AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Urmila Joshi-Phalke)
Heard learned counsel Shri A.P.Kalmegh for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri S.V.Narale for respondent Nos.1 and 4; learned counsel Shri Nikhil Gaikwad for No.3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.
By this petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 24.9.2025 passed by respondent No.1 - Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati (the respondent No.1/Committee) thereby invaliding his caste claim as belonging to “Thakur Scheduled Tribe.”
Brief facts necessary for disposal of the petition are as under:
The petitioner belongs to caste “Thakur” which is recognized at serial No.44 in the list of the Scheduled Tribes Notification. On 16.10.2023, he was issued Caste Certificate of “Thakur Scheduled Tribe” by the Sub Divisional Officer, Akola. He submitted all necessary documents including documents prior to 1950 in support of his claim when his caste claim was forwarded for verification. On 3.9.2025, he got admission in respondent No.3 – College from the “Scheduled Tribe Category.” However, the respondent No.1/Committee delayed in the decision of his caste claim. Hence, he had filed Writ Petition No.48837/2025 and this court directed the respondent No.1/Committee to decide his caste claim within three weeks and protected his admission. On 19.9.2025, the Vigilance Cell Enquiry was conducted in the matter of the petitioner on 19.9.2025. During the enquiry, the Vigilance Cell Officer has found all documents submitted by him are genuine, however raised objection as far as affinity test is concerned and as well as entry regarding birth date against name of his grandfather. However, the entry was verified and it was found correct. Despite of Vigilance Report and documents placed on record, the respondent No.1/Committee has invalidated his caste claim and hence this petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner relied upon pre-constitutional document showing entry of birth of son of Vishwanath Lolaji who is grandfather of the petitioner dated 19.12.1943. He submitted that the petitioner has also placed on record certificate issued by the Headmaster of Zilla Parishad School, Chandur stating that the grandfather of the petitioner was admitted in Zilla Parishad School, Chandur and his birth date is 1.1.1940. However, record is not available as it was destroyed in flood. However, the Vigilance Report shows that the entry available in Tahsil Office shows birth date of child of Vishwanath Lolaji as 19.12.1943. Thus, pre-constitutional documents were verified by the Vigilance Officer and, therefore, the Vigilance Report was prepared. The Vigilance Report also supports the claim of the petitioner showing that his grandfather was recorded as “Thakur.” There are consistent entries showing his forefather were belonging to “Thakur Scheduled Tribe.”
He further submitted that the claim of the petitioner was also invalidated on the ground of affinity test. Now, issue of the affinity test is not res integra and it was time and again clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court that it is not a litmus test and, therefore, on all above these grounds, the petition of the present petitioner deserves to be allowed.
In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision in Writ Petition No.351/2019 (Usha D/o Fakira Awachar vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare and Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai and anr) decided by this court on 10.6.2026 and on the decision in the case of Anand vs. Committee and Verification of Tribe Claims and others, reported in 2012(1) SCC 113.
Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader has strongly opposed the said contentions and submitted that the Headmaster’s Report on certificate shows the birth year of the son of Vishwanath Lolaji as 1940. Whereas, the document shows the said birth as 1943. Thus, he submitted that there is variance in the birth year and the entry on which the petitioner relied upon and on this ground, the petition itself requires to be dismissed.
He also submitted that similar names/entries are also showing that “Thakur” is not caste but it is tribe and on that ground also the petition deserves to be dismissed.
Upon consideration of the material on record, it reveals that the petitioner relied upon pre-constitutional document showing his great-grandfather was recorded as “Thakur” showing that birth of his grandfather took place on 19.12.1943. However, the certificate issued by the Headmaster of the school shows the birth year as 1940. The Vigilance Report is also on record which also points out towards variance in both documents. It is apparent that relying upon those variance, the respondent No.1/Committee has invalidated the caste claim.
Perusal of the Vigilance Report shows that the Vigilance Officer has also verified the entry showing birth of the son of Vishwanath Lolaji on 19.12.1943. Thus, the extract of birth entry in the name of son of Vishwanath Lolaji is verified by the Vigilance Officer and it was found genuine one. It is nowhere allegation in the Vigilance Report that any forged or fake documents are filed on record showing the birth entry of son of Vishwanath Lolaji on 19.12.1943.
