Virendra Kumar S/o Prabhakar Raikwar vs The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee & Ors.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside of the order dated 22.07.2021 passed by Respondent No.1, the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati, whereby the claim of the petitioner for belonging to the ‘Halbi’ Scheduled Tribe, which finds place at Serial No.19 of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, came to be rejected and further, the Caste Certificate dated 05.09.1988 issued to the Petitioner came to be cancelled and confiscated.

Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak under Respondent No. 2- Zilla Parishad, Amravati and through Respondent No. 3 – Education Officer, Amravati, on 22.10.2001 against a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category. Claiming to belong to the ‘Halbi’ Scheduled Tribe, which is included at Serial No.19 of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, the petitioner submitted his caste claim proposal for verification before Respondent No.1 – Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati, on 29.01.2007 through the Respondent No. 3- Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati. Along with the proposal, the petitioner submitted relevant documents in support of his claim.

Thereafter, the claim of the Petitioner was referred to the Police Vigilance Cell for verification. During the vigilance enquiry, certain documents were procured wherein the caste entries were recorded as ‘Lad Koshti’, ‘Koshti’ and ‘Halbi Koshti’. On the basis of the vigilance report, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice, which was duly replied by him through his letter dated 01.10.2013. However, Respondent No.1 – Scrutiny Committee, by order dated 31.03.2009, invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner.

The said order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in Writ Petition No.1856/2011. By order dated 03.02.2012, this Court observed that the Scrutiny Committee had failed to properly consider the issue regarding the identity of persons referred to in the old documents and whether the petitioner had taken advantage of incorrectly recorded names. This Court, therefore, remanded the matter to the Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration.

Upon remand, the Committee again referred the matter to the Police Vigilance Cell and, after considering the vigilance report and the affinity test, once again invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner by order dated 09.01.2015. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1743/2015. This Court, by order dated 07.03.2016, again remanded the matter to the Scrutiny Committee for fresh adjudication and protected the employment of the petitioner subject to the outcome of the caste verification proceedings.

Thereafter, Respondent No.1 – Scrutiny Committee reconsidered the claim under the provisions of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 2000). During the said proceedings, reliance was placed on certain documents allegedly pertaining to the petitioner’s relatives, wherein the caste entry was recorded as ‘Koshti’. The petitioner submitted an explanation contending that the said documents did not relate to his family members. However, Respondent No.1 – Scrutiny Committee, by the impugned order dated 22.07.2021, once again invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Ashwin Deshpande submitted that the petitioner had placed on record various documentary evidences, including pre-Constitutional documents, wherein the caste entries of his paternal blood relatives are recorded as ‘Halbi’. He submitted that the genuineness, authenticity and existence of these documents have neither been disputed nor has the Respondent No.1 – Scrutiny Committee recorded any finding that the said documents are false, fabricated or unreliable. According to him, several documents of the year 1950 and prior thereto clearly support the petitioner’s claim of belonging to the ‘Halbi’ Scheduled Tribe and, in the absence of any contrary material, the same could not have been discarded by the Committee.

The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner originally belongs to Achalpur city, which is situated on the border of the Melghat region and was historically recognized as a tribal area inhabited by Halba/Halbi tribes. He submitted that Achalpur was included in the tribal area prior to the removal of area restrictions in the year 1976, which was a relevant circumstance supporting the petitioner’s claim. However, the said material aspect has not been considered by Respondent No.1 – Committee while passing the impugned order.

The learned counsel further submitted that the caste claim of the petitioner has been rejected mainly on the ground of failure to establish affinity with the Halba/Halbi Scheduled Tribe. He submitted that the Committee failed to record the specific traits, characteristics, customs and practices which are required to be established for determining the affinity of a genuine ‘Halbi’ Scheduled Tribe member. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 113, to contend that the affinity test is only a corroborative test and cannot be the sole basis for rejecting a caste claim supported by documentary evidence.

The learned counsel further submitted that the Respondent No.1 – Committee has erroneously relied upon certain documents collected by the Vigilance Cell showing caste entries as ‘Koshti’ in respect of some persons alleged to be relatives of the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner had specifically explained that the said documents do not relate to his family members; however, the said explanation was not properly considered by the Committee. He further submitted that reliance has been placed upon the birth certificate of Ramji Janaji dated 30.09.1940 showing the caste as ‘Koshti’, though the said document was neither supplied to the petitioner nor was he given an opportunity to explain the same, and the said document was relied upon for the first time in the impugned order.

