AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(PER NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J)
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties.
This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order of respondent no. 2 – Committee dated 25.06.2010 rejecting the tribe claim of the petitioner that she belongs to "Thakur, Scheduled Tribe".
Before the Committee, the petitioner relied on his father's entry dated 09.06.1942 of "Hindu Thakur" caste recorded in the general register maintained by the school, wherein petitioner’s father had taken education. In the school leaving certificate of petitioner’s father, on 09.06.1942 his caste is mentioned as Hindu Thakur. In the copy of the school leaving certificate of petitioner’s father, his caste is recorded as Thakur on 18.02.1950. In the school leaving certificate of grand-father of the petitioner namely Dagdu Ganpat Thakur, his caste is recorded as Thakur on 01.06.1905. All these documents are verified by the Vigilance Cell and they are found to be genuine. The Committee has refused to rely upon the said documents mainly by citing failure to pass affinity test and area restrictions.
Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. assisted by Law Officer of respondent no.2 – Committee at length. Perused the original record made available by the learned A.G.P
Petitioner has also relied upon validity certificate (Exhibit-J) issued in favour of his first cousin Pankaj S/o Pramod Thakur on 01.10.2005. Affidavit of Pankaj is also placed on record as annexure to the petition, wherein he has stated that the petitioner is his cousin and he has received validity certificate on 01.10.2005. In the affidavit, the genealogy is also mentioned. Petitioner has placed on record copy of compilation of documents of his blood relatives, wherein the caste validity certificate issued in favour of Kailas Ramdas Thakur, who is second cousin. Caste validity certificate dated 28.01.2004 issued in favour of Kailas pursuant to the decision in Writ Petition No.5586/1996 dated 05.12.2003 is also annexed. It is necessary to mention here that during the vigilance enquiry conducted in case of the petitioner, this certificate is also verified by the Vigilance Cell and it is observed that petitioner’s cousin Kailas is issued validity certificate.
The grounds of failure to clear affinity test and area restrictions are no more good grounds in view of the decisions of the Apex Court in Jaywant Dilip Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2018(5) ALL MR 975 and Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and others, (2012) 1 SCC 113.
The Committee has erred in ignoring the pre-constitutional documents of the petitioner’s father, wherein his caste is recorded as Thakur. In view of validity certificates issued by the Committee in favour of petitioner's first cousin Pankaj and second cousin Kailas and as their blood relation is not disputed, we are of the view that the petitioner is entitled for validity certificate. The Committee has ignored the pre-constitutional entry on erroneous grounds, therefore, the said decision is unsustainable.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of respondent no.2 – Committee is quashed and set aside. The committee shall issue validity certificate to the petitioner as belonging to Thakur, Scheduled Tribe within a period of eight weeks from the date of uploading of this order.
Respondent No. 4 shall release all the consequential service benefits to the petitioner within twelve weeks from the date of uploading of this order.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms.