Bombay High Court
Vaibhav S/O Chandrashekhar Dadmal vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny ... on 25 March, 2025
Author: Avinash G. Gharote
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
2025:BHC-NAG:2951-DB
1 wp279.20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 279 OF 2020
Vaibhav s/o Chandrashekhar Dadmal,
Aged about 23 years, Occ. - Student,
R/o Chichghat, Post-Ambadi (Begade),
Tahsil - Chimur, District - Chandrapur. .... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Gadchiroli, through its
Chairman, Committee for Scheduled
Tribe Claims, Office at Complex Area,
Gadchiroli, Tq. & District Gadchiroli.
2) State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Tribal Development
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
3) The Director of Technical Education,
Maharashtra State, 3 Mahapalika Marg,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
4) The Principal,
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Technological
University (Autonomous) Lonere,
Mangaon, Raigad.
5) Sub-Divisional Officer, Warora,
Tahsil - Warora, District - Chandrapur. .... RESPONDENTS
________________________________________________________________
Mr. P.P. Dhok, Counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. A.S. Fulzele, Addl. G.P. for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 & 5
________________________________________________________________
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE &
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE : 25th MARCH, 2025
2 wp279.20.odt
JUDGMENT :
(Per : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)
Heard. RULE. Heard finally with the consent of the learned
Counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 26-06-2018
passed by respondent No.1-Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Gadchiroli (for short, "the Committee"), thereby invalidating
the caste claim of the petitioner that he belongs to the 'Mana' Scheduled
Tribe, has preferred this petition.
3. The petitioner claims that he belongs to the ' Mana' Scheduled
Tribe. On 04-06-2010, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Warora, issued a Caste
Certificate in his favour. The petitioner was selected for the B.Tech.
Electronic Technology course in Scheduled Tribe category. Accordingly, he
has submitted a Caste Certificate along with other documents to the
college. The Principal of the College forwarded the same to the
Committee for its verification. The Committee was dissatisfied with the
documents and forwarded them to the Vigilance Cell for enquiry. The
Vigilance Cell conducted the enquiry and submitted its report to the
Committee on 08-03-2018. Pursuant to the report, the Committee issued
a show cause notice to the petitioner, calling upon his explanation about
the Committee's adverse finding. The petitioner submitted his
explanation. After affording an opportunity of hearing and considering the
3 wp279.20.odt
documents on record, the vigilance cell report, and the explanation, the
Committee has invalidated his claim that he belongs to the ' Mana'
Scheduled Tribe. Hence, this petition.
4. Mr. P. P. Dhok, learned Counsel for the petitioner, vehemently
contended that the petitioner, to substantiate his claim, had produced
twenty-four documents on record; out of them, one document of the year
1920-23 pertains to his great-great-grandfather. He also produced his
uncle Bhimraj's Validity Certificate. However, the Committee has not
considered those documents and erred in rejecting the petitioner's claim
solely on the ground that the petitioner failed to satisfy the affinity test
and, therefore, rejected the petitioner's claim. The said finding appears
contrary to the mandate laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti vs. State of
Maharashtra and others, 2023(2) Mh.L.J. 785. Therefore, he canvassed that
based on the validity granted in favour of his uncle, the petitioner is
entitled to get the validity certificate as per Rule 16(3) of the
Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes
(Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special
Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste
Certificate Rules, 2012 (for short- "Rules of 2012").
4 wp279.20.odt
5. As against this, Mr. A.S. Fulzele, learned Additional
Government Pleader, strenuously opposes the petition, contending that
the petitioner failed to satisfy the affinity test as well as the claim has
been hit by the area restriction. He further canvassed that during the
enquiry, the Vigilance Cell discovered the sale-deeds executed by the
ancestor of the petitioner, wherein no caste was mentioned and,
therefore, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that he belongs to the
'Mana' Scheduled Tribe. He further argued that without conducting the
vigilance cell enquiry, the Validity was granted in favour of Bhimraj;
therefore, the same cannot be taken into consideration. Thus, he
submitted that the impugned order is just and proper, and no
interference is required in it.
