AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : RAJ D. WAKODE, J.)
. Heard Ms. Preeti D. Rane, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri. S. V. Narale, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent - District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
The petitioner, who is a student, has approached this Court seeking a challenge to the impugned order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the respondent - District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal, thereby invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner towards Banjari Vimukt Jati A (BVJ) caste.
Ms. Preeti D. Rane, learned counsel for petitioner, has invited our attention to the various validity certificates granted by the respondent - Committee in favour of the paternal relatives of the petitioner, which are annexed collectively at record Page No.37 (Annexure-10). The aforesaid validity certificates pertain to the following relatives of the petitioner :
Caste validity certificate of petitioner’s father dated 09.12.1992;
ii) Caste validity certificate of petitioner’s real uncle, namely, Mangilal, dated 26.02.2014;
iii) Caste validity certificate of cousin sister, namely, Madhuri, dated 02.01.2008;
iv) Caste validity certificate of cousin brother, namely, Dinesh, dated 15.06.2009;
Caste validity certificate of cousin brother, namely, Akshay, dated 14.06.2012; and
vi) Caste validity certificate of cousin brother, anemly, Aditya, dated 20.12.2018.
The aforesaid persons are the paternal relatives of the petitioner and their names are mentioned in the genealogical tree of the petitioner, which is at record page No.42 (annexure - 15), i.e. the family tree submitted by the petitioner’s father on oath on 24.07.2024. The aforesaid genealogical tree was verified by the Police Vigilance Cell of the respondent - Committee, as stated in the aforesaid Vigilance Cell Report, which is at record page No.45 (Annexure-16).
Shri. S. V. Narale, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has not disputed the aforesaid relationship of the aforesaid individuals with the petitioner, nor has he disputed the grant of validity certificates by the respondent - Committee in favour of the aforesaid individuals, as mentioned above. The respondent - Committee, while invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner by the impugned order, has also not disputed the aforesaid fact, nor has it raised any ground of fraud or misrepresentation in respect of the issuance of such validity certificates in favour of the paternal relatives of the petitioner. It has also not been mentioned that any proceedings for cancellation or recalling of the said validity certificates have been initiated.
The reasons cited by the respondent - Committee for rejecting the aforesaid validity certificates, and consequently, the caste claim of the petitioner is reflected in paragraph 6 of the impugned order. In paragraph 6, the Committee has referred to two reasons: firstly, that the petitioner has failed to prove his affinity towards the “Banjari” caste; and secondly, that the petitioner could not produce any document prior to the year 1961.
On perusal of the record as well as the Vigilance Cell Report, we are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid two reasons cited by the Committee for invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner are unsustainable in the eyes of law. The Police Vigilance Cell of the respondent - Committee, on 05.08.2025, in its report, after conducting the vigilance inquiry, has recorded that the petitioner has pointed out the characteristics showing affinity with “Banjara” caste and accordingly, has submitted a positive Vigilance Cell Report. Apart from the aforesaid fact, the issue regarding the affinity test is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Yogesh Madhav Makalwad vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in MANU/SC/1070/2025, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:
“8.It can, thus, be seen that this Court held that while dealing with documentary evidence, greater reliance may be placed on pre-Independence documents because they furnish a higher degree of probative value to the declaration of status of a caste, as compared to post Independence documents. Insofar as the applicability of the affinity test is concerned, the Court observed that a cautious approach has to be adopted. It has been observed that 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. It is, therefore, held that the affinity test may not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant with a Scheduled Tribe. It has been held that merely because the applicant does not match the tribe's peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc., it cannot be solely taken into consideration for rejecting the claim of belonging to the Scheduled Tribe.”
Apart from the aforesaid fact that the affinity test is not a litmus test for determining the caste of a particular individual, in the present case, the Vigilance Cell has already given a positive opinion regarding the affinity of the petitioner towards “Banjari” caste.
So far as the other ground pertaining to the rejection of the caste claim of petitioner is the finding of respondent - Committee that the petitioner has failed to produce any document prior to the cut-off date in order to substantiate his claim, the aforesaid finding is perverse in view of the fact that the Vigilance Cell Report itself refers to a document pertaining to Ramu Banjari, dated 21.07.1931, wherein the caste is recorded as “Banjari”. The reason given by the Committee for rejecting such document is that the aforesaid document is a birth extract and that the petitioner has not produced any other school record or revenue record substantiating the aforesaid entry. It is a matter of common knowledge that not every individual or family member would have been admitted to school, particularly during the period to which the said document pertains, i.e. 1931, and therefore, it is not necessary that the ancestors of the petitioner would have the school records substantiating their caste claim. Thus, in our considered opinion, the respondent - Committee was not justified in rejecting the said pre-Constitutional document, and more specifically, the document which is prior to the cut-off date, i.e. 21.11.1961. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the judgment referred supra, has already discussed the importance of pre-Independence documents, particularly documents which are prior to the cut-off date, as they furnish a higher degree of probative value for determining the caste claim, which reads thus :
“12.In view of the pre-Independence document which certifies that the Appellant’s grandfather, Jalba Malba Makalwad, to be belonging to Koli Mahadev Tribe, we are of the considered opinion that a greater probative value ought to have been given to the said document. However, on the basis of presumptions and assumptions, the said document has been disbelieved.”
In view of the above and more specifically, in view of the law settled by this Court in the case of Apoorva Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, reported in 2010(6) Mh. L. J. 401, wherein this Court has specifically held that where the caste claim of an applicant has been scrutinized and accepted, the caste claim of other blood relatives should also be scrutinized and accepted without insisting upon any other proof, as doing so would result in wastage of public money and judicial time. The relevant paragraph of the judgment of this Court in the case of Shri. Arjun Manohar Raut vs. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur and Others in Writ Petition No.644 of 2025 reads thus:
“6.It is further contentions of the Petitioners that, in view of the judgment of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 & Ors., 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401, wherein it is held that, where a caste claim of the applicant has been scrutinized and accepted, the caste claim of the applicant should be allowed. The caste claim of a blood relative such as father, son, daughter, brother and sister has been scrutinized and accepted without insisting on any other proof. The Committee has ignored the aforesaid legal position and invalidated the claim of the Petitioners. It is the further contention of the Petitioner No.1 that, issuance of show cause notice by the Respondent No.2 for want of validity certificate and termination of his service is also illegal, as the appointment of the Petitioner No.1 is on compassionate ground and his father has already submitted the validity certificate, therefore demand of the validity certificate from the Petitioner No.1 itself is illegal. In view of that, both the orders passed by the Respondent No.1 as well as Respondent No.2 are illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside. It is the further contention of the Petitioners that, despite pre-Constitutuion documents were produced, the Committee without considering its probative value has rejected the caste claim and invalidated the certificate.”
Thus, after considering the documents prior to the cut-off date submitted by the petitioner, the positive report submitted by the Vigilance Cell and the validity certificates granted by the respondent -Committee in favour of the paternal relatives of the petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the respondent - Committee was not justified in rejecting the caste claim of the petitioner, that too on the grounds which are completely perverse and contrary to the record. Accordingly, we pass the following order:
O R D E R
The present writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the respondent - District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal, invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner towards Banjari Vimukt Jati A, is hereby quashed and set aside.
iii) It is hereby declared that the petitioner belongs to “Banjari” caste and the respondent - Committee is directed to issue the caste validity certificate to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment and order.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.