evidence, but as certificate
is concluded by the Committee as not genuine and suspicious, the
same was rejected. As per report given by the Vigilance after
direction of this Court to verify genuineness of the document is in
favour of petitioner. Now question remains only to consider the
decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee while invalidating the
caste claim on the basis of documentary and other evidence. The
enquiry in respect of documents is duly conducted by the Caste
Scrutiny Committee and even if a fresh certificate in the proper
format issued by the Competent Authority is produced, the
decision of the Committee in respect of the documents and affinity
will remain the same. As such, we have decided the matter on
merits.
15. The Scrutiny Committee discarded the genuine
documents including school leaving certificate, school admission
register extract, birth record, on the ground that the petitioner and
her real brother submitted different genealogy by including
different name related to her forefathers which create doubt. The
genealogy given by applicant's father during the vigilance
enquiry, in case of applicant Ravindra dated 31/05/2003 is
produced as under:
Tukaram Ingle
Natthuji Kausalabai Muktabai
Bhaudas Vithabai Shashikalabai
Gajanan Ravindra Vidya Pralhad Mahadev Vasudev Ajabrao
Ganesh Balkrushna
Anil Prakash
Uttara Sakhu
Nanda
16. The genealogy given by the applicant's brother Ravindra
dated 08/03/2003, is as under:
Ranoji
Janoji Dewaji
Tukaram Raoji
Natthuji Raghuji
Bhanudas Narayan
Gajanan Ravindra Prakash Vikas Gajanan
17. The genealogy given by the applicant during Vigilance
Enquiry in her case on 12/12/2017, is as under:
Tukaram
One daughter (name not known) Muktai Natthuji (dead)
Shashikala Leela Bhanudas
Vidya More Ravindra Gajanan
Abhishek Aaryan
Ashutosh Nikita
18. If this genealogy given by parents of Ravindra and Vidya
as well as given by Vidya and Ravindra are perused, it appears
that the parents stated the genealogy upto Tukaram that is great
grandfather only, whereas, Ravindra gave genealogy upto great
great grandfather. However, in the said genealogy also from
Tukaram, the name which are appearing, are also appearing in the
genealogy given by the parents. Even genealogy given by
applicant's brother Ravindra during hearing in his case on
17/03/2020, if seen, the entries up to Tukaram are existing in the
genealogy given by the parents. Thus, if any relative give
genealogy upto his grandfather and not up to the great
grandfather, that cannot be a reason to discard the whole claim,
specifically when, these eight documents including two, collected
by the Vigilance Cell are duly verified and they are pre
independence documents and found to be genuine by the
Vigilance Cell. It is surprising that though Natthu Tukaram
Thakur, is appearing in the genealogy showing child born to
Natthu on 06/11/1944, is discarded on the ground that he is
resident of Akkalkot and therefore not related to the applicant's
family, the Committee itself observed that the ordinary place of
residence is Akola. The petitioner relied on notification dated
31/08/2016, wherein, Akkalkot is included in Municipal
Corporation of Akola. In fact, when the area restriction is removed
by the Amendment Act of 1976, the finding recorded on the basis
of such reasons is erroneous.
19. As such, in our considered opinion, the Caste Scrutiny
Committee has recorded perverse and erroneous finding to
discard the claim of the petitioner. So far as Gajanan Bhanudas
Ingle's claim is concerned, the same was rejected only on the
ground that the certificate is not in compliance with the Act and
Rules, and therefore, it is treated as unauthenticated. However, his
claim was not decided on merits nor any documents were
considered in his claim except the cast certificate issued by
Competent Authority. Even if, this judgment is not challenged by
Gajanan, that will not come in any way in deciding claim of the
petitioner as it was not decided on merits. The Caste Scrutiny
Committee considered many irrelevant material for no reason,
whereas, the Caste Scrutiny Committee ought to have verified the
claim of the petitioner independently on the basis of the whole
documents placed on record by the petitioner. There are as many
as three Vigilance Report on record of 28/12/2007, 03/04/2019,
11/09/2020 and 23/09/2020. In all the Vigilance Report the
genuineness of the documents have been duly verified and they
appear to be genuine. As such, only on the basis of some
erroneous reasons, the claim of the petitioner cannot be rejected.
