Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Yash Sanjay Marathe, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 1st October 2018 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati Division, which invalidated his claim of belonging to the Thakur Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner, a student, sought admission to nursing courses based on his claimed tribal status. The Scrutiny Committee, after considering pre-Constitutional documents showing 'Thakur' entries for forefathers and contradictory entries of the paternal aunt as 'Kunbi' in 1960 documents, concluded that the petitioner failed to prove his tribal status. The petitioner argued that the order was perverse and ignored overwhelming evidence, and that the affinity test was not applied. The respondents, including the State and the University, supported the Committee's decision, citing the vigilance report and the petitioner's inability to explain contradictions. The High Court, after hearing arguments, dismissed the petition, holding that the Scrutiny Committee's order was not perverse and was based on proper appreciation of evidence. The Court noted that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof and that the Committee had considered all relevant material, including the vigilance report. The Court directed that the petitioner's admission, if any, would be subject to the outcome of the petition and that the University could cancel the admission if the petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Scheduled Tribe Certificate - Validity of Claim - Pre-Constitutional Documents - The petitioner claimed Thakur Scheduled Tribe status based on pre-Constitutional documents showing 'Thakur' entry, but the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the claim due to contradictory entries of paternal aunt as 'Kunbi' in 1960 documents. The Court held that the Committee's decision was not perverse and was based on proper appreciation of evidence, including the vigilance report. (Paras 2-5)
B) Scheduled Tribe Certificate - Affinity Test - Non-Application - The petitioner argued that the impugned order did not reflect upon affinity test. However, the Court noted that the Committee had considered social, cultural, and anthropological traits from the vigilance report, and the petitioner failed to explain contradictions. (Paras 4-5)
C) Scheduled Tribe Certificate - Burden of Proof - The burden lies on the claimant to prove tribal status. The Court upheld the Committee's finding that the petitioner failed to discharge this burden due to contradictory documentary evidence. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Scrutiny Committee's order invalidating the petitioner's claim of belonging to Thakur Scheduled Tribe is sustainable in law and on facts.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Scrutiny Committee's order invalidating the petitioner's claim of belonging to Thakur Scheduled Tribe.
Law Points
- Scheduled Tribe certificate claim
- validity of pre-Constitutional documents
- affinity test
- burden of proof on claimant
- scrutiny committee's reliance on vigilance report
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (10) 144
WRIT PETITION NO. 8567 of 2018
SUNIL B. SHUKRE, MILIND N. JADHAV
Mr. Sushant C. Yeramwar for petitioner; Mr. A.M. Balpande, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2; Mr. Vijay P. Panpalia for respondent No.4
State of Maharashtra, Department of Tribal Development; The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati Division, Amravati; Sumanbai Vasnik Institute of Nursing; Maharashtra University of Health Sciences
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee invalidating the petitioner's claim of belonging to Thakur Scheduled Tribe.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the Scrutiny Committee's order dated 1st October 2018 and a direction to recognize his tribal status.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's claim of belonging to Thakur Scheduled Tribe was invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee, affecting his admission to nursing courses.
Previous Decisions
The Scrutiny Committee passed an order on 1st October 2018 invalidating the petitioner's tribal claim.
Issues
Whether the Scrutiny Committee's order invalidating the petitioner's Thakur Scheduled Tribe claim is perverse and bad in law.
Whether the Committee failed to apply the affinity test and ignored pre-Constitutional documents.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: The impugned order is perverse as it dishonours overwhelming pre-Constitutional evidence showing 'Thakur' status and unduly gives importance to a few 1960 documents showing 'Kunbi' entry of paternal aunt. The order does not reflect upon affinity test.
Respondents: The vigilance report considered social, cultural, and anthropological traits; the petitioner failed to explain contradictions in documents; the Committee rightly invalidated the claim.
Ratio Decidendi
The burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish tribal status. The Scrutiny Committee's decision, based on proper appreciation of evidence including pre-Constitutional documents and vigilance report, is not perverse. Contradictory entries in documents, such as 'Kunbi' caste of paternal aunt, can outweigh pre-Constitutional 'Thakur' entries if not explained.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner claims himself to be belonging to Thakur, Scheduled Tribe but his claim has been invalidated by respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee by its order passed on 1st October, 2018.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order is bad in law as well as perverse as it dishonours overwhelming evidence in the nature of pre-Constitutional documents showing social status of the forefathers of the petitioner as that of 'Thakur' tribe and unduly gives importance to a few documents of the year 1960 showing entries of the paternal aunt of the petitioner as indicative of her 'Kunbi' caste.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Bench challenging the order of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee dated 1st October 2018. The petition was heard and finally disposed of on 7th October 2019.
Acts & Sections
