Shri Girdhari Dhapodkar vs The State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

JUDGMENT : (Per : Urmila Joshi-Phalke)

Heard learned counsel Shri R.S.Parsodkar for petitioners and learned Additional Government Pleader Mrs.S.S.Jachak for the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee.

By these petitions, petitioners have challenged orders of the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee thereby invalidating their caste claim as belonging to “Halba Scheduled Tribe.”

Brief facts of petitions are as under:

Writ Petition No.6285 of 2011 : The petitioner claims that he belongs to “Halba Scheduled Tribe” which is at serial No.19 in the Constitutional Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950 as amended from time to time. On 24.1.2006, he was issued Caste Certificate as belonging to “Halba Scheduled Tribe” by the Deputy Collector, Nagpur. On 4.1.1994, he was admitted in “Rajendra English Primary School, Nagpur” wherein he was recorded as “Halba.” His father Vitthal was born 31.12.1928. His Birth Certificate shows name of his grandfather Kisan Chaitoo who was as “Halbi.” On 4.11.1946, the grandfather of the petitioner died and death registration extract shows the grandfather of the petitioner was recorded as “Halbi”. On 31.7.2006, his caste claim was forwarded for validation. On 3.7.2010, he was served with Vigilance Report as well as show cause notice. On 16.11.2010, he submitted his written explanation and stated his birth date and his father is recorded as “Halbi”. Again, his caste claim was forwarded for vigilance. Second Vigilance Report was received on 14.1.2011 showing contra entries that his grandfather Kisan was recorded as “Koshti.” Therefore, show cause notice was given to the petitioner. On 29.1.2011, the petitioner submitted his explanation. It is contention of the petitioner that the birth extract of male child of Kisan Chaitoo dated 31.121928 shows his grandfather as “Halbi.” The Kotwal Panji issued by the Office of Collector, Nagpur shows death of grandfather of the petitioner dated 16.11.1946 wherein also said Kisan was recorded as “Halbi.” During the Vigilance Report, the Vigilance Officer has collected contrary entries showing one Kisanoo Chaitoo who was recorded as “Koshti”. The Vigilance Officer has also collected the assessment extract wherein also one Kisnoo Chaitoo Koshti, resident of Koshti Pura was recorded as “Koshti.” On the basis of the said entries, the Vigilance Officer submitted its report that the petitioner does not belong to “Halbi”, but he belongs to “Koshti” since pre-independence era. Relying upon the contrary entries, the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee rejected the caste claim of the petitioner and hence this petition.

Writ Petition No.6286 OF 2011 : The petitioner in this petition has challenged the order of the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee on the ground that despite there were pre-constitutional documents showing his forefathers as “Halba,” the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee has invalidated his caste claim. As per his contentions, he belongs to “Halba Scheduled Tribe” which is at serial No.19 in the Constitutional Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950 as amended from time to time. The petitioner was issued Caste Certificate on 30.1.2006 belonging to “Halba Scheduled Tribe” by the Deputy Collector, Nagpur. His caste claim was forwarded for verification. His school admission record as well as school admission record of his brothers shows that they are recorded as “Halba” when they were admitted in “Rajendra English Primary School, Nagpur.” The petitioner has also placed before the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee birth entry showing his great grandfather gave birth to male child on 31.12.1928. At the time of recording said birth entry, the great-grandfather of the petitioner Kisan Chaitoo was recorded as “Halbi”. Similarly, death entry as to death of said Kisan Chaitoo also show that he was recorded as “Halbi”. Despite those documents filed on record, the Vigilance Officer collected some contrary documents showing that Vitthal Kisan was admitted by his maternal uncle Mahadev Upasha in school who was recorded as “Koshti.” Similarly, the Vigilance Cell has also collected documents of one Kisan Chaitoo of 1932 and 1935 who is not at all related to the petitioner. Despite the petitioner explained that he has no connection with the entries of Vitthal Kisan who was recorded as “Koshti” and his father was born on 31.12.1928, at the relevant time, grandfather of the petitioner was recorded as “Halbi”, but the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee by relying on the Vigilance Report invalidated his caste claim and, therefore, he approached this court.