The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had produced an old document of the year 1905 pertaining to agricultural land records of Chimnaji, wherein the caste entry is recorded as ‘Halbi’. The said document, having a high probative value due to its antiquity, was not considered either by the Vigilance Cell or by Respondent No.1 – Committee. According to him, in the absence of any finding of fraud, interpolation or manipulation, old documents carrying pre-Constitutional entries deserve due consideration. Reliance was placed on the judgment in Priya s/o Pravin Parate Vs. Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificates Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur and others, reported in 2013(1) Mh.L.J. 180.

The learned counsel further submitted that the entry of ‘Koshti’ in certain documents cannot be treated as conclusive against the petitioner, as ‘Koshti’ also denotes the occupation of weaving and cannot be the basis to conclude that the petitioner does not belong to the ‘Halbi’ Scheduled Tribe. The finding of the Committee that weaving is not an occupation associated with the Halbi community is therefore erroneous.

It was lastly submitted that Respondent No.1 – Committee failed to appreciate the overwhelming documentary evidence, particularly the pre-1950 documents pertaining to the petitioner’s paternal relatives showing the caste as ‘Halbi’, and instead relied upon isolated entries of ‘Koshti’ relating to persons who were not proved to be the petitioner’s relatives. The impugned order dated 22.07.2021, therefore, suffers from non-consideration of relevant material, improper appreciation of evidence and arbitrariness, and deserves to be quashed and set aside. The learned counsel also submitted that certain caste claims of the petitioner’s family members were invalidated; however, the same cannot by itself determine the petitioner’s claim, which is required to be decided on the basis of the material produced by him. In support of his contention he relies upon the judgment in the case of Sauravkumar Katole s/o Sunilkumar Katole v The Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, reported in 2025 (6) ALL MR 166, wherein in para 21 and 22, it is held as under:

Per contra, the learned AGP appearing for Respondent No.1 – Scrutiny Committee submitted that the caste claim of the petitioner was processed in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 and the Rules framed thereunder. In exercise of powers under Section 12(2) of the Act of 2000 and the Rules of 2003, the petitioner’s claim was referred to the Vigilance Cell for conducting a detailed home, school and other allied enquiries. The vigilance report submitted by the Vigilance Cell was adverse to the claim of the petitioner.

The learned AGP submitted that during the course of enquiry, the Vigilance Cell collected documentary evidence pertaining to the petitioner’s relatives, wherein the caste entries were recorded as ‘Koshti’. He submitted that the said documents belong to the pre-Constitutional period and, therefore, possess high probative value. The Scrutiny Committee has rightly considered the said documents while adjudicating the caste claim of the petitioner.

The learned AGP further submitted that the vigilance report was duly supplied to the petitioner and an opportunity was granted to him to submit his explanation. However, the explanation offered by the petitioner was not found satisfactory. It was submitted that the documents collected during the vigilance enquiry relate to the petitioner’s cousin grandfather, cousin great-grandfather, grandmother, father and other paternal relatives, wherein the caste has been recorded as ‘Koshti’. According to the learned AGP, the documents procured during Vigilance Inquiry, dated 1940, 1916, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1930, 1937, 1940, 1941, 1943, 1953, 1959, 1966, 1971 and 1984, being old and pre-Constitutional documents, carry greater evidentiary value and clearly negate the claim of the petitioner belonging to the ‘Halbi’ Scheduled Tribe.

The learned AGP submitted that, after considering the entire material available on record, Respondent No.1 – Scrutiny Committee rightly concluded that the petitioner belongs to the ‘Koshti’ caste, which falls under the Special Backward Class category, and does not belong to the ‘Halbi’ Scheduled Tribe as claimed by him. It was further submitted that the petitioner had produced different genealogies at different stages by incorporating different names of his ancestors, which creates a serious doubt regarding the correctness and genuineness of the genealogy relied upon by him. According to the learned AGP, the petitioner appears to have prepared the genealogy on the basis of conveniently selected records obtained from different offices rather than on the basis of actual ancestral lineage.

