Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Santosh son of Patiram Gaikwad, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli, which rejected his claim for a Scheduled Tribe certificate. The petitioner had relied on a revenue P1 form from 1924-25 showing his great-grandfather Rama s/o Kanhu as belonging to the 'Mana' caste. The Committee rejected this document solely on the ground that the caste 'Mana' cannot be necessarily understood as equivalent to a Scheduled Tribe. The High Court observed that the document is pre-constitutional, from a period when the concept of reservation benefits by declaring certain communities as scheduled tribes was yet to be born. The court noted that before 1950, identification was by caste, and tribals would show their tribe as caste in government records. Therefore, the Committee's reasoning was not acceptable. The court also noted that the Committee had commented that the social status of 'Mana' shown in the pre-constitutional document cannot be accepted with certainty to be disclosing a tribe. The court found this comment to be erroneous. The petition was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed and set aside. The matter was remitted back to the Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration, with a direction to decide the claim within three months from the date of the order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The court also directed that the petitioner's services shall not be terminated until the fresh decision is taken.
Headnote
A) Scheduled Tribes - Caste Certificate - Validity of Pre-Constitutional Documents - The Scrutiny Committee rejected the petitioner's claim for Scheduled Tribe certificate on the ground that the caste 'Mana' shown in a revenue P1 form of 1924-25 cannot be necessarily understood as equivalent to a Scheduled Tribe. The High Court held that such reasoning is not valid because pre-constitutional documents were created before the concept of reservation and scheduled tribes came into being, and tribals would show their tribe as caste in such records. Therefore, the document cannot be rejected on that ground. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Scrutiny Committee was justified in rejecting the petitioner's claim for Scheduled Tribe certificate on the ground that the caste 'Mana' shown in a pre-constitutional revenue document cannot be equated with a Scheduled Tribe.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.04.2018 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration. The Scrutiny Committee shall decide the claim of the petitioner afresh within three months from the date of the order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner's services shall not be terminated until the fresh decision is taken.
Law Points
- Pre-constitutional documents showing caste name can be relied upon to establish Scheduled Tribe status
- Scrutiny Committee cannot reject such documents merely because caste name does not exactly match scheduled tribe entry
- Social status of caste shown in pre-constitutional document must be accepted as disclosing tribe
