Bombay High Court
Premlata D/O Manoharrao Sonparote vs The S.T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny ... on 4 March, 2025
Author: Avinash G. Gharote
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
2025:BHC-NAG:2128-DB
-- 1 -- WP 5045.2024 (J).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5045 OF 2024
Premlata D/o Manoharrao Sonparote
age : 48 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Vishnu Kamal Nagar, Near .. Petitioner
Dinbai School, Digras, Dist. Yavatmal
Versus
1) The Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, through its
Member Secretary and Deputy
Director, Sanna Building,
Opp. Govt. Rest House,
Camp Amravati - 444 601
2) The Joint Director, Higher Education, .. Respondents
Amravati Division, Amravati
3) The Registrar, Sant Gadge Baba,
Amravati University, Amravati
4) B.B.Arts, N.B.Commerce and
B.P.Science College, through its
Principal, Digras, Dist. Yavatmal
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ashwin Deshpande, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. A.A.Madiwale, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent
Nos.1 & 2.
Ms. Vedika Thakre, Advocate for respondent No.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE : MARCH 04, 2025
PAGE 1 OF 8
-- 2 -- WP 5045.2024 (J).doc
JUDGMENT (PER : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)
Heard. Rule. Heard finally, with the consent of the
learned counsel, appearing for the parties.
(2) The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order dated
31/07/2024 passed by the respondent No.1 Schedule Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati (for short 'the Committee'),
thereby invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner that she belongs
to "Halbi", Scheduled Tribe, has filed this petition.
(3) The petitioner claims that she belongs to the "Halbi"
Scheduled Tribe. Accordingly, on 12/01/1989, the Executive Magistrate,
Achalpur, issued a caste certificate in her favour. The petitioner was
appointed as 'Lecturer' on the post reserved for the Scheduled Tribe
category with respondent No.4 College at Digras vide appointment
order dated 15/11/1999. Her caste certificate and relevant documents
were submitted to the respondent No.1 Committee through the
Principal, Rashtriya Junior College of Science, Achalpur, for verification.
(4) The petitioner earlier had filed a Writ Petition
No.3841/2013 challenging the cancellation of the validity certificate of
the petitioner belonging to "Halba-Koshti" in view of the judgment
reported in 2001(1) Mh.L.J. (1) (State of Maharashtra vs. Milind
Katware). "By order dated 04/01/2024, the said writ petition was
PAGE 2 OF 8
-- 3 -- WP 5045.2024 (J).doc
disposed of by permitting the petitioner to raise a claim of her
belonging to "Halbi", a Scheduled Tribe, as according to her, that was
the original claim raised in the application for grant of validity
certificate. The matter was, accordingly, remanded to the respondent
Caste Scrutiny Committee." Pursuant to the decision in the said writ
petition, the petitioner appeared before the Committee on 22/
23/01/2024 and submitted all relevant documents to support her tribe
claim.
(5) The Committee was of the view that a detailed enquiry is
required in the matter, as per Rule 12(2) of the Maharashtra Scheduled
Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules,
2003. The Vigilance Cell thoroughly inquired into the matter and
submitted a report to the Committee on 01/07/2024, observing that
some adverse entries, i.e. "Sali", had been found during the enquiry
pertaining to her grandfather. Accordingly, the Committee issued a
show-cause notice to the petitioner, calling upon her explanation about
the said adverse entries. The petitioner appeared before the Committee
along with her father on 11/07/2024 and submitted her explanation to
the show-cause notice. The Committee, after considering the Vigilance
Cell report, explanation submitted by the petitioner and documents on
record, invalidated her claim that she belongs to the "Halbi" Scheduled
Tribe, hence, this petition.
PAGE 3 OF 8
-- 4 -- WP 5045.2024 (J).doc
(6) The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
contended that the petitioner, to substantiate her claim, has produced
28 documents on record. Out of them, 10 documents are from the pre-
constitutional era pertaining to her father, grandfather, cousin-
grandfather and great-grandfather, wherein their caste had been
recorded as "Halbi" Scheduled Tribe. The Vigilance Cell has not
disputed those documents. He further canvassed that the documents of
1929 and 1949 had no concern with the petitioner, and therefore, the
petitioner had categorically denied those documents by filing an
explanation. Thus, the caste "Sali" mentioned in those documents
would not hamper the case of the petitioner. However, the Committee,
without considering those 10 pre-constitutional era documents, had
given undue importance to the 02 documents that were not related to
her and passed the impugned order. Therefore, it cannot be sustained
in the eyes of the law and is liable to be set aside. Hence, he urged for
allowing the present petition.
(7) Learned Assistant Government Pleader strenuously
resisted the petition on the ground that two adverse entries of "Sali"
had been discovered during the Vigilance Cell enquiry; those entries
pertained to the grandfather of the petitioner, and as those entries
being the pre-constitutional era has greater probative value, therefore,
passing of the order by the Committee is just and proper and no
interference is required in it. The next submission is in relation to the
PAGE 4 OF 8
-- 5 -- WP 5045.2024 (J).doc
affinity test and the rejection of the claim based on it. The petitioner
failed to prove the affinity test and could not discharge the burden cast
upon her to demonstrate that she belongs to the "Halbi" Scheduled
Tribe. As such, she was urged to dismiss the petition.
