Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Kumari Sweta Suresh Thakur, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 16.1.2009 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik Division, which invalidated her claim of belonging to the Thakur Scheduled Tribe (Entry No.44). The petitioner had secured admission to the first year Computer Engineering course at Amrutvahini College of Engineering, affiliated to the University of Pune, based on her MHTCET 2006 marks. However, her admission was initially declined because she did not attach a Tribe Validity Certificate. She then filed Writ Petition No.7293 of 2006, and by order dated 31.10.2006, this Court granted her provisional admission. The petitioner had submitted a Caste Certificate dated 15.5.2000 issued by the competent authority, along with her school record, which consistently recorded her caste as 'Hindu Thakur'. She also relied on her father's Caste Certificate dated 6.4.1987. The Scrutiny Committee, after considering the documents and conducting an affinity test, concluded that the petitioner failed to establish her tribal affinity and rejected her claim. The petitioner argued that the Committee's order was arbitrary and that she had sufficient documentary evidence. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra and the Scrutiny Committee, supported the order. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the Scrutiny Committee's findings were based on a proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. The court noted that the burden of proof was on the petitioner to establish her tribal claim, and she had failed to discharge that burden. The court also observed that the affinity test conducted by the Committee did not support her claim. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Committee's order.
Headnote
A) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes - Caste Certificate Validity - Burden of Proof - The burden lies on the claimant to establish that she belongs to a Scheduled Tribe by producing cogent evidence including documentary proof and affinity test - The Scrutiny Committee's order invalidating the claim was based on lack of conclusive evidence of tribal origin and affinity - Held that the Committee's decision was not perverse and did not warrant interference under Article 226 (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee's order invalidating the petitioner's Thakur Scheduled Tribe claim is sustainable in law and whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of reservation.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order dated 16.1.2009 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik Division, is upheld. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on claimant to establish tribal affinity
- Scrutiny Committee's findings based on documentary evidence and affinity test
- Interference under Article 226 limited to perversity or procedural irregularity