The family tree filed by the petitioner is reproduced as under:
yksGkth
fo’oukFk ekfgr ukgh
Hkkm cfg.k ukgh ‘kkejko js[kk x.ks’k fnus’k eaxyk egknso ck;Ldkj irh v’kksd gjh’k xksikG[ksM fnid] egs’k f’kans eqGxko rk-ft-vdksyk is<xko rk-----ft ok’khe
xtkuu ek#rh
The above family tree shows that Lolaji was original ancestral having two children one is Vishwanath. Vishwanath is also having one son Shamrao. Shamrao is having one son Dinesh. The present petitioner is the son of Dinesh. The school leaving certificate of Dinesh, who is father of the petitioner, of dated 22.8.1991 shows that his father was admitted in school on 15.7.1980 and he was recorded as “Thakur.” Similarly, his school admission extract also shows that the father of the petitioner was recorded as “Thakur.” The school admission extract and school leaving certificate of the present petitioner also show that he was recorded as “Thakur” at the relevant time.
We have also perused the Vigilance Report as well as the impugned order. In the impugned order also, it is nowhere stated that the entry on which the petitioner relied upon is obtained by fraud or under any misrepresentation.
Upon consideration of the material on record, the respondent No.1/Committee recorded finding that the petitioner has not established his claim as belonging to “Thakur” and as there are two contrary entries; one is showing the son of Vishwanath Lolaji was born on 1940; and another is showing as 1943. Admittedly, the Vigilance Report shows that the entry of 1943 showing Vishwanath Lolaji’s son birth date was recorded and at the relevant time he was recorded as “Thakur” and was verified by the Vigilance Cell and it was found true.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader has strongly opposed the contentions of the petitioner and submitted that considering the contrary entries showing two different years, variation in the date of birth of the petitioner’s grandfather in two documents is relatively minor and it pertains to record prepared several decades ago.
This court has considered this aspect in the case of Usha d/o Fakira Awachar (supra) and observed that the variation in the date of birth of the petitioner's father in the two documents is relatively minor and pertains to records prepared several decades ago. Unless such discrepancy goes to the root of the caste claim or destroys the genealogical linkage, the same cannot be treated as fatal.
The record further indicates that the petitioner has already explained discrepancy in his explanation while he has received show cause notice after receipt of the Vigilance Report. Considering the fact that only the entry on which the petitioner relied upon is already verified by the Vigilance Officer and it was found to be correct and, therefore, there is no substance in the submission of learned Assistant Government Pleader that there are two contrary entries as far as the year of the birth of son of Vishwanath is concerned.
At this stage, we are of an opinion that the entry which is of pre-constitutional era requires to be taken into consideration.
As far as the affinity test is concerned, now, the law is settled that merely because the petitioner could not establish affinity with the Scheduled Tribe, that by itself is not sufficient to discard his claim.
It is well settled 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.
Here, in the present case, entry in the name of Vishwanath shows that since 1943 the forefathers of the petitioner were recorded as “Thakur’.
As far as affinity test is concerned, recently in the case of Yogesh Madhav Makalwad vs. State of Maharashtra and ors, reported in AIR 2025 SC 3746, the Hon’ble Apex Court by referring the decision in the case of Anand vs. Committee and Verification of Tribe Claims and others (supra) observed that,
“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, modernization 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.”
The Hon’ble Apex Court further referred the decision in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2023 16 SCC 415 wherein also this position regarding the affinity test was reiterated and it has been held that, “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”.
It has been reiterated that, “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.”
In the light of the above, we are of a considered view that order dated 24.9.2025 passed the respondent No.1/Committee requires to be quashed and set aside. Hence, we proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
The Writ Petition is allowed.
The order dated 24.9.2025 passed by respondent No.1/Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati is hereby quashed and set aside.
The petitioner is declared to be “Thakur Scheduled Tribe.”
The respondent No.1/Committee shall issue the Caste Validity Certificate to the petitioner showing that the petitioner belongs to “Thakur Scheduled Tribe” within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No costs.
Petition stands disposed of.