Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 10 August 2018 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar, which invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to Thakur, Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner, a student, had obtained a caste certificate dated 21 August 2012 from the Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (MIP), Dhule. Upon verification, the Scrutiny Committee referred the case to the Vigilance Cell for school and home inquiry. After receiving the Vigilance Cell report and hearing the petitioner on cultural and social affinity, the committee rejected the claim, concluding that the petitioner and his family members had failed to show cultural and social affinity towards Thakur, Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner contended that he had submitted seventeen caste validity certificates of relatives, including his real uncle Yogendrasinh Madhukar Thakur, all tracing descent from common ancestor Gobaji, as well as pre-constitutional documents and school records. He argued that the committee ignored this clinching evidence of validated claims of blood relatives. The State, represented by the learned AGP, opposed the petition, relying on an affidavit in reply and contending that the oldest family document, a school admission register extract of Hiralal Namdev Thakur dated 4 March 1929, recorded the caste as 'Rajput Thakur' and was suppressed. The Vigilance Cell report also indicated that maternal relatives had 'Bhat' caste entries in documents of 1908 and 1910, and that marriages occurred within non-tribal communities. The State cited government circulars and judicial precedents to argue that Thakurs also fall under non-tribal categories and that the affinity test is integral to verification. It also sought deferment pending the Supreme Court's decision in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra. The High Court noted that the genealogical tree showing common ancestor Gobaji was undisputed. It observed that all seventeen caste validity certificate holders were blood relatives of the petitioner, and that the definition of 'relative' under Section 2(h) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 includes paternal blood relatives. The court referred to Apoorva Nichale v. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1, (2011) 2 Bom C.R. 824, which held that once a caste claim of a blood relative is validated, another committee should not refuse the same status to another blood relative. The available text ends before the final operative order, so the final decision is not provided in the excerpt.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Petition under Article 226 - Challenge to Scrutiny Committee order invalidating Scheduled Tribe claim - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - Petitioner challenged order dated 10 August 2018 passed by Respondent No.2 invalidating his Thakur Scheduled Tribe claim; High Court considered whether the committee erred in rejecting the claim despite blood relatives' validity certificates; Held that genealogical tree was not disputed and relatives' validity certificates are relevant (Paras 10-13). B) Scheduled Tribe Law - Caste Claim Verification and Affinity Test - Reliance on affinity test and old documents - Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, Entry 44; Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012, Section 2(h) - Scrutiny Committee invalidated claim based on failure of affinity test and vigilance report showing 'Bhat' and 'Rajput Thakur' entries; Court observed that seventeen caste validity holders from common ancestor and real uncle's certificate indicate blood relation; Held that definition of 'relative' includes paternal blood relative and committee should consider validated claims (Paras 11-13). C) Precedent - Judicial Discipline - Applicability of Apoorva Nichale - Apoorva Nichale v. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1, (2011) 2 Bom C.R. 824 - Principle that once caste claim of a blood relative is accepted, another committee should not refuse same status to another blood relative; Held that this principle applies to the present case (Paras 13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee erred in invalidating the petitioner's Thakur Scheduled Tribe claim despite validity certificates of blood relatives from a common ancestor and whether the affinity test and old documents like 'Rajput Thakur' and 'Bhat' entries justified rejection.
Law Points
- Article 226 of Constitution of India
- writ jurisdiction
- Scheduled Tribe caste claim verification
- affinity test
- blood relative
- caste validity certificate
- Entry 44 of Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order
- 1950
- Section 2(h) of Maharashtra Caste Certificate Rules
- 2012
- Apoorva Nichale principle