Writ Petition No.6287 of 2011 : Petitioner Yashwant s/o Vitthalrao Dhapodkar has also challenged the order of the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating his caste claim as belonging to “Halba Scheduled Tribe.” As per his contentions, he belong to “Halba Scheduled Tribe” which is at serial No.19 in the Constitutional Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950 as amended from time to time. He has also relied upon on the birth entry of Vitthal Kisan who is his father and at the time of recording the birth entry of Vitthal dated 31.12.1928, his grandfather Kisan Chaitoo was recorded as “Halbi.” Similarly, death entry of Kisan Chaitoo of 4.11.1946 also discloses that his grandfather was recorded as “Halbi”. However, the Vigilance Office has collected some contra entries of persons who are not related to petitioners and relying upon the said documents, the caste claim of the petitioner is invalidated and, therefore, the petitioner has approached this court.

Writ Petition No.4907 of 2019 : This petition is filed by petitioners contending that they belong to “Halba Scheduled Tribe” which is at serial No.19 in the Constitutional Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950. Their father Yashwantrao Dhapodkar is also recorded as “Halbi Scheduled Tribe” and they were issued Caste Certificate issued by the Deputy Collector. Their grandfather Vitthal Kisan Dhapodkar is recorded as “Halbi” and birth entry is dated 31.12.1928. The entry dated 1928 shows that Kisan Chaitoo who is the great grandfather of petitioners is blessed with son on 31.12.1928 and while recording the said entry, their great grandfather was recorded as “Halbi”. It is further contended by petitioners that petitioner Satish was issued Caste Certificate on 17.7.1999. Whereas, petitioner Pranay was issued Caste Certificate on 30.1.2006. It is contentions of petitioners that birth entry of male child of their great grandfather Kisan Chaitoo was recorded “Halbi” as well as his death entry showing said Kisan Chaitoo as “Halbi” died on 4.11.1946. Thus, they have submitted that consistent pre-constitutional documents show forefathers of petitioners were recorded as “Halbi.” Their caste claim was forwarded for verification. The respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee referred their caste claim to Vigilance Cell. The Police Vigilance Cell submitted their report on 4.5.2019. The Vigilance Report shows contrary entries connecting one Kisnoo Chaitoo as relative of petitioners. The Vigilance Cell in its report mentioned that one Vitthal Kisan is recorded as “Koshti” on 1.4.1932. The son of said Vitthal and same Vitthal is shown as 1.4.1935 also. Therefore, a detailed reply to the Police Vigilance Cell Report was filed by petitioners which was not considered by the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee and the said Committee has picked the contrary entry with whom petitioners are not having any relationship and invalidated their caste claim illegally. It is further contended by petitioners that the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee has to only scrutinize documents which are relied upon by petitioners, but the said Committee travelled beyond the scope and collected the material to invalidate the caste claim of petitioners which is not permissible and, therefore, the petitioners approached this court for grant of Caste Validity Certificates.

Writ Petition No.4908 of 2019 : This petition is filed by petitioner Tejas Girdhari Dhapodkar with the similar contentions that he is son of Girdhari who has also filed petition for setting aside the order passed by the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee by preferring Writ Petition No.6285 of 2011. As per contentions of the petitioner, the petitioner belongs to “Halba Scheduled Tribe” which is at serial No.19 in the Constitutional Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950. He was conferred with Caste Certificate as belonging to “Halbi Scheduled Tribe” on 15.11.2018 by the Deputy Collector, Nagpur. It is contended by the petitioner that Vitthal Kisan Dhapodkar was recorded as “Halbi” in his birth entry dated 31.12.1928. While registering the birth entry of male son of Kisan Chaitoo, their great grandfather Kisan Chaitoo was recorded as “Halbi.” Similarly, the death entry as to the death of Kisan Chaitoo dated 4.11.1946 also shows him as “Halbi”. The caste claim of the petitioner was forwarded for verification and the Vigilance Cell submitted its report on 4.5.2019. The show cause notice was issued to the petitioners from which it reveals that the Vigilance Cell has collected document of one Vitthal Kisan who was recorded as “Koshti” on 1.4.1932 and one Vitthal on 1.4.1935. It is contended by petitioner that despite the Vigilance Cell Report discloses that they have confirmed the entry dated 31.12.1928 from the record of Nagpur Municipal Corporation and from the record of Nagpur District Collector and on verification, they found that the entry is genuine one. Thereafter also, they have collected some contra entries in respect of other Vitthal Kisan and, therefore, the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee relying upon the said documents invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner approached this court.

