Bombay High Court
Anuradha D/O Dashrath Shinde vs The Vice-Chairman/ Member-Secretary, ... on 18 September, 2024
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
2024:BHC-NAG:10465-DB
1 wp3477.2022..odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3477 OF 2022
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3868 OF 2022
WRIT PETITION NO. 3477 OF 2022
1. Yogesh S/o Dashrath Shinde
Aged 21 yrs, Occ Student
2. Rupesh S/o Dashrath Shinde
Aged 23 yrs, Occ. Student
Both r/o At Post: Chinchmbapen,
Tahsil: Risod, District: Washim ...... PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1. The Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary
Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Chaprashipura, Amravati
2. The Principal,
Government Polytechnic College,
Washim
3. The Principal,
JSPM Rajashri Shahu College of
Engineering, Tathawade,
Pune,
4. The Commissioner,
State Common Entrance Test Cell,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai
5. The vice Chancellor/Registrar,
Savitribai Fule University,
Pune .....RESPONDENTS
2 wp3477.2022..odt
WRIT PETITION NO. 3868 OF 2022
Anuradha D/o Dashrath Shinde,
Aged 25 yrs, Occ. Student,
R/o. At Post Chinchambapen,
Tahsil Risod, District Washim ...... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
The Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary
Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Chaprashipura, Amravati .....RESPONDENT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Preeti Rane, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. J.Y. Ghurde, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.
1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- NITIN W. SAMBRE & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE : 18.09.2024
JUDGMENT (Per : Abhay J. Mantri, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by
consent of learned counsel, appearing for the parties.
2. The challenge in both the petitions is to the impugned
orders dated 20.04.2022 and 28.04.2022, passed by the respondent
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati (for
short, -"the Committee"), thereby invalidating the tribe claim of the
petitioners respectively. Since the petitioners in these petitions are
brothers and sister who are challenging the invalidation of their
3 wp3477.2022..odt
caste claim, the petitions are decided by this common judgment,
with the consent of the respective parties.
3. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3477/2022, who are
brothers, claim that they belong to the Thakur Scheduled Tribe. The
competent authority accordingly issued caste certificates dated
07.03.2018 and 17.03.2018 in their favour.
4. On 28.06.2018 and 30.07.2018, through their college
and school, the petitioners submitted a proposal for a grant of
validity before the Committee. Being dissatisfied with the
documents, the Committee forwarded the same to the Vigilance Cell
for detailed enquiry. After completing the enquiry, the Vigilance Cell
submitted its report on 27.06.2019. During the enquiry, the
Vigilance Cell found that the School Leaving Certificate dated
10.08.1976 pertains to their father, Dashrath, whose caste was
recorded as 'Hindu Thakur'. Therefore, the Committee has called
upon the petitioners to explain the adverse entry vide show cause
notice dated 03.07.2019. The Committee was dissatisfied with the
Vigilance Cell's report; therefore, it again forwarded the documents
on 21.09.2020 to the Vigilance Cell for re-enquiry. Since 2018, the
4 wp3477.2022..odt
proposal for a grant of validity has been pending with the
Committee. As the petitioners were in need of a validity certificates,
they approached this Court vide Writ Petition No. 2286/2020,
wherein vide order dated 17.09.2020, this Court directed the
Committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioners within a
period of four months. After re-enquiry, on 17.11.2020, the
Vigilance Cell submitted a report to the Committee. Then again, by
issuing a show cause notice dated 08.12.2020, the petitioners were
called upon to explain the adverse material found against them
during the enquiry.
5. Petitioner Anuradha in Writ Petition No. 3868/2022 is a
real sister of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3477/2022. On
07.03.2018, a caste certificate was issued in her favour, indicating
that she belongs to the 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner was
pursuing studies in B.Ed. Course. She submitted the caste certificate
along with the documents to the Committee for a grant of the
validity certificate. After consideration of the documents, the
Committee felt it was necessary to get vigilance enquiry; therefore,
they forwarded the documents to the Vigilance Cell for detailed
enquiry. On 23.03.2021, the Vigilance Cell submitted its report,
5 wp3477.2022..odt
conducted in the case of real brothers Yogesh and Rupesh. After
appreciating the documents available on record and the Vigilance
Cell Report, the Committee has rejected the claim of the petitioners,
hence, this petition.
6. Ms. Rane, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, argued
that the petitioners, in support of their caste claim, have produced
six pre-constitutional era documents from 1916 to 1951 pertaining
to their grandfather, great-grandfather and great-great-grandfather
as well as cousin-grandfather in which their caste has been recorded
as 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe. However, the Committee has not
considered those pre-constitutional documents, which have more
probative value than the subsequent document of 1976 in which
their father's caste is recorded as ' Hindu Thakur.' She submitted
that 'Hindu' is a religion and not a caste, so said entry could not
affect the petitioners' claim. She further propounded that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the catena of judgments, has held that
the affinity test cannot be termed as a litmus test while considering
caste claims.
6 wp3477.2022..odt
7. Per contra, Mr. Ghurde, the learned Assistant
Government Pleader, vehemently argued that since the entry of
1976 about the petitioners' father denoting his caste as ' Hindu
Thakur', so also, the petitioners failed to prove the affinity test.
Thus, the petitioners failed to discharge the burden cast upon them
in view of the provisions of Section 8 of the Maharashtra Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jati),
Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes, and Special Backward
Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste
Certificate Act, 2000, ( for short- the Act 2000). Therefore, the
Committee has rightly invalidated the petitioners' claims.