The learned AGP further submitted that the petitioner failed to establish his affinity towards the Halbi Scheduled Tribe and was unable to furnish satisfactory information regarding the traits, characteristics, customs, usages and practices of the said tribe. The impugned order passed by Respondent No.1 – Scrutiny Committee is a well-reasoned order based on appreciation of the documentary evidence and enquiry conducted by the Vigilance Cell, and therefore, does not warrant any interference by this Court.

Before proceeding to examine the rival submissions, it would be appropriate to note that this is the third round of litigation between the parties. The caste claim of the petitioner has been considered by Respondent No.1 – Scrutiny Committee on earlier occasions, and the orders passed by the Committee were subjected to judicial scrutiny before this Court in Writ Petition Nos.1856/2011 and 1743/2015. On both occasions, this Court remanded the matter back to the Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration. Therefore, the present proceedings are required to be examined keeping in view the earlier directions issued by this Court and the material placed on record in the present round of adjudication. The pre-constitutional documents produced by the petitioner before the respondent No.1 – Committee are as per table below.

The genealogy tree (family tree) submitted by the petitioner is as under :

We have carefully perused the record placed before us, including the documents relied upon by the petitioner in support of his claim of belonging to the ‘Halbi’ Scheduled Tribe. The relevant documents, particularly the old documents relied upon by the petitioner, have been reproduced hereinabove for proper appreciation of their nature, contents and evidentiary value. We have also perused the genealogical tree produced by the petitioner, which has been reproduced hereinabove, in order to examine the relationship claimed by the petitioner with his paternal ancestors and blood relatives whose caste entries are relied upon by both sides. The genealogical tree assumes significance since the evidentiary value of the documents relied upon by either party would depend upon the establishment of the relationship of the persons mentioned therein with the petitioner.

It is necessary to observe that in a caste verification proceeding, particularly where the claim is based upon ancestral documents, the relationship between the claimant and the persons mentioned in the documents is of paramount importance. An entry in an old document may carry high probative value; however, such value can be attached only after establishing that the document relates to the claimant or his direct paternal lineage. Therefore, the exercise undertaken by the Scrutiny Committee cannot be restricted merely to examining the caste entries appearing in isolated documents, but must necessarily include an enquiry into the identity, relationship and lineage of the persons referred to therein.

In the present case, since the matter has travelled before this Court twice earlier, the Scrutiny Committee was expected to undertake a comprehensive and meaningful exercise by considering the entire material placed on record, including the documents relied upon by the petitioner, the documents collected by the Vigilance Cell, and the genealogy produced by the petitioner. The earlier orders passed by this Court specifically required the Committee to examine the issue regarding the identity of the persons referred to in the old documents and the correctness of the genealogical connection. Thus, the adjudication in the present round was required to be undertaken not as a mere continuation of the earlier proceedings but as a fresh consideration in the light of the observations made by this Court.

It is not in dispute that the Vigilance Cell conducted an enquiry and collected various documents containing adverse entries. The main basis for rejection of the petitioner’s claim by Respondent No.1 – Committee is the existence of certain documents wherein the caste entries of some persons alleged to be relatives of the petitioner are recorded as ‘Koshti’. The Committee has relied upon these documents on the ground that they are old documents, mostly belonging to the pre-Constitutional period, and therefore, carry greater probative value.

The issue which falls for consideration is whether the documents relied upon by the Vigilance Cell showing caste entries as ‘Koshti’ could have been treated as decisive evidence against the petitioner, particularly when the petitioner has disputed the relationship of those persons with his family and has relied upon other pre-Constitutional documents showing the caste as ‘Halbi’. It is well settled that while deciding a caste claim, the Scrutiny Committee is required to undertake a holistic appreciation of the entire documentary evidence available on record. Old documents certainly carry a high degree of probative value; however, the probative value attached to a document depends not merely on its antiquity but also on its relevance, authenticity and connection with the claimant’s family lineage. A document, though old, cannot be relied upon against a claimant unless it is established that the said document pertains to the claimant or his immediate paternal ancestry.

In the present case, the petitioner has specifically contended that the documents relied upon by the Vigilance Cell showing caste as ‘Koshti’ do not pertain to his family members. The petitioner has also disputed the alleged relationship with the persons mentioned in those documents. The Committee, while relying upon such documents, was required to record a clear finding establishing the genealogical connection between those persons and the petitioner. However, from the impugned order, it appears that the Committee has proceeded on the assumption that the said persons are relatives of the petitioner without conclusively establishing the said relationship.