Writ Petition No.5964 of 2024 : In this petition, petitioner Rushank is the son of Girdhari Dhapodkar who has filed Writ Petition No.6285 of 2011 with the similar contentions. He preferred the petition stating that he is student and he has applied for NEET Examination. He belongs to “Halba Scheduled Tribe” which is at serial No.19 in the Constitutional Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950. He was issued with Caste Certificate on 15.11.2018 showing he belongs to “Halbi Scheduled Tribe.” His caste claim was referred by the Principal, St.Paul Science and Commerce, Junior College, Nagpur for validation on 12.1.2023. His caste claim was referred to the Vigilance Cell. During the vigilance, the Vigilance Officer has collected some contra entries showing one Vitthal Kisan as “Koshti” and on the basis of the said entries, the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee has held that there are contra entries and on the basis of the said contra entries, without considering an explanation, of the petitioner, invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner and hence this petition.

All petitioners in these present writ petitions are claiming that they belong to “Halba Scheduled Tribe.” Petitioner Girdhari s/o Vitthalrao Dhapodkar in Writ Petition 6285 of 2011; petitioner Jageshwar s/o Vitthalrao Dhapodkar in Writ Petition No.6286 of 2011; and petitioner Yashwant s/o Vitthalrao Dhapodkar in Writ Petition No.6287 of 2011 are real brothers. Whereas, petitioner Rushank s/o Girdhari Dhapodkar in Writ Petition No.5964 of 2024; petitioner Tejas s/o Girdhari Dhapodkar in Writ Petition No.4908 of 2019 are sons of petitioner Girdhari s/o Vitthalrao Dhapodkar. Petitioners Satish Yashwantrao Dhapodkar and Pranay Yashwantrao Dhapodkar in Writ Petition No.4907 of 2019 are sons of Yashwant who is petitioner in Writ Petition No.6287 of 2011.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record list of dates and events which show that petitioner Yashwant in Writ Petition No.6287 of 2011 was recorded as “Halba” on 30.4.1965 in which his date of birth is 9.4.1954. Another real brother Bhojraj Vitthal Dhapodkar of petitioners Yashwant and Girdhari was also recorded as “Halba” in his school leaving certificate at the time of his admission on 2.1.1966. Petitioner Jageshwar s/o Vitthalrao Dhapodkar in Writ Petition No.6286 of 2011 was also recorded as “Halba” while admitting in school on 30.6.1980. Father of these petitioners namely Yashwant, Girdhari, and Jageshwar namely Vitthal Kisan Chaitoo born on 31.12.1928 recorded as “Halbi” in Kotwal Panji maintained by the Collectorate. grandfather Kisan Chaitoo who died on 4.11.1946 whose death entry is made in Kotwal Panji maintained by the Collectorate also shows him as “Halbi” dated 4.11.1946. Chaitoo Halbi is the great grandfather of the above said petitioners and great-great grandfather of petitioners Satish and Pranay, and Rushank. On 3.6.2010, the first Vigilance Report was collected in the case of petitioner Girdhari wherein one Vitthal Kisan Koshti is shown as father of petitioners Girdhari, Yashwant, and Jageshwar. However, said Vitthal Kisan Koshti is a different person who is shown to have been born on 1.1.1925 and admitted in school on 1.4.1930. At the time of admission of said Vitthal Kisan Koshti, the father of petitioner Vitthal Kisan Halbi was of 1.5 year old and hence it shows that Vitthal Kisan Koshti is different person and not related to petitioners. The said Dakhal Kharij Register in which father of Vitthal Kisan is mentioned and name of his maternal uncle was mentioned as Mahadev Upasha Koshti which clearly shows that the said person is a different person and is stranger to the petitioners and their family. In the first Vigilance Report it is mentioned that the maternal uncle of petitioner Girdhari namely Mahadev Upasha Koshti is “Koshti.” The petitioners have filed a detailed reply to the Vigilance Report. Thereafter also, second vigilance was conducted and during the second vigilance, other documents are collected showing entry in the name of one Kisnoo who was not related to the petitioners. Said Kisnoo was shown to have a son by name Vitthal and Vigilance Report shows him as father of the petitioners. In fact, petitioners are not at all related with said Kisnoo who was recorded “Koshti”. On the contrary, the birth entry on which the petitioners have relied upon, showing their father was born on 31.12.1928, was verified by the Vigilance Officer during the vigilance and it was found to be correct. Similarly, the death entry of Kisan Chaitoo, grandfather of the petitioners Girdhari, Bhojraj, and Jageshwar and great grandfather of other petitioners was recorded as “Halbi” while taking entry in respect of his death on 4.11.1946. The said entry was also verified by the Vigilance Officer and the same was found to be correct. Despite the evidence adduced by petitioners and on verification it was found to be correct, the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim of petitioners unauthorizedly and, therefore, the claim of petitioners deserves to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the orders of the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee passed on different dates.

Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee has strongly opposed the said contentions and submitted that there are adverse entries against forefathers of the petitioners. She invited our attention towards the impugned orders and submitted that the great-grandfathers of the petitioners Kisna Chaitoo and Vithal Kisan were recorded as “Koshti.” She has also placed on record documents showing birth entry of male child of Kisnoo Chaitoo dated 25.11.1920 who was recorded as “Koshti.” The other entry on which she has relied upon also regarding the female child of Kisnoo Chaitoo who was also recorded as “Koshti.” Thereafter, one Kisna Chaitoo whose entry regarding birth date of his child dated 7.8.1924, Kisna Chaitoo was also recorded as “Koshti.” She placed on record the assessment extract register maintained with the Municipal Corporation, Nagpur wherein this Kisnoo Chaitoo was recorded as ‘Koshti.” The Vigilance Enquiry Report also discloses that one Vitthal Kisan who was recorded as “Koshti” was admitted in “Bastarwari Marathi School” was born on 1.4.1930 whose maternal uncle’s name was mentioned in the Dakhal Kharij Register as Mahadev Upasha Koshti. Thus, she submitted that there are various entries showing forefathers of the present petitioners recorded as “Koshti” and, therefore, the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee has rightly invalidated the claim of all the petitioners and thereby prayed that the petitions be dismissed.

Undisputedly, all the petitioners in these writ petitions are interlinked. Petitioners Girdhari, Jageshwar, and Yashwant are real brothers. Whereas, petitioners Satish and Pranay are sons of Yashwant and Tejas and Rushank are the son of petitioner Girdhari. The genealogical tree on which the petitioners placed reliance on show that Chaitoo, the great-grandfather of petitioners namely Yashwant, Girdhari, and Jageshwar and great-grandfather of the other petitioners was recorded as “Halbi.” Said Chaitoo was having one son Kisan who was also recorded as “Halbi.” Said Kisan was having one son namely Vitthal. The father of the petitioners namely Yashwant, Girdhari, and Jageshwar was also recorded as “Halbi.”

In support of the contentions, the petitioners placed reliance on the pre-constitutional document - Kotwal Panji of dated 31.12.1928 which shows that birth entry of son of Kisan Chaitoo was registered on 31.12.1928 and at the relevant time, said Kisan Chaitoo was recorded as “Halbi.” Another pre-constitutional entry on which the petitioners relied upon is the death entry of Kisan Chaitoo who died on 4.11.1946. At the relevant time, he was recorded as “Halbi.”

After the caste claim of the petitioners were referred for vigilance, initially, in case of Girdhari, vigilance has conducted an enquiry and submitted report on 3.7.2010. During the vigilance enquiry, they have collected one entry of 1.4.1930 i.e. Dakhal Kharij Register Extract of one “Bastarwari Marathi Primary School, NMC, Nagpur showing that Vitthal Kisan was admitted by one Mahadev Upasha Koshti who is maternal uncle who was recorded as “Koshti”, resident of Lalganj, Gujari. Petitioner Girdhari has explained the said adverse entry collected during the vigilance by the Vigilance Officer by filing reply dated 16.11.2010 and explained that the vigilance has collected document of one Vitthal whose birth date was 1.1.1925 and he was admitted in school on 1.4.1930. In fact, his father was born on 31.12.1928. The said Dakhal Kharij Register Extract is not in respect of the school entry of his father as his father was only one and half year on 1.4.1920.