(8) We have appreciated the rival contentions of the learned
counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and record.
We have also gone through the original record and returned it.
(9) At the outset, it appears that the petitioner, in support of
her claim, has produced 28 documents, out of which 10 documents are
from the pre-constitutional era, from 1922 to 1950, pertaining to her
father, grandfather, great-grandfather and cousin-grandfather, wherein
their caste had been recorded as "Halbi". Notably, neither the Vigilance
Cell nor the Committee has disputed those documents or the
authenticity of the entries in those documents. Therefore, there is no
reason to disbelieve those documents, but the Committee has given
undue importance to two disputed documents discovered during the
Vigilance Cell enquiry of 1929 and 1949.
(10) Mr. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
pointed out the genealogical tree on page no.45 (46-A typed copy) to
us and submitted that grandfather Narayan had three sons and one
daughter, namely (1) Vinayak (2) Manohar (3) Ananta and (4) Venutai.
PAGE 5 OF 8
-- 6 -- WP 5045.2024 (J).doc
He also drew our attention to the School Leaving Certificates of (1)
Vinayak (page 94), (2) Manohar (page 91) and (3) Ananta (page 95),
wherein their dates of birth are mentioned as 26/09/1937, 11/05/1939
and 15/03/1944 respectively and submitted that none of the sons was
born to Narayan in the year 1929, as claimed by the Vigilance Cell.
Therefore, the question of a son born to Narayan in the year 1929 does
not arise at all. He further submitted that no name of said son was also
found in the genealogical tree. He also canvassed that the petitioner's
ancestors were residents of Raipura, Achalpur and not from
Sarmaspura. Therefore, he argued that the entries in the document of
the year 1929 do not pertain to the relatives of the petitioner. On
verifying the record, we found substance in his contention; hence, we
accepted the same.
(11) The second document that the Committee considered is
of 1949. The document pertains to one Yesubai, but in the genealogical
tree, the daughter's name is mentioned as Venutai. Therefore, a
discrepancy appears regarding the name of Narayan's daughter. On
the contrary, 10 documents from 1922 to 1950 consistently
demonstrate that the petitioner's ancestors belong to the " Halbi" caste.
Therefore, we do not find substance in the contention of the learned
Assistant Government Pleader that the petitioner failed to demonstrate
that she belongs to the "Halbi" caste.
PAGE 6 OF 8
-- 7 -- WP 5045.2024 (J).doc
(12) This takes us to the next submission, which is in relation
to the affinity test and the rejection of the claim based on it. However,
we do not find substance in the said finding as it appears to be contrary
to the mandate laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in The
Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti V/s State of
Maharashtra, 2023(2)Mh. L.J. 785 , as it was held that "the affinity test
cannot be termed as a litmus test, so the committee ought not to have
rejected the tribe claim of the petitioner for the reason of not satisfying
the affinity test."
(13) Thus, it appears that the findings recorded by the
committee based on the two disputed documents of 1929 and 1949
and the applicability of the affinity test, ignoring the 10 pre-
constitutional era documents, are contrary to the mandate laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court as referred above. Therefore, in our view, the
said findings cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law.
(14) To sum up the above discussion, it is evident that the
petitioner, to substantiate her claim, has relied upon 10 pre-
constitutional era documents pertaining to her ancestors, wherein their
caste had been recorded as "Halbi". The authenticity of those
documents and entries made therein are neither disputed nor denied
by the Vigilance Cell or the Committee. Therefore, there is no reason to
disbelieve the said entries. The said entries, being a pre-constitutional
PAGE 7 OF 8
-- 8 -- WP 5045.2024 (J).doc
era, have more probative value. Thus, it seems that the findings
recorded by the Committee are based on the 02 disputed documents,
which were denied by the petitioner and have no relevance to the
petitioner. As such, the findings recorded by the Committee appear to
be contrary to the documents on record and the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court. Based on the said findings, the impugned order
cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law, and the same is liable to be
quashed and set aside.
(15) In the aforesaid background, in our opinion, the
committee has erred in not granting the validity in favour of the
petitioner. That being so, we deem it appropriate to pass the following
order:-
a. The Writ Petition stands allowed.
b. The impugned order dated 31/07/2024, passed by the
respondent No.1 Committee, is hereby quashed and set
aside.
c. It is hereby declared that the petitioner belongs to the
"Halbi" Scheduled Tribe.
d. The respondent No.1 Committee is directed to issue a
validity certificate in favour of the petitioner within four
weeks from the date of production of a copy of this
judgment.
e. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
[ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.] [AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.]
KOLHE
Signed by: Mr. Ravikant Kolhe PAGE 8 OF 8
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 04/03/2025 11:06:05