On the other hand, the petitioner has placed reliance upon certain old documents, including documents of the year 1905 and documents relating to the period prior to 1950, wherein the caste entries of his paternal ancestors are recorded as ‘Halbi’. The petitioner has contended that these documents have not been discarded on the ground of being false, fabricated or manipulated. The Committee has also not recorded any finding of fraud, interpolation or tampering in respect of these documents.

The approach adopted by the Scrutiny Committee in evaluating the documentary evidence appears to be selective. The Committee has given overriding importance to the entries showing ‘Koshti’, but has not properly considered the evidentiary value of the old documents relied upon by the petitioner showing ‘Halbi’ entries. Merely because some documents collected during the vigilance enquiry contain an entry of ‘Koshti’, the same cannot automatically dislodge the caste claim of the petitioner, particularly when the petitioner has disputed the identity and relationship of the persons referred to in those documents.

The Committee was required to examine whether the documents relied upon against the petitioner were related to his direct paternal lineage and whether they outweighed the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner. Such an exercise appears to be absent in the impugned order.

As regards the affinity test, it is necessary to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 113, has held that the affinity test is only a corroborative test and cannot be the sole basis for rejecting a caste claim which is otherwise supported by documentary evidence. The affinity test is required to be applied cautiously, particularly in view of social changes and migration.

In the present case, the Committee has primarily relied upon the petitioner’s alleged failure to establish affinity with the ‘Halbi’ Scheduled Tribe. However, the Committee has not demonstrated as to what specific traits, customs, usages or practices expected of a genuine ‘Halbi’ Scheduled Tribe member were absent in the case of the petitioner. The rejection of the caste claim merely on the ground of failure to satisfy the affinity test, without properly appreciating the documentary evidence, cannot be sustained.

Another aspect which requires consideration is the reliance placed by the Committee on the entry of ‘Koshti’. The petitioner has explained that ‘Koshti’ is also associated with the occupation of weaving and that an entry relating to occupation cannot by itself determine caste identity. Whether such entry represents caste or occupation requires examination in the context of the particular document and surrounding circumstances. The Committee has not undertaken such an analysis before drawing an adverse inference against the petitioner.

The contention of the learned AGP that several documents from the years 1916 onwards show caste as ‘Koshti’ and therefore possess greater probative value cannot be accepted in isolation. The probative value of an old document is not determined merely by its age but by its nexus with the claimant. Unless the relationship of the persons mentioned in such documents with the petitioner is established, those documents cannot be treated as conclusive evidence against the petitioner.

Similarly, the doubt expressed by the Committee regarding the genealogy submitted by the petitioner cannot be the sole basis for rejection unless supported by cogent material demonstrating that the genealogy is incorrect or fabricated. A claimant cannot be denied recognition of his caste claim merely on the basis of suspicion.

Considering the entire material on record, this Court finds that Respondent No.1 – Scrutiny Committee has failed to properly appreciate the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner, particularly the old documents supporting his claim of belonging to the Halbi Scheduled Tribe. The Committee has also failed to conclusively establish the relationship of the persons whose documents showing ‘Koshti’ entries were relied upon against the petitioner. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from non-consideration of relevant material and improper appreciation of evidence.

In our considered view, once the matter has undergone repeated scrutiny and the entire material is available before this Court, another remand would not serve any useful purpose. The proceedings have already remained pending for a considerable period, and the petitioner’s claim has been examined on more than one occasion. Therefore, instead of relegating the petitioner once again to the Scrutiny Committee, it would be appropriate for this Court to examine the material available on record and determine whether the impugned order suffers from any legal infirmity or non-consideration of material records.Therefore, upon an overall appreciation of the material placed before us, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has succeeded in establishing his claim of belonging to "Halbi" Scheduled Tribe by producing reliable documentary evidence of high probative value. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from perversity, non-consideration of material evidence, misapplication of settled legal principles and failure to appreciate the binding effect of the earlier judicial determination.

Resultantly, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the impugned order dated 22.07.2021 passed by Respondent No.1- committee in Case No. 5-ST/2007/11948 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent- Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati shall issue a validity certificate certifying the petitioner as belonging to "Halbi" Scheduled Tribe within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.