After the said explanation again, the caste claim of petitioners was referred for second vigilance on 14.1.2011. During the second vigilance, the Vigilance Officer has verified the entry dated 31.12.1928 and the observation of the Vigilance Cell, which is reproduced in the Vigilance Report, states that “vtZnkjkus fdlu pSrw gYch ;kauk fnukad 31-12-1928 jksth ,d eqyxk >kY;kph uksan lknj dsyh vkgs-ljnph uksan ftYgk/khdkjh dk;kZy;] ukxiwj ;sFks tkowu riklyh vlrk lnjph uksan cjkscj vkgs- lnj eqG jsdkWMZph >sjkWDLk izr lka{kkdhr d#u ?ksryh vlwu rh lkscr tksMyh vkgs-”

Similarly, the Vigilance Report further discloses that the second entry regarding the death of Kisan Chaitoo was also verified by the Vigilance Officer and observed that, “vtZnkjkus lknj dsysY;k fdlu o pSrw ;kapk e`R;w izek.ki++=ak ckcr ftYgk/khdkjh dk;kZy;] ukxiwj ;sFkhy tUe&e`R;w uksan dk;kZy;kr tkowu eqG jsdkWmZ riklys vlrk lnj fBdk.kh vuq-da-2 oj 4-11-1946 jksth fdlu o pSrw gYch ;kaps fu/ku o fjiksVZ rkjh[k 16-11-1946 v’kh uksan vk<Gwu vkyh- lnj ukssanh >sjkWDLk izr lka{kkdhr d#lkscr tksMyh vkgs- lnj uksanhoj dks.krkgh iRrk ueqn dsysyk ukgh”.

Thus, the Vigilance Report shows that both the entries are verified by the vigilance from the original record and found to be correct. Admittedly, all the petitioners have relied upon these two entries which are verified by the Vigilance Officer during the Vigilance Enquiry.

Along with the reply, learned Additional Government Pleader has placed on record the declaration form of one Mahadev Upasha Koshti who has admitted one Vitthal Kisan Koshti in a Primary School of Municipal Corporation, Lalgang. The entire record filed by the petitioners shows that he was admitted in “Rajendra English Primary School, Nagpur” on 2.6.1984. His other brothers were also admitted in the said school. Except that declaration form, there is no record to show that it was the same Vitthal Kisan who was admitted by his maternal uncle. In fact, there is no reason to admit Vitthal Kisan by his maternal uncle when his father was alive.

Learned Additional Government Pleader also placed on record the documents of various persons by name Kisan Chaitoo and submitted that there are adverse entries. Perusal of these documents shows that the name is mentioned as Kisnoo Chaitoo or Kusna Chaitoo and not Kisan Chaitoo. Even, the assessment extract issued by the Municipal Corporation also discloses that Kisnoo Chaitoo was recorded as “Koshti” resident of Koshti Pura. In caste claim of the petitioners wherein address was mentioned as Premnagar, Shriram Ward, plot No.85, Nagpur. At the time of forwarding the caste claim of petitioner Girdhari, his address was shown as Lalgang, Gujari Chowk, Nagpur.

Thus, as far as the assessment is concerned, which is regarding property at Koshtipura wherein the petitioner or his forefathers never resided, at least there is no such evidence.

Perusal of the entire material on record reveals that in support of the claim the petitioners have placed reliance on two pre-constitutional documents i.e. birth extract of son of Kisan Chaitoo dated 31.12.1928 and death extract regarding death of Kisan Chaitoo dated 4.11.1946. The petitioners also placed reliance on the documents showing that petitioners Satish Yashwant Dhapodkar, Yashwant Vitthalrao Dhapodkar, Bhojrao Vitthalrao Dhapodkar, Girdhari Vitthalrao Dhapodkar, Pranay Yashwant Dhapodkar, Tejas Girdhari Dhapodkar were all recorded as “Halbi.” Out of them, these two entries dated 31.12.1928 and 4.11.1946 are of pre-constitutional era.

Besides the pre-constitutional entries, the school admission extracts of all the petitioners show that their sons are recorded as ‘Halbi.”

Thus, there are consistent entries during the pre-independence era, till third generation who were admitted in school showing that they belong to “Halbi.”

The respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee referred the caste claim of all the petitioners for vigilance. The Vigilance Report in case of petitioner Girdhari dated 14.1.2011 shows that the documents on which the petitioners relied upon i.e. 31.12.1928 and 4.11.1946 are verified by them and found to be correct.

The caste claim of petitioner Yashwant was also referred for vigilance, wherein also the Vigilance Report shows that these documents are verified by the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee.

Similarly, the Vigilance Report in the caste claim of other petitioners also show these entries are verified. After receipt of the Vigilance Report, show cause notices were issued to the petitioners which were replied by them denying the relationship with Mahadev Upasha Koshti. They have also disowned the relationship with Vitthal Kisan who was born on 1.1.1925 and admitted in school on 1.4.1930.

There is a substance in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that entry verified by the Vigilance Cell showing the birth date of son of Kisan Chaitoo is of Vitthal Kisan of 31.12.1928. The family tree submitted by the petitioners along with their tribe claim was also submitted to the Vigilance Cell and the Vigilance Cell recorded their statements. As the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee placed reliance on adverse entries, there ought to have been some material showing connection between petitioners and these names.

It is, however, material to note that though the Vigilance Cell Report specifically mentions about the entry in the Dakhal Kharij Register showing that the father of petitioner Girdhari namely Vitthal Kisan was admitted by his maternal uncle Mahadev Upasha Koshti is also not substantiated by any material as the verified entry on the which the petitioners relied upon shows that father of Vitthal Kisan was died on 4.11.1946. Therefore, there is no reason that said Vitthal Kisan would be admitted by his maternal uncle. The respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee has totally ignored the pre-constitutional entries of 1928 and 1946 which are not only relied upon by the petitioners but also verified by the Vigilance Officer. The respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee has laid a great stress on the adverse documents to which the explanation is already given by the petitioners and the reason given by the petitioners has some substance as the father of petitioners Girdhari, Jageshwar, and Yashwant was born on 1928 and, therefore, the Dakhal Kharij Entry on which the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee relied upon showing that Vitthal Kisan was admitted in school on 1930, which is not probable as the father of the petitioners who born on 1928 was only one and half years in the year 1930.

It is apparent that the Vigilance Cell as well as the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee swayed away by the entries of the similar name and connected those persons with the petitioners.

It is well settled that entries of pre-independence era have probative value. Sub rule (2) of Rule 12 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes, Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 provides that only if the scrutiny committee is not satisfied with the documentary evidence produced by the applicant, it shall forward application to the vigilance cell for conducting enquiry.

Perusal of the record nowhere reflects that the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee recorded its reasons as to dissatisfaction of the record and its reasons for referring the application to the Vigilance Cell. The respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee has placed reliance on the documents collected by the Vigilance Cell showing adverse entries in the name of Vitthal Kisan. The petitioners have denied the relationship with both the entries. Neither the Vigilance Cell nor the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee has placed any documents on record to show that these entries are related to forefathers of the petitioners and the petitioners have suppressed the same.

Thus, nothing is on record to show that this Vitthal Kisan who was recorded as “Koshti” was related to the petitioners. On the contrary, the Vigilance Report also substantiates the claim of the petitioners as they have already verified entries of 1928 especially 31.12.198 and 4.11.1946 and those entries are found to be corrected. Thus, the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee could not point out through any documents that the entries contrary are related to family members of the petitioners.

It is common knowledge that several persons could be found of the similar names in one village. When the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee came with a specific case that these adverse entries are regarding family members of the petitioners, the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee has to show the connection.

As observed earlier, pre-constitutional documents showing the caste of the petitioners and their ancestral are of higher probative value.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra) held in paragraph No.20 which is as under:

In the present matter, the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee ought to have considered that on the basis of the documents which are pre-constitutional era, the petitioners have claimed the Caste Validity Certificates. It is nowhere case of the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee that these documents on which the petitioners have relied upon are fraudulent documents or there is any interpolation in the said documents. The Vigilance Officer verified genuineness of the said entries and mentioned in the report that both entries are found to be correct.

In the present case, it is nowhere contended by the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee that these two documents on which the petitioners have relied upon are either obtained by fraud or the petitioners have different social status.