6. We have appreciated the rival submissions and perused the
impugned order and record. We have gone through the original record
and returned it.
7. At the outset, it appears that the petitioner has produced
twenty-four documents to substantiate his claim; one document is from
1920-23 and pertains to his great-grandfather. Neither the Committee
nor the Vigilance Cell has disputed the said document. However, the
Committee has discarded the same on the ground that the recording of
5 wp279.20.odt
the entry as 'Mana' does not mean that the same pertains to the
Scheduled Tribe Category and discarded the said document. The said
finding is contrary to the settled position of law that entries in pre-
constitutional documents have to be given preference and cannot be
discarded and, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Apart
from this, the Vigilance Cell during the enquiry discovered the
document of 1918-1919 pertaining to the great-grandfather of the
petitioner, wherein his caste was recorded as 'Mana'. The said
document is also from the pre-constitutional era and has more
probative value than the subsequent documents. Moreover, none of the
entries were found adverse to the said entry, but the petitioner's claim
was rejected only on the ground that the petitioner failed to satisfy the
affinity test. It is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra) has
categorically observed that "the affinity test cannot be termed as a litmus
test, mainly when the pre-constitutional era documents are existing and
placed on record, and the oldest pre-constitutional document has more
probative value than the subsequent document". Besides, the said test
cannot be said to be conclusive to find out whether the petitioner belongs to
the Scheduled Tribe Category or not. Similarly, the second ground for
rejecting the claim is area restriction; in our opinion, the question of area
restriction does not arise as the same has been removed since 1976.
Therefore, the finding regarding the affinity test and area restriction appears
6 wp279.20.odt
to be contrary to the mandate laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and the
same cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law.
8. In addition to this, the petitioner had produced the validity
certificate granted in favour of his uncle. The Committee has not considered
the same, only on the ground that the same was issued without conducting
the vigilance cell enquiry. It is pertinent to note that the said validity
certificate was issued on 09-12-2010. Till this date, the Committee has
neither cancelled the same nor taken any steps to recall the same. Therefore,
in view of the dictum laid down in the case of Apoorva Vinay Nichale v.
Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1, and others, 2010 (6)
Mh.L.J. 401, the Committee ought not to have refused to grant the validity
certificate in favour of the petitioner, but, as per Rule 16(3) of the Rules of
2012, was required to grant validity certificate in favour of the petitioner
without asking any other documentary proof after follwing the procedure as
enumerated in the relevant Rules. We do not see any reason as to why the
validity ought not to have been granted to the petitioner as the reasons for
not relying upon the validity certificate and documents produced on record in
respect of his uncle and ancestor, do not commend to us.
9. To sum up the above discussion, it is evident that the petitioner, to
substantiate his claim, has relied upon the pre-constitutional era documents
of 1918-19 and 1920-23 pertaining to his great-great-grandfather, wherein
his caste has been recorded as 'Mana'. Those documents are neither disputed
7 wp279.20.odt
by the Committee nor the Vigilance Cell. Therefore, there is no reason to
disbelieve those documents. On the contrary, the said documents have great
probative value. Similarly, based on the validity certificate issued in favour of
the uncle of the petitioner, the Committee ought to have granted the validity
certificate in favour of the petitioner in terms of Rule 16(3) of the Rules of
2012 as well as the dictum laid down in Apoorva Vinay Nichale (supra). Thus,
it seems that the findings recorded by the Committee based on the
affinity test and the area restriction cannot be sustained in the eyes of
the law, and the same are liable to be set aside.
10. As a result, we allow the petition. The impugned order dated
26-06-2018 passed by the Committee is hereby quashed and set aside. It is
hereby declared that the petitioner belongs to the 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe.
The respondent-Committee is directed to issue a Validity Certificate in favour
of the petitioner within four weeks from the production of a copy of this
judgment.
11. Rule is made absolute in the above-said terms.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
adgokar
Signed by: MR. P.M. ADGOKAR
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 25/03/2025 11:04:11