8. We have appreciated the rival submissions and perused
the documents on record.
9. The petitioners, to substantiate their claim, produced
seventeen documents, out of which six are from the pre-
constitutional era from 1916 to 1951 in relation to their
grandfather, great-grandfather, and great-great-grandfather, as well
as cousin-grandfather. It is pertinent to note that neither the
Vigilance Cell nor the Committee have disputed these six
7 wp3477.2022..odt
pre-constitutional era documents. Therefore, there is no reason to
disbelieve the said documents. Furthermore, it is a settled legal
position that "the pre-constitutional era documents have more
probative value than the subsequent documents ." In all these six
documents, ancestor's caste has been recorded as a " Thakur"
Schedule Tribe. However, the Committee not only relied upon the
school leaving certificate dated 10.08.1976 of the petitioner's father,
wherein his caste was recorded as ' Hindu Thakur', but also, on the
ground of affinity test, invalidated the petitioner's caste claim.
10. It is to be noted that 'Hindu' is a religion, not a caste. The
pre-constitutional era documents from 1916 to 1951 denote that the
petitioners' ancestors belonged to the " Thakur" caste; therefore,
those documents have more probative value.
11. In such an eventuality, we are of the opinion that the
Committee erred in discarding the caste claim based on 1976
document and the affinity test instead of six pre-constitutional
documents. Furthermore, in the catena of judgments, the Apex
Court has held that "pre-constitutional documents have more
probative value, and the affinity test cannot be termed as a litmus
8 wp3477.2022..odt
test." Therefore, the findings recorded by the Committee are not
sustainable in the eyes of the law and are liable to be set aside.
12. In addition to the above, the petitioners have produced
the validity certificate of their relative, Pralhad Nanoba Shinde and
contended that in view of the law laid down in the case of Apoorva
D/o Vinay Nichale V/s. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee
and others 2010(6) Mh.L.J.401, the petitioners are entitled to get the
Validity Certificates.
13. As against, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
asserted that in the year 2004, the petitioner's cousin uncle namely,
Vinod Rangnath Shinde, had submitted a caste claim before the
Committee, which was invalidated on 16.06.2004, the said order
was challenged by filing Writ Petition No. 2912/2004, which this
Court has dismissed. Against the said dismissal of the writ petition,
Vinod and others have preferred Special Leave Petition No.
26365/2018 before the Apex Court; it is informed that the same is
still pending. Therefore, he has canvassed that based on the said
order, the petitioners are not entitled to claim the relief as sought.
9 wp3477.2022..odt
14. To counter, Ms. Rane strenuously argued that while
considering the claim of the petitioner's uncle, no separate finding
has been recorded against his caste claim in the judgment dated
01.08.2018. She has further submitted that in Writ Petition No.
7485/2022, this Court has granted relief in favour of the petitioners
therein subject to the outcome of the Special Leave Petition.
Therefore, she has prayed for allowing this petition.
15. It is to be noted that the learned Assistant Government
Pleader fairly submitted that nothing has been discussed about the
claim of the petitioner's Uncle Vinod in the said judgment, so also,
no categorical finding has been recorded against the claim of Vinod.
16. Perusal of the said judgment reveals that nothing has
been discussed about the petitioner's uncle Vinod's claim in the said
judgment. No separate finding has been recorded against his caste
claim, but solely based on the grounds of the affinity test; by an
indeterminate and common judgment, the petition has been
dismissed. There is no specific adverse finding recorded against
Vinod's claim; hence, we found substance in the submission of Ms.
Rane in that regard.
10 wp3477.2022..odt
17. Having considered the above discussion, in our view, the
invalidation of caste claims solely on the grounds of affinity test and
the document of the year 1976 is not sustainable in the eyes of the
law, specifically when the petitioners have produced six pre-
constitutional era documents denoting caste of their ancestors as
"Thakur", which have more probative value than subsequent
documents. Furthermore, the validity certificate issued in favour of
the relative of the petitioner, namely Pralhad, supports the
petitioner's claim; apart from that, in view of the law laid down in
the case of Apoorva Nichale (supra), the petitioners are entitled to get
the Validity Certificates. That being so, the petitioners have
discharged the burden cast on them as contemplated under Section
8 of the Act and demonstrated that they belong to the ' Thakur'
Scheduled Tribe.
18. In the aforesaid background, we are of the opinion that
the committee has erred in rejecting the caste claim of the
petitioners. As a result, both orders deserve to be set aside. Thus,
considering the pendency of Vinod's Case in the Supreme Court and
the facts as discussed above, we deem it appropriate that the
petitioners are entitled to get caste validity certificates subject to the
11 wp3477.2022..odt
outcome of the Special Leave Petition pending before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. Hence, we pass the following order:
i) The impugned orders dated 20.04.2022 and
28.04.2022 are hereby quashed and set aside.
ii) It is declared that the petitioners have proved that
they belong to the "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe.
iii) The respondent Committee is directed to issue
validity certificates in favour of the petitioners within six
weeks from the date of production of this order.
iv) It is made clear that the issuance of caste validity
certificates in favour of the petitioners would be subject
to the outcome of the Special Leave Petition No.
26365/2018, pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
19. Rule is made partly absolute in the above term.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
R. Belkhede,
Signed by: Mr. R. S. Belkhede
Personal Assistant
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 20/09/2024 10:41:48