The Caste Scrutiny Committee is under obligation to rely upon the Tribe Validity Certificates granted to petitioners and cannot adopt an approach by treating the said caste claim as an adversarial litigation. The object behind the constitution of the Committee is that the committee shall verify genuineness of the caste claims and benefit shall be given to the genuine persons. The Committee is not sitting to invalidate the claim despite there are various document to show or to establish caste claim of petitioners.

Each scrutiny committee has a vigilance cell which acts as the investigating wing of the committee. The core function of the scrutiny committee, in verification of caste certificates, is the investigation carried on by its vigilance cell. When an application for verification of the caste certificate is received by the scrutiny committee, its vigilance cell investigates into the claim, collects the facts, examines the records, examines the relations or friend and persons who have knowledge about the social status of the candidate and submits a report to the committee. If the report supports the claim for caste status, there is no hearing and the caste claim is confirmed. If the report of the vigilance cell discloses that the claim for the social status claimed by the candidate was doubtful or not genuine, a show-cause notice is issued by the committee to the candidate. After giving due opportunity to the candidate to place any material in support of his claim, and after making such enquiry as it deems expedient, the scrutiny committee considers the claim for caste status and the vigilance cell report, as also any objections that may be raised by any opponent to the claim of the candidate for caste status, and passes appropriate orders. The scrutiny committee is not an adjudicating authority like a Court or Tribunal, but an administrative body which verifies the facts, investigates into a specific claim (of caste status) and ascertains whether the caste/tribal status claimed is correct or not. Like any other decisions of administrative authorities, the orders of the scrutiny committee are also open to challenge in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Considering large number of seats or posts reserved for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes were being taken away by bogus candidates claiming to belong to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case directed constitution of such scrutiny committees, to provide an expeditious, effective and efficacious remedy, in the absence of any statute or a legal framework for proper verification of false claims regarding SCs/STs status.

Insofar as affinity test is concerned, this aspect is well settled.

In the case of Anand vs. Committee and Verification of Tribe Claims and others, reported in 2012(1) SCC 113, the decision in the case of Shilpa Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Mah, reported in 2003 (3) Mh.L.J. 995 and it was held that, “affinity test is not a litmus test and that document of pre-constitutional era is of highest probative value in the eyes of law.”

The same view is reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the recent judgment in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra) wherein it is held that the vigilance cell, while conducting an affinity test, verifies the knowledge of the applicant, deities of the community, customs, rituals, mode of marriage, and death ceremonies etc. in respect of that particular scheduled tribe. By its very nature such affinity test can never be conclusive. It is further held that question of conduct of the affinity test arises only in those cases where the scrutiny committee is not satisfied with the material produced by the applicant. While concluding, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that affinity test will not be a conclusively either way. When the 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 tribe validity claim and in short the affinity test is not a litmus test to decide the tribe’s claim and is not an essential part in the process of determination of correctness of caste or tribe claim in every case.

In the light of the above, when the affinity test is not an integral part of determination of correctness of claim and when the petitioners had submitted documents of pre-constitutional having high probative value showing their tribe as “Halba” and when family member who holds a tribe’s validity certificate, we are of a considered view that the tribe’s claim of the petitioners ought to have been considered by the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee by giving an appropriate weightage to the tribe validity certificate issued to the family of the petitioners and also to the pre-constitutional documents.

In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the present case, we find that adverse entries, on which the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee relied upon while rejecting caste claim of the petitioners, nowhere show any connection with the present petitioners. On the contrary, the documents on which the petitioners relied upon are of pre-constitutional era verified by the Vigilance Officer and found to be correct. It is not the case of the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee that those documents are forged or faked and, therefore, the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee has to assign reasons for discarding the said documents, which is not given by the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee.

In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we find that all the petitions deserve to be allowed by directing the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee to issue tribe validity certificates to the petitioners as belonging to “Halba Scheduled Tribe.” Hence, we proceed to pass following order:

All the writ petitions are allowed.

The orders dated 13.7.2011; 15.11.1999; 4.7.2019; and 12.9.2023 passed by the respondent - The Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Nagpur Division, Nagpur invaliding the tribe claim of the petitioners belonging to “Halba Scheduled Tribe” are hereby quashed and set aside.

It is declared that the petitioners belong to “Halba Scheduled Tribe” and the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee shall, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order, issue Caste Validity Certificates to the petitioners accordingly.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Petitions stand disposed of.