Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, three sisters, challenged a common order dated 23 March 2015 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Division, Thane, which invalidated their caste certificates declaring them as belonging to the 'Thakar' Scheduled Tribe. The petitioners are employed with Respondent No.3 (Primary School) and Respondent No.5 (Post Office) on seats reserved for Scheduled Tribes. They possessed caste certificates issued by the Competent Authority showing them as Hindu Thakar (44) Tribe, residents of Konalkatta village, Sindhudurg district. In support of their claim, they relied on their individual School Leaving Certificates, their father Thakar Vishram Shankar's School Leaving Certificate from New English School Bhedshi showing caste as Thakar, and an affidavit of their father stating he belongs to Thakar tribe. They also relied on school records of their paternal uncle and grandfather showing Thakar caste. The Scrutiny Committee had earlier rejected their claim, but on a writ petition, the High Court remanded the matter with directions to consider the father's affidavit and other documents. Despite this, the Committee again invalidated the certificates, ignoring the remand directions. The High Court found that the Committee failed to consider the father's affidavit and the school records of ancestors, which are contemporaneous evidence. The Court held that the Committee's order was mechanical and not in compliance with the remand directions. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Committee to re-consider the claim afresh, taking into account all documents including the father's affidavit and the school records, and to pass a reasoned order within three months. The Court also directed that the petitioners' services shall not be disturbed during the re-consideration.
Headnote
A) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes - Caste Certificate Scrutiny - Validity of Thakar Tribe Claim - The Scrutiny Committee invalidated caste certificates of three sisters claiming Thakar Scheduled Tribe, but the High Court found the Committee failed to consider the remand directions and the affidavit of tribal origin of the petitioners' father. The Court held that the Committee must consider all relevant documents including school records and affidavits, and that the benefit of doubt in borderline cases should favor the claimant. (Paras 1-12) B) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes - Evidence - Affidavit of Tribal Origin - The petitioners' father's affidavit stating he belongs to Thakar tribe, along with school records of ancestors showing Thakar caste, constitute sufficient evidence. The Committee's rejection based on lack of pre-1950 documents was erroneous as contemporaneous documents exist. (Paras 4-8) C) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes - Remand - Compliance with Court Directions - The High Court had earlier remanded the matter with specific directions to consider certain documents. The Committee failed to comply and passed a mechanical order. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Committee to re-consider the claim afresh. (Paras 2, 10-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee validly invalidated the petitioners' caste certificates as belonging to 'Thakar' Scheduled Tribe, and whether the Committee failed to follow the directions issued by the High Court on remand.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 23 March 2015, and directed the Scrutiny Committee to re-consider the claim of the petitioners afresh, taking into account all documents including the father's affidavit and school records of ancestors, and to pass a reasoned order within three months. The Court also directed that the petitioners' services shall not be disturbed during the re-consideration.
Law Points
- Caste Scrutiny Committee must consider all relevant documents including affidavits of tribal origin
- school records of ancestors
- and remand directions
- mere absence of pre-1950 documents not fatal if contemporaneous evidence exists
- benefit of doubt in borderline cases should favor claimant