Even if, caste certificate which was issued does not bear MRC
number, there is no reason to consider it as fraudulent, so long as,
there are sufficient material, documentary evidence on record to
substantiate that the petitioner belongs to 'Thakur' Scheduled
Tribe. In view of the fresh certificates duly verified by the
Vigilance Cell, in our considered opinion, only aspect remained to
be tested is that whether Cast Scrutiny Committee rightly
appreciated the documents and evidence placed on record.
20. Learned Assistant Government Pleader relied on
Bhubaneswar Development Authority Vs. Madhumita (supra),
however, the facts are distinguishable from the facts involved in
the present matter, wherein, respondent joined services against a
post reserved for women belonging to Scheduled Caste on the
basis of caste certificate issued by Tahsildar. The appellant
requested the Sub Collector to enquire into the veracity of the
caste certificate on the ground that the high school certificate and
provisional marksheet of the first respondent at the 12 th standard
examination revealed that she was 'Brahmin'. The Tahsildar
issued a notice to show cause to the first respondent, in her
response the first respondent stated that she was born into
'Brahmin' family, however, she claimed to have attain the status of
a Scheduled Caste upon her marriage to a person belongings to a
Scheduled Caste. In view of that matter, the Hon'ble Apex Court
upheld the cancellation of certificate and order of conducting a
disciplinary enquiry. In the present matter, though Scrutiny
Committee raised doubt over the genuineness of the certificate,
however, proceeded to pass order on merit by appreciating the
evidence on record. In our considered opinion, the evidence and
documents placed on record including pre-independence
document, there is no doubt that the petitioner and her forefathers
belong to 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe. As such, even if, there is some
deficiency or error in the certificate issued, the same will never
preclude the petitioner to obtain fresh certificate as per Act and
Rules.
21. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on Chairman
and Managing Director of FCI and others (supra), in support of
her contention that even if, there is any mistake or error in the
certificate that does not preclude her from obtaining certificate as
per provisions of law and to establish her claim that she belongs to
'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe category. Therefore, even though the
certificate is cancelled, she ought to have been granted
opportunity to furnish fresh certificate on the basis of
documentary evidence, which was duly supplied by her and duly
established, therefore, there is no fraudulent intention to secure
job on the basis of false certificate or false tribe claim.
22. So far as the affinity is concerned, petitioner relied
on Anand V. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims,
(2012) 1 SCC 113, wherein it is held as under:
"22. ....
(i) .....
(ii) While applying the affinity test, which focuses on the
ethnological connections with the Scheduled Tribe, a
cautious approach has to be adopted. A few decades ago,
when the tribes were somewhat immune to the cultural
development happening around them, the affinity test
could serve as a determinative factor. However, with the
migrations, modernisation and contact with other
communities, these communities tend to develop and adopt
new traits which may not essentially match with the
traditional characteristics of the tribe. Hence, the affinity
test may not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing
the link of the applicant with a Scheduled Tribe.
Nevertheless, the claim by an applicant that he is a part of
a Scheduled Tribe and is entitled to the benefit extended to
that tribe, cannot per se be disregarded on the ground that
his present traits do not match his tribe's peculiar
anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals,
customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of
burial of dead bodies, etc. Thus, the affinity test may be
used to corroborate the documentary evidence and should
not be the sole criteria to reject a claim."
23. Learned Counsel for petitioner also placed reliance
on Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra),
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:
"(b) for the reasons which we have recorded, affinity test
cannot 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 caste validity claim; and
(c) In short, affinity test is not a litmus test to decide a
caste 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 view of this position, we are inclined to allow
the petition. As such, the second petition of real brother of
petitioner No. 1 is also required to be allowed as claim is
established on the basis of same documents supplied in
evidence. Accordingly, we proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition No.2687/2021 and Writ Petition
No.4997/2021 are allowed.
(ii) The impugned communication in Writ Petition
No.2687/2021 dated 01/07/2021 in case No.
DD/TCSC/Amt/VBI/194/05-06, issued by respondent
No.1, the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Amravati, is hereby quashed and set aside and the
impugned communication dated 16/10/2020, in Case
No.5-ST/2009/13798, issued by respondent the
Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Amravati, is also quashed and set aside.
(iii) The respondent-Scrutiny Committee is directed
to issue tribe certificate of 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe to
both the petitioners within a period of four weeks from
the receipt of the copy of this judgment.
25. Both the Writ Petitions are disposed of as above.
No Costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Jayashree....
Signed by: Mrs. Jayashree Pethe
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 16/10/2024 10:52:22
