Suresh vs Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee

O R A L J U D G M E N T : (Per Mrs. Urmila Joshi Phalke, J.)

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

The order under challenge is dated 24.03.2021 passed by respondent-Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Amravati by which the caste claim of the petitioner for caste of ‘Halbi’ Scheduled Tribe is invalidated.

As per the contention of petitioner that now he is retired from service. He belongs to ‘Halbi’ caste which is recognized as Scheduled Tribes category. He was appointed as Junior Engineer vide appointment order dated 08/11.01.1988 and now superannuated from his services. He has obtained caste certificate of Halbi which belongs to Scheduled Tribe community from the competent authority on 18.09.2018. For the caste verification his claim was forwarded to the Scrutiny Committee on 26.12.2005. The caste claim of the petitioner was pending for verification before the respondent Committee since 26.12.2005. Despite the petitioner made several representations it was not decided and thereafter on 09.04.2018 the Scrutiny Committee has passed the order and cancelled caste certificate as it was not in proper format as per Form-C. The respondent-Committee also directed the petitioner to apply for issuance of caste certificate in Form-C. Accordingly, he applied for the caste certificate in Form-C which was granted to him. After issuance of caste certificate the petitioner again approached to the office and again his caste claim was forwarded for verification. Thereafter he forwarded his caste claim along with various documents.

He placed reliance on the following documents which are as under:-

The petitioner has relied upon the pre constitutional documents i.e. copy of school leaving certificate of the petitioner’s father Balkrushna Bokade which is at Serial No.6 of dated 12.04.1932. However, the Committee has not considered the pre constitutional documents which has a great probative value and despite there are five validities in the family, the caste claim of the petitioner was invalidated by order dated 24.03.2021 and therefore, the petitioner approached before this Court.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner who invited our attention towards the fact that in all there are five validities in his family. He submitted that even son of the present petitioner Aditya Suresh Bokade was granted with a validity by the Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee, Amravati, Amravati Division on 04.07.2023 i.e. during the pendency of this petition. He further invited our attention towards the family tree and submitted that brothers of the present petitioner Anil Balkrushna Bokade and Ashok Balkrushna Bokade are also granted with the validity and validity certificates are placed on record and the son of the present petitioner was granted validity certificate as well as Prajwal son of Anil, and Shubhangi d/o Ashok are also granted with the validity. Despite above these facts are noted by the Committee as well as in the Vigilance report that five family members are granted with the validity but by ignoring the decision of this Court in the case of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and ors. reported in 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401, the caste claim of the petitioner is invalidated and therefore, present petitioner approached to this Court. He invited our attention towards the pre constitutional documents which is school admission register extract which shows that Balkrushna Vithoba grand father of the present petitioner was admitted in school on 12.04.1932 and his birth date was recorded as 25.09.1921 who was recorded as ‘Halbi’. Thus, he submitted that the pre constitutional documents which is having highest probative value is ignored by the Committee and the validation was not granted. Therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed. He also invited our attention towards the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.3050/2004 by which the brother of the present petitioner was granted validity.

Per contra, learned AGP for the State strongly opposed the said contention and submitted that the petitioner could not prove his caste before the Committee, initially the adverse entries were not before the Committee and therefore, the Committee, has rightly invalidated the claim. She has invited our attention towards the impugned order and submitted that the Committee has recorded the finding that there are adverse entries which initially was not brought before the Committee and therefore, validities are granted in favour of the blood relatives of the present petitioner and therefore, the Committee has rightly rejected the claim.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have perused entire documents. There is no dispute that son of the present petitioner as well as his brothers, nephews and niece are already granted with the validity. It is also undisputed that brother of the present petitioner Anil Balkrushna Bokade and other brother Ashok s/o Balkrushna Bokade were also granted with the validity by the order of this Court in Writ Petition No.3150/2004 and WP No.6129/2005. Admittedly, these validity certificates are not under challenge or subsequently not challenged by the Committee. It has already attained the finality. Recently also son of the present petitioner namely Aditya was granted with the validity on 04.07.2023.

Coming to the aspect of the contrary entries which are already considered by this Court while considering Writ Petition No.3050/2004 by assigning reason this Court has allowed the petition and granted the validity to the brothers of the present petitioner. The specific reasoning given by this Court in paragraph No.8 in the said writ petition shows that it was observed that the Scrutiny Committee while rejecting the claim appears to have relied on some of the contra entries obtained by the Vigilance Cell during the course of inquiry in respect of relations from the side of wife of petitioner Ashok in W.P. No.6129/2005 showing caste belonging to “Koshti”. However, it is pertinent to note that these entries are of no consequence being from the wife side of the petitioner. By now, it is settled principle of law that the entries of paternal side would be relevant for determination of the claim of the petitioner. Thus, the aspect of contrary entries is already considered by this Court while allowing the claim of the brother of the present petitioner namely Anil Balkrushna Bokade and Ashok Balkrushna Bokade. The judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3050/2004 and Writ Petition No.6129/2005 has already attained the finality as it was not challenged either by the Committee or by the State Government.

Despite the judgment of this Court has attained the finality, the validity certificate is not granted to the present petitioner. It appears from the entire record that the Vigilance enquiry report dated 02.02.2021 also refers about the validity granted to the blood relatives of the present petitioner. 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.

Similarly, the Scrutiny Committee also ignored the fact that the blood relatives of the petitioner’s was granted with the validity certificate which is not disputed. It is nowhere the contention of the Scrutiny Committee that the other family members have obtained the said certificates either by fraud or by misrepresentation. Therefore, the law laid down by this Court in the case of Apoorva Nichale (supra) squarely applicable in this case wherein this Court observes that the Government of Maharashtra by its resolution dated 22.08.2007 directed that where during the course of enquiry or scrutiny of a caste claim it is seen that the caste claim of a blood relative such as father, son, daughter, brother and sister has been scrutinized and accepted, the caste claim of the applicant should be allowed without insisting on any other proof. The guidelines provided by the said Government Resolution are sound and based on sound principles. If the relationship by blood is established or not doubted, and one such relative has been confirmed as belonging to a particular caste, there is no reason why public time or money should be spent in the Committee testing the same evidence and making the same conclusion unless of course the Committee finds on the evidence that the validity of the certificate of such relation has been obtained by fraud.

In the present case we find that Committee has disbelieved the Petitioner’s case that he belong to ‘Halbi’ Scheduled Tribe, despite the validities are granted to his real son, real brothers, niece and nephew. We are of the view that, in view of the decision of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale (supra), the Committee ought to have granted the validity certificate to the present petitioner as nothing is on record to show that other relatives of the petitioner have obtained validity certificate either by playing fraud or misrepresentation. The relationship by blood is established and not disputed and when such relation has confirmed as belonging to particular caste, there is no reason to again test the same. On that count, the invalidation by the respondent/Scrutiny Committee, is illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

In the light of the above facts and the discussion, we have no hesitation to hold that the order passed by respondent/Scrutiny Committee dated 24.03.2021 invalidating the claim of the petitioner is illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order:-

The Writ Petition is allowed.

The order passed by the Respondent /Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati dated 24.03.2021 invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner as “Halbi” is hereby quashed and set aside.

It is declared that, the petitioner belongs to “Halbi” Scheduled Tribe.

The Scrutiny Committee shall issue the validity certificate to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.