Tanvi Sunil Nimbalkar vs Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee & Anr.

Heard.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels for the parties.

The petition challenges the order dated 09.06.2022 passed by respondent no. 1- Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati (for short, “the Committee) invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner who claims to be belonging to ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe. The caste claim of the petitioner has been invalidated by the Committee relying on the contra entries of the relatives of the petitioner, area restrictions and affinity test.

The petitioner is a student who applied for the validation of her caste claim to the Committee. She filed all her documents as well as the documents belonging to her forefathers showing the caste as ‘Thakur’ dated way back to the year 1932. The Committee referred the matter to the Vigilance Cell for enquiry wherein, three contra documents were found. It was alleged by the Vigilance Cell that these three contra entries pertain to the cousin great grandfathers of the petitioner showing their caste as ‘Maratha’. A notice was issued to the petitioner wherein, she has denied the relationship with Chango Nina and Gondu Totaram as well as Santosh Totaram as her cousin grandfather and cousin great grandfathers respectively. However, the Committee, relying on these contra documents, rejected the caste claim of the petitioner. The Committee also ventured into the point of area restrictions and observed that though, the caste of the petitioner is mentioned as ‘Thakur’ but ‘Thakur’ caste is found only in five districts of the State of Maharashtra and the affinity test conducted by the Vigilance Cell was also relied upon by the Committee to discard the caste claim of the petitioner.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and the having gone through the record of the Committee, it appears that the petitioner has filed all the documents belonging to her as well as her forefathers, more particularly, the School Leaving Certificate dated 11.06.1932 of Shankar Ninu Thakur, the cousin grandfather of the petitioner, but the Committee has not considered this document. Interestingly, the Committee has also not disputed the existence of this document. The family tree prepared by the Vigilance Cell also does not reveal that Chango Nina is the cousin grandfather of the petitioner. Likewise, Gondu Totaram and Santhosh Totaram are also not shown in the family tree of the petitioner as her cousin great grandfathers.

Learned AGP has submitted that though, the name of Chango Nina, Gondu Totaram and Santosh Totaram has not appeared in the family tree of the petitioner prepared by the Vigilance Cell, however, perusal of the family tree reveals that there are other brothers and sisters to Nina and therefore, the possibility cannot be ruled out that Gondu Totaram and Santosh Totaram are the brothers of Nina whose caste is shown as ‘Maratha’. According to the learned AGP, this was a possibility that crossed the mind of the Committee while rejecting the caste claim of the petitioner. We find that this finding of the Committee is based on conjectures and surmises. Inspite of the absence of the names of Gondu Totaram and Santosh Totaram in the family tree, unnecessary importance has been given to these entries. The oldest document of the year 1932 in the name of Shankar Ninu Thakur has not been given weightage by the Committee and other contra entries of the alleged relatives have been considered by the Committee without giving any cogent reason. All the other documents since the year 1932 consistently depict the caste of the petitioner and her forefathers as ‘Thakur’.

Conspicuously, the Committee in the impugned order has not objectively appreciated such old entries. It has not mentioned why those entries cannot be relied upon to draw an inference in favour of the petitioner. Only on the basis of the three documents subsequent to the document of the year 1932, the Committee has erroneously held that though, the documents filed by the petitioners show their caste as “Thakur”, but that does not show that they belong to ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe.

It appears that the Committee has exceeded its jurisdiction while observing that the petitioners failed to prove that they belong to “Thakur Scheduled Tribe”. It is to be mentioned here that, when as per The Presidential Order, ‘Thakur’ Caste is included in the list of Scheduled Tribes, there was no reason for the Committee to go beyond The Presidential Order to enquire whether a particular group was a part of the Scheduled Tribes as prescribed in the list. In the case of Palghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya Samrakshna Samithi and another vs. State of Kerala and another – [(1994) 1 SCC 359] the Apex Court has held that the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 has to be applied as it stands and no enquiry can be held or evidence can be led to determine whether or not some particular community falls within it or outside it. No action to modify the plain effect of the Scheduled Castes Order, except as contemplated by Article 341 of the Constitution of India is valid.

It also appears that the Committee has applied the principal of area restriction, even when the efficacy of area restriction has been stated to have very little relevance, more so when there is documentary evidence in support of the claim, as laid down in the case of Palghat Jilla Thandan Samithi (supra).

In wake of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and others [(2023) SCC Online SC 326] wherein, it has been held that affinity test is not a litmus test, the impugned order passed by the Committee is erroneous and arbitrary and therefore, it is required to be set aside. Hence, we pass the following order:-